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 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 82

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

  1. #61
    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?

    It was not my intention to misrepresent your points, my intent was to show you how ridiculous it is to ignore the fact that corporations get what they want despite the harm it will do to our economy or society and that you are playing along with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I was thinking more in terms of standards of living being lower, and thus to meet those standards one needs less income.
    Sure, if you decide that your company can only increase it's profits by reducing wages then you are going to do so, forget about innovation or making a better product or increasing your product offerring. If you find that you can no longer decrease your payroll then you might think, hmm, I'll join the other corporations in pressuring congress (money=speech) to let us take jobs overseas so we can pay our workers less and then sell our products to the very people we ****canned.

    This harms our economy. You might say well, that company would go out of business otherwise so they HAD to move their manufacturing. So, that's how the market works. But corporations don't want to play by the rules so they work to change the rules in their favor and who suffers? The American worker, the American economy and ultimately our society.

    Not that increased standards of living are a bad thing, but that is the basis behind higher wages…or the demand for such.
    So we need to decrease our standard of living to 3rd world standards in order for corporations to maintain or increase profits? Don't you think this will/is creating a class gap? Historically, what happens when all the money is held by a few at the top?

    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.
    We basically have no tariffs currently. How's that working out for the American economy? The American family? THe American government?

    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.
    Exactly, which is why we shouldn't allow it. I have to pay taxes, even if it means I have to file for bankruptcy or live on the street, what makes a corporation so important? They create jobs? Isn't your point that they will move jobs overseas to increase profits?

    How did we ever manage all those years before Reagan? How did American corporations survive?

    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…).
    What restrictions? Can you go buy tires for your car? You can? How is that possible when we imposed a 50% tariff on tires from China? Did China stop selling tires to the USA? Did China punish us by stopping their imports?

    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.
    No, what you're actually suggesting is that corproations need to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to our nation. Relax EPA restrictions? Why? So they can dump some chemicals into the water supply instead of disposing of those chemicals in an environmentally sound fashion which will eat into their massive profits...
    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.
    Again, which restrictions? What makes you think there are any restrictions that are unreasonable?

    I ran across this a while back: Representation Without Taxation: Study Says Most Corporations Avoid US Income Tax
    WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

    The study by the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

    Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

    "It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

    An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

    "Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

    The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

    More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies, or 66.7 percent of them, paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of large U.S. corporations _ those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts _ did not pay corporate taxes.

  2. #62
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    To the OP's question:

    As the law stands, the restriction on direct corporate donations to candidates is still valid. The rationale for leaving this restriction while invalidating the independent expenditure restriction is that the nature of a direct contribution raises quid pro quo concerns and harms democracy by creating the image of impropriety. I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, but I think it is strong enough to survive, so long as we maintain the restriction on how much individuals can donate.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    How to reform elections.

    1) Campaign Tax of $3-$5 to fund ALL state and federal elections.
    2) enforce the publics right to the airwaves and make campaign ads a PSA with each candidate getting X# of 30 second spots at specific times of day; to run concurrently with each other.
    3) Institute Instant Run-off Voting
    4) remove all other funding activities, i.e. no fund raisers.

    This way the public is in control of our elections and all candidates are given equal treatment.
    You left out the unstated corollary to your proposal: "Ban all non-candidates from expressing their opinions on any issue of public importance."

    If we enacted the reforms you propose here without changing anything else in the system, we'd just see what we already see - individuals, interest groups, and corporations funneling money to groups that air "issue advocacy" that criticizes candidates without explicitly doing so. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and pretending you've plugged the holes.

    In order to achieve the perfect world that you're imagining, you'd have to ban all of those messy and unregulated opinions.

    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.
    That would be bad, as would a flock of seagulls eating my face. Both are equally unlikely, so a rational person wouldn't try to change the law in order to prevent either of them from happening.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #63
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,640

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Your question is irrelevant. We have those programs because they were needed. You see in a society... never mind.
    Hitler and a majority of Germans thought the "final solution was needed". The leadership of the southern states and most of its population thought slavery was "needed" and then Racist discrimination of the freed slaves. what a majority claims it needs is not a good argument to anyone who believes in the concept of inalienable rights and a government of limited powers



  4. #64
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Hitler and a majority of Germans thought the "final solution was needed". The leadership of the southern states and most of its population thought slavery was "needed" and then Racist discrimination of the freed slaves. what a majority claims it needs is not a good argument to anyone who believes in the concept of inalienable rights and a government of limited powers
    Thats a bit of a contradiction. The Southern States were so set in their belief of the States' rights, that their Congress, upon formation of the CSA, was even more gridlocked then ours is now. I understand what you're saying, but the facts of that example don't match up with what you are arguing.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  5. #65
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,640

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

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Thats a bit of a contradiction. The Southern States were so set in their belief of the States' rights, that their Congress, upon formation of the CSA, was even more gridlocked then ours is now. I understand what you're saying, but the facts of that example don't match up with what you are arguing.
    HOw so-the other poster was praising majority rule in a geo-political area-be it state or nation. The fact is most stuff that gets enacted or imposed is based or perceived to be based on "need"



  6. #66
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    HOw so-the other poster was praising majority rule in a geo-political area-be it state or nation. The fact is most stuff that gets enacted or imposed is based or perceived to be based on "need"
    If you exclude the North when considering the South, that is.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  7. #67
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,640

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

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    If you exclude the North when considering the South, that is.
    The North wasn't anti slavery for many many years



  8. #68
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The North wasn't anti slavery for many many years
    In that case, what year were you referring to the South then? I was under the impression that it was at a point during the Civil War, or at least after the formation of the CSA, but I'd prefer to get your side of it before making any more assumptions.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #69
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    To the OP's question:

    As the law stands, the restriction on direct corporate donations to candidates is still valid. The rationale for leaving this restriction while invalidating the independent expenditure restriction is that the nature of a direct contribution raises quid pro quo concerns and harms democracy by creating the image of impropriety. I'm not particularly convinced by this argument, but I think it is strong enough to survive, so long as we maintain the restriction on how much individuals can donate.
    But the reality is that a corporation cannot directly contribute to a campaign but may contribute to a PAC, or a 527 which can run an ad and which amounts to the same thing.
    Political Campaign Contribution Laws for Individuals

    You left out the unstated corollary to your proposal: "Ban all non-candidates from expressing their opinions on any issue of public importance."
    Strawman. I never said nor implied it.

    If we enacted the reforms you propose here without changing anything else in the system, we'd just see what we already see - individuals, interest groups, and corporations funneling money to groups that air "issue advocacy" that criticizes candidates without explicitly doing so. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and pretending you've plugged the holes.
    That's because there are so many holes which you implicitly agree with. Of course other holes would need plugging. You'd have to ban corporations from any kind of political speech (which should be, anyway) and not allow the corporation (union, non-profit, anything other than an individual citizens) to contribute money to 527s and any incarnation thereof.

    In order to achieve the perfect world that you're imagining, you'd have to ban all of those messy and unregulated opinions.
    Unless they come from an individual citizen. Why do some people have such a hard time distinguishing between a thing and a person?

    That would be bad, as would a flock of seagulls eating my face. Both are equally unlikely, so a rational person wouldn't try to change the law in order to prevent either of them from happening.
    Yes it would be bad and we should prevent it BEFORE we have to suffer through it. Don't you believe in pre-emptive strikes for the purpose of protection?

  10. #70
    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
    We basically have no tariffs currently. How's that working out for the American economy? The American family? THe American government?
    Quite well.

    But glad to see you're such a devoted follower of GW Bush.

    Bushie imposed tariffs on steel, to "protect" American steel workers.

    This raised the price of steel, and steel is used in almost every manufactured good in the country.

    So the prices of all manufactured goods went up.

    When prices go up, people buy less.

    When people buy less, companies make less or don't expand.

    Aren't tariffs wonderful?

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •