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

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
I'm in favor of ending all campaign donations and only providing a small equal amount from public funds.

You want the government to have complete control of election funding?

earthworm · Nov 23, 2011

Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
And that there is no need for election reform ??

earthworm · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
You want the government to have complete control of election funding?

YES
I trust our government far more than special interest groups.
For this to be successful, we do need far more involvement in our government...things such as 100% of the people not only voting, but knowing who they are voting for...
Did I mention comprehensive reform ?
Our electorate needs to be far better informed than they are today ....witness the conservative debates,,,seven fools appealing to 70 million fools...or more

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

Catawba said:
I'm in favor of ending all campaign donations and only providing a small equal amount from public funds.

I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.

I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

earthworm said:
Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
And that there is no need for election reform ??

No. It's saying that this particular proposal isn't a good way to reform elections - especially since the entire premise of the poll is inaccurate because union and corporate money is already banned.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

earthworm said:
YES
I trust our government far more than special interest groups.

Yes, you do - because they don't control election funding yet. You don't see how the government controlling who gets money to run against it is a bad idea?

For this to be successful, we do need far more involvement in our government...things such as 100% of the people not only voting, but knowing who they are voting for...
Did I mention comprehensive reform ?
Our electorate needs to be far better informed than they are today ....witness the conservative debates,,,seven fools appealing to 70 million fools...or more

How arrogant, to simply declare the other side to be stupid fools who need your help in controlling what they hear. Especially since they are busy saying the exact same thing about you. Did it occur to you that they could get control of the government, and therefore funding of elections, and use that against you?

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.

I support public support for elections, but not in conjunction with limits on any other funding. It would help balance things out. I don't think we need funding, just free TV and radio air time, as a condition of holding a broadcast license, since the public owns the airwaves and they are supposed to serve the public.

You may be interested to know that the presidential elections are already publicly funded. Candidates have to agree to limit their spending in exchange for it. They can accept private donations too, in fact, the public money matched their private donations.

I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.

There are only three sources of funding now, and all come ultimately from individuals.

1. Individuals.
2. PACs, which collect voluntary donations from individuals (or other PACs). These are often sponsored by corporations, unions, or other groups.
3. Parties, which also collect money from voluntary donations from individuals (or PACs).

So ultimately, all the money comes from individuals. No corporate or union money allowed.

jamesrage · Nov 23, 2011

earthworm said:
Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
And that there is no need for election reform ??

Actually the poll says Americans do not support excluding peaceful assemblies of people being able to contribute more to elections.Of course this is assuming the poll is actually accurate seeing how the OP failed to make votes public.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

Thrilla said:
unions are not corporations.. legally speaking.
they are unions.

Check and see if unions are incorporated or not. I think you'll find that they actually are incorporated.

misterman said:
They aren't treated "the same."
But they do have some rights. Just like any group. You wouldn't say, for example, that a political party has no freedom of speech because it's not a person. Would you?

At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.

earthworm said:
Lobbying is not necessarily an evil...
I think that all groups should be heard...equally.

The current set up favors artificial persons over real persons. That's not good.
Rational Ignorance

Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.

As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them...

You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists... According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.

What's worse is that the system is set such that Congress is playing the lobbyists for more money by screwing with our tax code to keep these businesses guessing and lobbying. The two groups--the legislators and the lobbyists--are screwing the country for their own benefit.

jamesrage said:
No.Because unions and corporations are a peaceful assembly of people and as such have the same constitutional rights as any other groups and individuals.

The rights of the individual members would remain unaffected.

Redress said:
I would oppose this. To my mind amending the constitution should only be done for really big things. This is not a really big thing.

This is actually a very big thing that affects our govt from top to bottom to some degree and threatens the viability of our representative form of govt by allowing for the subversion of the intended process through the bypassing of the electorate.

misterman said:
Wow. You're trying to talk yourself into believing that the voters don't actually walk into a voting booth and make a choice.

A choice between two candidates who end up directly or indirectly beholden to some of the same monied interests. It's not uncommon for voters to feel that their choices have been limited to the lesser of two evils.

misterman said:
Why stop there? Why should they be beholden to rich individuals who can afford to give money?

I think there should be a limit on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign for office. Artificial persons should be limited to lobbying the electorate on issues (as opposed to candidates.)

misterman said:
In fact, what happens is that those of us without much money can pool it by giving it to a group and give it to a candidate so it helps them compete, and without having to go raise it from each one of us.

In practice, the candidate becomes beholden to the bundler rather than the electorate who actually donated the money. This is one of the objections to the behavior of unions iirc.

X Factor said:
Well except that the public money would be guaranteed, whereas there are no guarantees that you'd be able to raise the same amount privately.
And part of my political involvement includes donating to campaigns I support, but not donating to those I don't. I'm not interested at all in turning that over to the fed government instead.

I am not a big fan of this idea either. It seems to make the candidates dependent on someone else other than the electorate--which is the problem in the first place.

barbarian_style said:
I don't understand how corporations are allowed now to contribute moneys when they are globally bound in the present, which in essence creates foreign countries moneys to flow in through corporate donations from all over the world influencing the U.S. elections, I don't want china to sink cash into our political arena, think about it.

Indeed. This is currently happening. Countries from all over the world hold more sway in DC than the average member of the electorate. Pick w/e your favorite boogey man country is, and sure enough, they have more influence on your congressman than you do.

jamesrage · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
The rights of the individual members would remain unaffected.

Their rights as a peaceful assembly of people would still be effected.

alexa · Nov 23, 2011

The UK also has problems with contributions. If we are ever going to become any kind of real if representative democracies, then we have to do something about the bribes and lobby money given. The problem is how. I believe, like the report discussed below, it has to come out of tax payers money but you still have to find a just way of providing it. This suggestion that it be on previous seats won does not really carry that for me as clearly is giving previous winners an advantage and makes no room for new parties but we are kidding ourselves if we believe there are free and fair elections at the moment.

BBC News - Political parties 'should get more taxpayer funding'

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

friday said:
No, I would go the other way. I would support an amendment prohibiting government contributions to corporations or unions. You do that and the corporation and union payments to the government will dry up real quick.

The govt doesn't need to give money to a corp for the corp to derive a benefit. The benefit can be taxing their competitors or a thousand other things.

misterman said:
No. Get your hands out of politics. The people are smart enough to decide how to vote without your help.

Exactly, let the artificial persons lobby the electorate rather than the govt. Let the electorate decide.

conservativeguy said:
Unions and corporations aren't people so they don't petition the government, the leadership of each entity does......they are human so they have the 1st Amendment right to petition the government.

There's no difference between an entity petitioning the govt and the entity's agents petitioning the govt. Petitioning on behalf of an organization is different than petitioning on behalf of one's self.

samsmart said:
No, because all they'll do instead is funnel that money into PACs to get around it.

PACs are corporations too.

misterman said:
Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech.

Of course it is. The issue being the negative effects of allowing artificial persons to lobby the govt.

misterman said:
Lobbying is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.

That's why the subject of this thread is a Constitutional amendment.

What if...? said:
Primarily to provide limits to individual liability.There is absolutely no need to confer "personhood" on a non-human entity.Other mechanisms could be easily devised to facilitate business and provide liability limits WITHOUT conferring personhood.

The reason for conferring personhood is to avoid having to create an entire parallel set of laws etc for situations where the same rules should be applied. Really the system works pretty well--except for the whole lobbying the govt thingy.

Bodhisattva said:
Personhood for corporations is just another form of greed and control.

It's really not. It's a practical and elegant solution to some otherwise complex problems of allowing people to work together for business and other purposes.

misterman said:
If your conclusion is that voters are dumb, why let them vote in the first place?

We're not dumb, we're busy. Rational Ignorance

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
Lobbying is a right, so spending money on it is a right.

The right to lobby should be restricted to real persons.

ElijahGalt said:
Absolutely not. It is against the first amendment of the constitution.

That's why the issue under discussion is an amendment to the Constitution.

ElijahGalt said:
It is no more just to bar corporations and unions from pledging money in an election as it is just to bar smaller organizations and individuals from freely practicing their right to speak.

I think that these various artificial persons should lobby the electorate instead of the govt.

misterman said:
You don't have to. Write a letter or call them on the phone if you want.

If that action is the equivalent of what lobbyists do, then why do they have a job? It's silly to suggest that writing a letter to you Congresscritter is somehow the equivalent of flying that critter to a ~~vacation~~fact finding trip, or one of the hundreds of other similar events.

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...

PACs and unions ARE corporations

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?

I see no reason to toss out the very, very useful legal fiction of corporate personhood. All that needs to be done is to restrict the ability of artificial persons to lobby the govt.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
PACs are corporations too.

Not really, but whatever.

The issue being the negative effects of allowing artificial persons to lobby the govt.

Last time I checked there were no robots or corporate charters walking around the Capitol lobbying.

People can lobby on behalf of a person, or a group of people, or a group of people who have created a legal entity. No difference.

That's why the subject of this thread is a Constitutional amendment.

And that means this is a proposal to take away some First Amendment rights. Which I find scary.

We're not dumb, we're busy.

Whatever. Too busy to vote? Don't blame someone else for that either.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
The right to lobby should be restricted to real persons.

Why?

If that action is the equivalent of what lobbyists do, then why do they have a job?

Because they do it on behalf of thousands of people. And they do it full-time. And they do it alot better - they know what to say and who to say it to and when to say it. For the purposes of this discussion, lobbying is nothing more than petitioning the government, i.e. it's not the same thing as making donations (which individuals ALSO do, but whatever).

PACs and unions ARE corporations

Not quite, but they are non-human entities.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

alexa said:
The UK also has problems with contributions. If we are ever going to become any kind of real if representative democracies, then we have to do something about the bribes and lobby money given.

How does money interfere with the ability of citizens to vote for their representatives?

Cephus · Nov 23, 2011

I'd support an amendment barring *ALL* private money from elections. No one should be able to contribute to any political campaign directly.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.

Yes, it all comes down to this - you think the rights of those you disagree with should be restricted simply because you don't agree with them.

It's that kind of thinking that is why we have these rights in the first place.

This is actually a very big thing that affects our govt from top to bottom to some degree and threatens the viability of our representative form of govt by allowing for the subversion of the intended process through the bypassing of the electorate.

How is the electorate "bypassed?" Last time I checked, you still had to win the most votes to win an election (unless you're George Bush in 2000 of course).

I think there should be a limit on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign for office.

There already are such limits. Have been for 35 years.

Countries from all over the world hold more sway in DC than the average member of the electorate. Pick w/e your favorite boogey man country is, and sure enough, they have more influence on your congressman than you do.

Come on.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

Kal'Stang said:
Which effectively made corporations people.

The legal fiction of artificial persons had existed for quite some time before that ruling.

Boring Bob said:
Corporations and unions can independantly fund political messages, which act as an indirect donation to whomever is supported in those messages. In the case of Hillary, for example, an independant organization was attempting to defame a presidential candidate, which would directly benefit Hillary's opponents. The money spent on Hillary is thus effectively a donation to her opponents' campaigns. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with Citizens United, a non-profit political organization, making a statement like this. I do have a problem with America's major profitable organizations making statements like this.

I think artificial persons SHOULD lobby the electorate on issues. I don't think it's a good idea to allow them to lobby the electorate about candidates.

misterman said:
There are only three sources of funding now, and all come ultimately from individuals. So ultimately, all the money comes from individuals.

All of our bodies' energy ultimately comes from the sun, but I still don't call sunshine the same thing as food.

misterman said:
2. PACs, which collect voluntary donations from individuals (or other PACs). These are often sponsored by corporations, unions, or other groups.
3. Parties, which also collect money from voluntary donations from individuals (or PACs).
No corporate or union money allowed.

Both PACs and political parties are are corporations.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
All of our bodies' energy ultimately comes from the sun, but I still don't call sunshine the same thing as food.

Of course not, and I didn't say that. But it does all come from the sun, not from somewhere else.

Both PACs and political parties are are corporations.

No, PACs are not usually incorporated. Not sure about parties but I doubt it. But yes, both are non-human legal entities - and both have rights. Would you actually say a political party has no right to lobby or speak?

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
Not really, but whatever.

Please educate me about how PACs are not incorporated.

misterman said:
Last time I checked there were no robots or corporate charters walking around the Capitol lobbying.

And who said there were such things going on?

misterman said:
And that means this is a proposal to take away some First Amendment rights. Which I find scary.

One of the alternatives to restricting the rights of artificial persons is the scary mess we're in. Enough with the FUD

misterman said:
Whatever. Too busy to vote? Don't blame someone else for that either.

So, you think that the electorate shouldn't vote because we're so busy raising families, running businesses and working for a living?
Rational Ignorance

misterman said:
Why?

As I pointed out earlier in this thread:
Rational Ignorance

Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them, and who do you think congressmen will listen to: your complaining about higher sugar prices or the sugar industry complaining about foreign imports keeping their prices, profit and wages down?

You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists looking for a leg up here and a handout there. After a while $5 here and $4 there adds up to real money. According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.

.

misterman said:
Because they do it on behalf of thousands of people. And they do it full-time. And they do it alot better - they know what to say and who to say it to and when to say it.

There is a great disparity between the level of influence between individuals and the lobbying groups.

misterman said:
For the purposes of this discussion, lobbying is nothing more than petitioning the government, i.e. it's not the same thing as making donations (which individuals ALSO do, but whatever).

No, it's not the same thing for the purposes of this discussion. The two are intimately intertwined. Donations go to the parties iirc, which in turn are used for various purposes.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
Yes, it all comes down to this - you think the rights of those you disagree with should be restricted simply because you don't agree with them.

If that's what you think I am saying, then you have missed the whole point by a country mile. It's not about whether or not I agree with what's being said, it's about how the system rewards behavior which is bad for our country.

misterman said:
Of course not, and I didn't say that. But it does all come from the sun, not from somewhere else.

I was not trying to say that you said sunshine was food. I was just pointing out that just because something "ultimately" comes from somewhere it doesn't actually mean that its the same thing as being what it actually comes from as in the difference between money coming from individuals or from artificial persons.

misterman said:
Would you actually say a political party has no right to lobby or speak?

It's not about speech in general, it's about the right to lobby the govt instead of lobbying the electorate.

misterman said:
How is the electorate "bypassed?" Last time I checked, you still had to win the most votes to win an election (unless you're George Bush in 2000 of course).

re-posting yet again
.
Rational Ignorance

Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.

As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them...

You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists... According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.

.
What's worse is that the system is set such that Congress is playing the lobbyists for more money by screwing with our tax code to keep these businesses guessing and lobbying. The two groups--the legislators and the lobbyists--are screwing the country for their own benefit.

alexa · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
How does money interfere with the ability of citizens to vote for their representatives?

Well I thought I had put it badly but not actually in that place. You are questioning my saying

The UK also has problems with contributions. If we are ever going to become any kind of real if representative democracies, then we have to do something about the bribes and lobby money given.

It simply interferes with the honesty and integrity of those who represent us. It doesn't interfere with a person being able to put a cross on a piece of paper or not and it should be noted that voting is down in most Western countries - not a good sign of confidence in the system.

You will not get representative democracy if the person you elect is receiving a back hander from someone else - that is obvious.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
Please educate me about how PACs are not incorporated.

Most are simply sponsored by another group. You simply register with the Federal Election Commission. No need to incorporate in most cases.

And who said there were such things going on?

You said non-humans were lobbying. Just making the point that associations or humans are run by and for humans.

One of the alternatives to restricting the rights of artificial persons is the scary mess we're in. Enough with the FUD

I'd rather have a scary mess that we can fix if we just get off our asses and stop whining to an alternative like that.

So, you think that the electorate shouldn't vote because we're so busy raising families, running businesses and working for a living?

No. You?

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it.

This is why lobbyists and associations exist. The people can send a few dollars to a group representing their interests, and combined, those groups can hire lobbyists, etc. and speak on their behalf.

You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists looking for a leg up here and a handout there. After a while $5 here and $4 there adds up to real money. According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.

And associations that solicit consumers to join them and support them in fighting for them say the same thing to those consumers when the solicit them.

There is a great disparity between the level of influence between individuals and the lobbying groups.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the numbers. But an individual can support and be represented by a lobbying group too.

No, it's not the same thing for the purposes of this discussion. The two are intimately intertwined. Donations go to the parties iirc, which in turn are used for various purposes.

The point was that union and corporate treasuries are not a source of donations. That's all.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 23, 2011

for further edification:

Pathologies of Democracy

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/Pathologies of Democracy.ppt