View Poll Results: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • No limits. However much money they can manage.

    17 31.48%
  • Up to 100 million dollars

    0 0%
  • up to 50 million dollars

    0 0%
  • Up to 10 million dollars

    0 0%
  • Up to 1 million dollars

    0 0%
  • Up to 500K

    1 1.85%
  • Up to 100K

    0 0%
  • Up to 50K

    1 1.85%
  • Up to $200

    2 3.70%
  • NONE. All political campaigns should be grassroots with money ONLY from the people

    33 61.11%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 82

Thread: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    So you don't think it's bad for the people if a corporation or a cadre of corporations conspire to buy up all the ad time in a particular region, not just to flood the market with their ads but to prevent opposition ads from running at all. Don't the people suffer via lack of information?
    Oh, so what you're worried about is that people will be so STUPID they won't notice that only one message is coming through the Magic Talking Box at them. Like when ABC, See BS, and NBC owned the news programming before Rush Limbaugh freed things up.

  2. #52
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    What it takes is for people to wake up and realize that corporations are not the gods of America and should have a lot less power than they have. Once people connect the dots and stop voting against their financial interests then we can start the process of extracting the corporate power from our government.

    The thing that I find most intriguing is listening to the Washington Journal in the mornings. I hear people, both repubs and democrats, complain about all the damage jobs being shipped overseas but only some of the democrats actually blame the corporations and none of the repubs.
    The problem here, as I see it, is that many people see jobs leaving the country, and don't look any further than the corporations who provide those jobs for the problem

    Rarely has the answer to a problem been one single point of failure.

    Firstly, why are corporations sending jobs out of the country?

    Some possibilities would seem to present themselves:
    1. Because wages are lower per amount of work produced in some locations outside the US.
    2. Because taxes on their businesses are lower in some locations outside the US.
    3. Because import/export laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business.
    4. Because environmental protection laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business. By this I do not necessarily mean less protective of the environment. In some cases, I think environmental protection laws in the US go too far. In others, not far enough.

    There are probably other reasons that I havenít thought of.

    But, and again as I see it, these are the some of the reasons that corporations send jobs out of the USA.

    I am of the opinion that reasonable reductions in the restrictions that bind and fetter businesses in this country (the USA) will have a positive affect on job availability.

    But who knows? Perhaps I am wrong.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Explain how the freedom of speech gets "out of hand", and when was it "controlled" in this country.

    Are you referring to the Alien and Sedition Acts?
    Wrong thread. Confused?
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh, so what you're worried about is that people will be so STUPID they won't notice that only one message is coming through the Magic Talking Box at them. Like when ABC, See BS, and NBC owned the news programming before Rush Limbaugh freed things up.
    People already are that stupid. Oh, a ditto head, of course, it all makes sense now.

  4. #54
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Those things have always been intertwined with governing. The problem is that we let it get so far out of hand that we lost control.
    The thing that has really gotten out of hand is the federal government. It has been that way for many years but the start was when FDR's judges decided that the commerce clause really was a blank check that congress could use to regulate just about anything they felt like.


    The only way this mess is gonna stop is a supreme court that starts reigning in the power grab that started 75 or so years ago



  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by rytis View Post
    Any money towards campaigns is political prostitution, this prostitution exists because there is no democratic media and candidates have to rely on corporate media, therefor we have a bunch of whores in the government, nothing surprising. that is why I figured out a solution, but people ...but not I, not yet...are calling me a nutjob godsgovernment.org
    Here in PA er have PCN and, of course, PBS. Other states probably have similar. Men with gumption do communicate directly with politicians, without waiting for advertisments and commercials from corporations..
    And the solution?
    Also, no corporation should be allowed to contribute a red nickel or a thin dime.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    The problem here, as I see it, is that many people see jobs leaving the country, and don't look any further than the corporations who provide those jobs for the problem

    Rarely has the answer to a problem been one single point of failure.

    Firstly, why are corporations sending jobs out of the country?

    Some possibilities would seem to present themselves:
    1. Because wages are lower per amount of work produced in some locations outside the US.
    2. Because taxes on their businesses are lower in some locations outside the US.
    3. Because import/export laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business.
    4. Because environmental protection laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business. By this I do not necessarily mean less protective of the environment. In some cases, I think environmental protection laws in the US go too far. In others, not far enough.

    There are probably other reasons that I havenít thought of.

    But, and again as I see it, these are the some of the reasons that corporations send jobs out of the USA.

    I am of the opinion that reasonable reductions in the restrictions that bind and fetter businesses in this country (the USA) will have a positive affect on job availability.

    But who knows? Perhaps I am wrong.
    They don't even blame the corporations. It's a mystery to me. They will say, "we got no jobs cause they all been shipped overseas... that damn NAFTA. They blame Congress but vote out the guys who voted for it. And it's not just NAFTA anyway.

    But why are corproations sending jobs out of the country in the first place?
    [*]Because wages are lower per amount of work produced in some locations outside the US.
    1) I agree, corporations have over the years, gotten the barriers on moving jobs overseas removed. Ever since Reagan, with bipartisan congressional support, unlocked the door, Clinton kicked it wide open and Bush just continued the policies.
    [*]Because taxes on their businesses are lower in some locations outside the US.
    2) True, corporations have gotten congress to lower the penalties for operating their company offshore to avoid taxes.
    [*]Because import/export laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business.
    3) Yes, and if we really wanted to compete we'd work on becoming a 3rd world country... oh wait...
    [*]Because environmental protection laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business. By this I do not necessarily mean less protective of the environment. In some cases, I think environmental protection laws in the US go too far. In others, not far enough.
    4) again, how can I disagree. Most major Corporations have no morality and if they can save a buck and not worry about the cancer they caused for a generation, they certainly will do so.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The thing that has really gotten out of hand is the federal government. It has been that way for many years but the start was when FDR's judges decided that the commerce clause really was a blank check that congress could use to regulate just about anything they felt like.


    The only way this mess is gonna stop is a supreme court that starts reigning in the power grab that started 75 or so years ago
    WTF are you talking about. FDR left office in 1945 and the USA saw the greatest social and economic advancement in every category until Nixon came along. The government floundered until Carter, who did the dirty work to fix things and lost re-election because of it. Reagan came in with a "new way" of doing things and we've seen the country go downhill since then. The Clinton years were a fluke of short lived prosperity in a declining graph. That was due to the computer revolution which would have happened under a democrat or repub admin. Clinton's government sat back and watched the tech bubble happen.

  8. #58
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    WTF are you talking about. FDR left office in 1945 and the USA saw the greatest social and economic advancement in every category until Nixon came along. The government floundered until Carter, who did the dirty work to fix things and lost re-election because of it. Reagan came in with a "new way" of doing things and we've seen the country go downhill since then. The Clinton years were a fluke of short lived prosperity in a declining graph. That was due to the computer revolution which would have happened under a democrat or repub admin. Clinton's government sat back and watched the tech bubble happen.
    that is such pathetic drivel I am laughing too hard. FDR's judges allowed congress to expand its power way beyond the federalist borders set up in the Constitution. With that expansion came the dem scheme to create millions of entitlement addicted junkies that have caused the massive deficit we have now

    Tell me Lingo buddy. Is social security, medicare, medicaid, AFDC really programs that Congress was properly enabled to enact in the constitution?



  9. #59
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    They don't even blame the corporations. It's a mystery to me. They will say, "we got no jobs cause they all been shipped overseas... that damn NAFTA. They blame Congress but vote out the guys who voted for it. And it's not just NAFTA anyway.

    But why are corporations sending jobs out of the country in the first place?
    [*]Because wages are lower per amount of work produced in some locations outside the US.
    1) I agree, corporations have over the years, gotten the barriers on moving jobs overseas removed. Ever since Reagan, with bipartisan congressional support, unlocked the door, Clinton kicked it wide open and Bush just continued the policies.
    I was thinking more in terms of standards of living being lower, and thus to meet those standards one needs less income. Not that increased standards of living are a bad thing, but that is the basis behind higher wages…or the demand for such.
    It is the lower wage per work produced which attracts companies. Increasing the penalties for having jobs overseas would most likely cause them to incorporate overseas, and just import stuff here…then you would have to increase import penalties, which would increase prices to an extent…ah well, I’m just rambling.
    The point is, the barriers for moving overseas jobs would not mean much without import barriers as well…And, in general, if something involves government restricting/controlling something, I tend strongly towards opposition to said something.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    [*]Because taxes on their businesses are lower in some locations outside the US.
    2) True, corporations have gotten congress to lower the penalties for operating their company offshore to avoid taxes.
    This was partially responded to above. It seems a company could simply incorporate outside the US to avoid any penalties for operating part of their US incorporated company outside the US. Such penalties would seem to simply drive corporations – and their taxable income - outside the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    [*]Because import/export laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business.
    3) Yes, and if we really wanted to compete we'd work on becoming a 3rd world country... oh wait...
    No, of course not…
    I was actually alluding to the possibility of a reasonable relaxation of restrictions. Obviously, some restriction is necessary (like, don’t go purchasing fully assembled nuclear weapons and shipping them to your garage…).

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    [*]Because environmental protection laws in the country(s) they are sending those jobs too are more conducive to their business. By this I do not necessarily mean less protective of the environment. In some cases, I think environmental protection laws in the US go too far. In others, not far enough.
    4) again, how can I disagree. Most major Corporations have no morality and if they can save a buck and not worry about the cancer they caused for a generation, they certainly will do so.
    Sigh…

    Again, you misinterpreted my point.

    I was actually suggesting that a reasonable reduction/restructuring of the environmental protection restrictions (EPR’s?) in the US might be of some help.

    My addendum to that comment was intended to highlight that, IMO, some EPR’s are unreasonable and overly restrictive (taken on a state-by-state basis), while others might need reinforcement.

    That bit could be applied to most laws in existence, of course.
    Last edited by The Mark; 02-16-10 at 11:40 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is such pathetic drivel I am laughing too hard. FDR's judges allowed congress to expand its power way beyond the federalist borders set up in the Constitution. With that expansion came the dem scheme to create millions of entitlement addicted junkies that have caused the massive deficit we have now

    Tell me Lingo buddy. Is social security, medicare, medicaid, AFDC really programs that Congress was properly enabled to enact in the constitution?
    Your question is irrelevant. We have those programs because they were needed. You see in a society... never mind.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •