hey HEY, Americans, it turns out we have a "freedom of speech" thingy!
hey HEY, Americans, it turns out we don't mind having our politicians bought and paid for by corporations and labor unions!
Here's what I'd like to see:
1. The Supreme Court says, like they did today, that money is speech and that therefore you cannot stop people from spending money on campaigns.
2. The Supreme Court holds that corporations are NOT people, and therefore restrictions on campaign spending by corporations (and unions and PACs and other such groups) is constitutional.
The idea that a corporation is considered a "person" under the 14th amendment is the root of the problem. We need to get rid of that notion. I mean, the conservatives talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I doubt any of them thought that a Court would later decide that businesses are "people."
But corporations are nothing more than people excercising their First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Association, and the FA also guarantees those assemblies can interact in political discourse.
How about ending the idea of a corporation as a taxable entity, and instead require that all profits be realized as dividends, and let the people earning the dividends decide if they wish to pool their money back into the corporations polical activism office to assist in the defense of the corporation against the ravages of government?
Better yet, how about if we so limit the power of government that corporate entities no longer have an interest in influencing government actions?
The US government isn't supposed to be as strong as it is, ya know.
That's true -- you can't very well argue that a corporation isn't a "person" and then tax its income like it is one. Well, you can, but it's not consistent.
No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.
I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.
Because then corporations would call all the shots in this country, and I have a vote in the government but I don't have a vote in all the corporations.
And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.
however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.
Quite a rebuttal... :roll:
Why bother going point by point, just dismiss it ad hominem without explanation. Saves time on having to formulate thoughts of your own...:2razz:
Okay, RightNYC, explain why corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere.
And what do we gain by having more expensive and elaborate political campaigns?
No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.
I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.
And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.
Corporations benefit just as much from public roads, public transportation, and public law enforcement as individuals are, perhaps more so since they rely even more on such things to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be taxed on income but they should pay their share of taxes for public services they benefit from.
You should get a tally sheet and see how much money corporations donate to various causes and rethink your philosophy here.
The idea that a corporation is considered a "person" under the 14th amendment is the root of the problem. We need to get rid of that notion. I mean, the conservatives talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I doubt any of them thought that a Court would later decide that businesses are "people."
No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.
I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.
Because then corporations would call all the shots in this country, and I have a vote in the government but I don't have a vote in all the corporations.[/qutoe]
Yes, yes, of course. I forget the time I stood behind Ford in the line at the polls. Dow Corning was up at the front of the line, if I recall.
You can get a vote in the corporations.
Buy some damn stock.
And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.
Cite the articles of the Constitution specifying this assertion.
Corporations benefit just as much from public roads, public transportation, and public law enforcement as individuals are, perhaps more so since they rely even more on such things to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be taxed on income but they should pay their share of taxes for public services they benefit from.
Do you think that aside from the taxpayer funding, nobody should be allowed to express their opinions on elections? Moveon shouldn't be allowed to email people to tell them to vote? The Sierra Club shouldn't be able to run ads urging people to think of the environment?
Disagreed. The McCain-Feingold bill was an atrocity that richly deserves to be tossed in the trash.
A much better approach is to promptly (like within 24 hours) report on the internet where the money is coming from. Sunshine is a much better disinfectant than regulation because there are always lawyers who can figure out how to game the system.
Just my opinion.
Its amazing that are left wing friends are ignoring this great victory for the right and for the first amendment which they are always citing........
Some company executives and unions said they were ready to jump more directly into this year's congressional campaigns under the new rules, but big companies may remain cautious about doing so for public-relations reasons.
It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?
Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com
Isn't there already a thread on this?
the good guys