• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 75.7%

  • No

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • Total voters
    70
Krhazy said:
I voted yes, but I think Unions are more similar to PACs than corporations. I don't think I have as much a problem with PACs/Unions as I do corporations, because the former vote in the general interests of all their constituents, while the latter vote primarily for a certain class of their own constituents, often at the expense of the others. If shareholders wanted to create some sort of "union" to collect contributions up to the statutory individual maximum for political purposes, I'd be fine with that too.
Click to expand...

You failed. Try again. Everything you said is utter bull****. In your worldview, it's "us" and "them." You believe in restricting the 1st Amendment rights of certain groups while leaving them open for others.
 
X Factor said:
Those of you who oppose "personhood" for corporations, are you willing to give up the ability to tax them, sue them or even criminally prosecute them? After all, if they're not legally "persons" how can they ever have the requisite mental state to prove civil or criminal liability?
Click to expand...
Give up taxing them? Yes, but I would want to make sure dividends are taxed fairly on the individual side and the corporate form can't be abused to help wealthy people avoid paying income tax.

Criminal liability? No. If a constituent of a corporation commits a crime while acting in his corporate capacity, the victim should be able to access the corporation's account to recover damages, and should not be limited to seeking recovery from the offenders individually. But I think that can be justified on grounds other than "personhood."
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Yes, I'm sure a Conservative like Maggie would agree to that and not call it "socialism". You're talking to somebody who thinks "wealth distribution" is the purist definition of socialism.
Click to expand...

You just cannot see past your own personal dislike for someone long enough to even see that Maggie actually agrees with mostly liberals on this issue. Seriously, you're just obviously incapable of discussing a topic without making it personal. What a baby you are.
 
CriticalThought said:
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No, because donating money is free speech.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Corporations are people? They are human beings?
Click to expand...

When it's time for heads to roll at MF Global, who do you think they're going after?

BTW, how come you never throw, "unions", in there as well?
 
apdst said:
When it's time for heads to roll at MF Global, who do you think they're going after?
Click to expand...
CEO's, etc.


BTW, how come you never throw, "unions", in there as well?
Click to expand...
Because they are non profit
They dont sway politicians for gains in profits
When was the last time unions destroyed a financial sector?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
CEO's, etc.
Click to expand...

People. Yes?



Because they are non profit
They dont sway politicians for gains in profits
When was the last time unions destroyed a financial sector?
Click to expand...

The **** they don't!! Ever hear of Boeing? Heard about how the NLRB over-excercised it's power to prevent Boeing from relocating to a right to work state?

Non-profit, or not, unions, like corporations depend on cash flow. Lose cash flow, lose power. And, unions sure as hell aren't persons!

The last time? oh, let's see...GM...Chrysler; just off the top of my head.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Corporations are people?
Click to expand...

Yes.

person
n. 1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)

person legal definition of person. person synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:
They are human beings?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be "a human being" to have certain rights of a "person". The police can't search your car or house without a warrant because those are an extension of you. In this same way do corporations have free-speech rights because corporations are made up of people.
 
Jerry said:
Yes.





You don't have to be "a human being" to have certain rights of a "person". The police can't search your car or house without a warrant because those are an extension of you. In this same way do corporations have free-speech rights because corporations are made up of people.
Click to expand...

Damn right!
 
Higgins86 said:
def think they should be barred from donating money, too be honest I find it pretty disgraceful how much the politicians get from these companies its no better than the Mob donating money back in the day to city council elections etc. I would also love to see the mud slinging campaigns banned, I want to hear what your political stance is not about how drunk your rival gets and how often he uses youporn.
Click to expand...

Great analogy!!! That is exactly what it is like.
 
CriticalThought said:
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Yes. Corporations are not people. I don't care what SCOTUS says on this subject. Corporations do not feel, it does not breath, it does not think, it does not care who gets elected.
 
Jerry said:
You don't have to be "a human being" to have certain rights of a "person". The police can't search your car or house without a warrant because those are an extension of you. In this same way do corporations have free-speech rights because corporations are made up of people.
Click to expand...

A house or car may be extensions of me...but they are not me.

Bold part: Then those people should donate thier money from personal funds. Just because a corporation is made up of people does not mean that a corporation is a person.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Corporations are people? They are human beings?
Click to expand...

Are groups people? Are unions people? Are social gatherings people? Are organizations people? Are associations people? Or are all of these just lifeless entities controlled by machines and other non-human life forms?
 
Kal'Stang said:
A house or car may be extensions of me...but they are not me.

Bold part: Then those people should donate thier money from personal funds. Just because a corporation is made up of people does not mean that a corporation is a person.
Click to expand...

Right, and just because an organization is made of people doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of that organization, as a social entity, to speak on behalf of their members.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A house or car may be extensions of me...but they are not me.
Click to expand...

Okay, but you wouldn't say that you have no freedom of speech that involves your car, like, say, a bumper sticker. It's on your car, but it's still your speech. Or to use your car to drive around with a megaphone and speak your mind. And the people who own or run a corporation or other group can use it too, as much as they can use their personal property or money, to exercise their rights.
 
Last edited:
Free For All said:
Just think 600 million tax dollars used to elect someone.... When we could of used that to save kids or give hand outs to the poor.
Click to expand...
You're kidding right? How would get this money to give away?
 
CriticalThought said:
If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.
Click to expand...
Can we put that in the same amendment?
 
ElijahGalt said:
Right, and just because an organization is made of people doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of that organization, as a social entity, to speak on behalf of their members.
Click to expand...

An organization or a social entity in the way that you are talking about usually has one common goal directed at something specific, usually some sort of ideology or cause. Like La Raza, or anti-abortion/pro-choice or some such. In such cases everyone that is a part of those organizations agree on one basic principle. Why? Because each member of those types of organizations joined that organization for that specific purpose. As such it is logical that one or a few people speak for the whole.

A corporation however has no such common goals. The ones that control the corporation does not ask Joe Blow that works in the mail department what ideas he may have or what politician he supports and no corporation requires any of thier employees to follow any specific credo. The only reason that people are a part of any corporation is to make money, not to be supporters or non-supporters to an ideaology.

As such comparing the two is like comparing a human to a rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom