• 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
black hole said:
Yes because it would be a small step to solving the corporate corruption in this country and be a small step toward a country ran by the people and not corporations.
Click to expand...

How?

Corporate controlled Media with their biased agenda's is another issue
Click to expand...

Yeah, gotta ban that next, huh?
 
Catawba said:
I'll call, please show us your math on how the majority who own a smaller percentage of the total wealth in the country can pool their money to equal more than they have???
Click to expand...

Really? I have to go find a wealth distribution chart and explain it to you?
 
X Factor said:
LOL, corporations are so evil. It's not like they're not made up of people and certainly do nothing good like provide jobs, not to mention the products and services people want and need.
Click to expand...


Evil can be such a strong term. However corporations are self serving and will try and influence laws and regulations to place them in a better position and not what is in the best interest of the people or country as a whole. This isnt really any different then your average citizen however your average citizen does not have the resources that many of these large corporation have to help influence things. I believe lobbyist and big business are a large part of our problem in this country.
 
misterman said:
This thread isn't really about donations to candidates.
Click to expand...
Would you please provide all of teh definitions you're using?
You have often said that x is not y, but then you never actually try to say what x actually is nor what is y.


AFAICT, donations and lobbyists go hand in hand and are part and parcel of the actual issue being discussed. If you want to parse some definitions to improve the conciseness of the conversation, please do.
 
Baralis said:
Evil can be such a strong term. However corporations are self serving and will try and influence laws and regulations to place them in a better position and not what is in the best interest of the people or country as a whole. This isnt really any different then your average citizen however your average citizen does not have the resources that many of these large corporation have to help influence things. I believe lobbyist and big business are a large part of our problem in this country.
Click to expand...

The average citizen has two things:

1. The vote, which is everything.
2. The ability to band with others (just like corporations!) to magnify their influence too. Which they do all the time.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Would you please provide all of teh definitions you're using?
You have often said that x is not y, but then you never actually try to say what x actually is nor what is y.
Click to expand...

My comment was in reference to the fact that union and corporate donations to candidates are already illegal.

(They can sponsor PACs that collect voluntary donations from individuals to use to make donations though. These donations are commonly referred to as "coming from" the union or corporation itself, but it's not really).

Unions and corporations can spend money to speak their minds about candidates, which was the holding of the Citizen's United decision.

AFAICT, donations and lobbyists go hand in hand and are part and parcel of the actual issue being discussed. If you want to parse some definitions to improve the conciseness of the conversation, please do.
Click to expand...

Lobbying simply means telling Congress what you want.
Campaign finance means giving donations.
Many lobbyists do not give donations and many who give donations don't lobby. So while certainly do go hand in hand sometimes, they are not the same thing and can't be used interchangably.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Freedom of speech has all sorts of limits.
Click to expand...

But not the one proposed in this case.

Hence the discussion is about a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes. I find it pathetic that someone feels the need to suppress speech of those they disagree with in order to win a debate.
 
misterman said:
Lobbying simply means telling Congress what you want.
Campaign finance means giving donations.
Many lobbyists do not give donations and many who give donations don't lobby. So while certainly do go hand in hand sometimes, they are not the same thing and can't be used interchangably.
Click to expand...
And what is the term that describes what is being discussed in this thread?
That term would be a useful one to know.
The term, w/e it may be, describes not only communicating what action is desired of a govt entity, but also the associated efforts to influence that entity be they donations, trips, or a host of other things.
What's that word?

Colloquially, the word lobbying is used as these are action taken by lobbyist in their efforts to effect change.
And ftr, and in defense of those who're using lobbying in the more colloquial sense, Webster's seems to define lobbying more broadly than "simply means telling Congress what you want"

But if there's a more precise technical term in use by members of your profession to describe the phenomena under discussion, I, for one, would be glad to learn it.


misterman said:
Few members of the electorate are proposing bans on speech. If they are though, tough.
Click to expand...
It's not a ban so much as a limit on the "speech" of artificial persons of various sorts.
 
misterman said:
Really? I have to go find a wealth distribution chart and explain it to you?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should be interesting to hear you explain how a smaller percentage of the wealth is > a larger percentage of the wealth.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
And what is the term that describes what is being discussed in this thread?
That term would be a useful one to know.
The term, w/e it may be, describes not only communicating what action is desired of a govt entity, but also the associated efforts to influence that entity be they donations, trips, or a host of other things.
What's that word?

Colloquially, the word lobbying is used as these are action taken by lobbyist in their efforts to effect change.
And ftr, and in defense of those who're using lobbying in the more colloquial sense, Webster's seems to define lobbying more broadly than "simply means telling Congress what you want"

But if there's a more precise technical term in use by members of your profession to describe the phenomena under discussion, I, for one, would be glad to learn it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the dictionary definition is inconsistent with what I said. You can use that one if you like.

All I'm saying is that alot of people mistakenly say "lobbying" when they really mean campaign finance. In other words, if they got their way and, say, banned all campaign donations, lobbying would still exist just as before. On the other hand, if you were to ban lobbying (if that were possible under the Constitution, that is) you'd be shutting up alot of people and groups that don't make donations at all.

It's not a ban so much as a limit on the "speech" of artificial persons of various sorts.
Click to expand...

So you agree that it's a limit on speech?
 
Catawba said:
I'll call, please show us your math on how the majority who own a smaller percentage of the total wealth in the country can pool their money to equal more than they have???
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you did there. You moved the goalposts, and I missed it. You declared, unilaterally, that we were talking about the top 50% of the wealth distribution vs. the rest, which is obviously not what we were talking about in the first place.

My mistake. Here's the deal - the little people can and do pool their money to get enough to get their message out along with the wealthy. Happens all the time. And hey, it kept me employed as a lobbyist too. I lobbied for the little guy, against corporate interests. But why count that? That's no fun!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Yes, it should be interesting to hear you explain how a smaller percentage of the wealth is > a larger percentage of the wealth.
Click to expand...

That was not what I was claiming.

You do understand what wealth distribution means, right?
 
misterman said:
That was not what I was claiming.

You do understand what wealth distribution means, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do:

"The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
 
No for-profit institution should have a larger influence on elections than the average citizen.
 
misterman said:
I don't think the dictionary definition is inconsistent with what I said. You can use that one if you like.
Click to expand...
That definition includes things such as campaign contributions and other activities which are intended to influence the entity being lobbied.

misterman said:
All I'm saying is that alot of people mistakenly say "lobbying" when they really mean campaign finance. In other words, if they got their way and, say, banned all campaign donations, lobbying would still exist just as before.
Click to expand...
Except in as much that lobbying involves making contributions to campaigns and parties, and various other et ceteras that fall under the umbrella of attempting to directly influence the govt. So, it actually would make a difference in how lobbying was conducted.

misterman said:
On the other hand, if you were to ban lobbying (if that were possible under the Constitution, that is) you'd be shutting up alot of people and groups that don't make donations at all.
Click to expand...
Instead of "shutting up alot of people and groups" it would be preventing only certain kinds of "speech" in certain circumstances on the part of artificial person when interacting with the government. The intent being to force the various groups to instead lobby the electorate.

misterman said:
So you agree that it's a limit on speech?
Click to expand...
Only if speech is in quotation marks so that it indicates the many things which are used to influence members of the govt which are not actually words.
But, why wouldn't it be acknowledged as such?
We tried the current system. It turns out that it leads to some harmful side effects that are a part of the system [not a part of any entity's actual message, but rather from how the behavior the system encourages]. A change needs to be made.
 
Platypus said:
No for-profit institution should have a larger influence on elections than the average citizen.
Click to expand...
Why stop at for-profits? For-profits set up non-profits for various purposes all the time.
misterman said:
Then simply ignore them.
Click to expand...
The influence is not on the electorate, it's on the candidates and their parties. It happens in ways that are difficult to detect and to be aware of. That's part and parcel of the objections.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That definition includes things such as campaign contributions and other activities which are intended to influence the entity being lobbied.
Click to expand...

It could, but it doesn't necessarily. Why are you fighting precise definitions, when you requested them?

Except in as much that lobbying involves making contributions to campaigns and parties, and various other et ceteras that fall under the umbrella of attempting to directly influence the govt. So, it actually would make a difference in how lobbying was conducted.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to the definition.

Instead of "shutting up alot of people and groups" it would be preventing only certain kinds of "speech" in certain circumstances on the part of artificial person when interacting with the government. The intent being to force the various groups to instead lobby the electorate.
Click to expand...

So?

Only if speech is in quotation marks so that it indicates the many things which are used to influence members of the govt which are not actually words.
Click to expand...

But they are actually words.

If they weren't, you wouldnt' be trying to ban them.

But, why wouldn't it be acknowledged as such?
We tried the current system. It turns out that it leads to some harmful side effects that are a part of the system [not a part of any entity's actual message, but rather from how the behavior the system encourages]. A change needs to be made.
Click to expand...

How about we simply use our right to discuss and vote? The idea that after 220 years of free political speech, without any restrictions based on content or source, that suddenly the people can't handle speech and need the government to protect them from hearing certain things is just offensive to me. It's no different from any other previous unacceptable justifications people have argued in an attempt to censor. You simply don't like the fact that the people are choosing to vote a certain way based on certain speech, so you want to ban that speech. You declare this to be "harmful side effects" but that doesn't make it so.
 
misterman said:
It could, but it doesn't necessarily. Why are you fighting precise definitions, when you requested them?
Click to expand...
Why do you think I am fighting them?

misterman said:
But they are actually words. If they weren't, you wouldnt' be trying to ban them.
Click to expand...
Lobbying/attempting to influence members of the govt is not limited exclusively words. Mere words aren't really the issue. I am not sure how re-explain that in another way. I have already pointed out more than once what problems arise from our current system which [among several things] allows small groups to garner exclusive benefits with diffuse costs borne by the many. This is done in a manner that is not open and easily accessible to the electorate. The law makers make decisions based on their own concerns which are being met by various lobbyists. This is not what is intended nor what is desirable for a representative government. I am more than willing to link back to my previous posts which discuss this and a couple of other associated flaws if you like.

misterman said:
How about we simply use our right to discuss and vote?
Click to expand...
That would be freaking awesome. I'm glad you're starting to come around.

misterman said:
The idea that after 220 years of free political speech, without any restrictions based on content or source, that suddenly the people can't handle speech and need the government to protect them from hearing certain things is just offensive to me.
Click to expand...
Again and still it's not about keeping people from hearing ideas. It wasn't at the beginning of the thread and it won't be at the end of this thread nor anywhere in between.
It's totally not about "the people can't handle speech." It's about the people not being allowed to "hear" the "speech". The "speech" takes place between lobbyists and elected officials--the people are being excluded. That's the point where it all starts to get weird.
You're railing against something other than what I am talking about. I want there to be more of a dialogue with the electorate directly on the part of the various interest groups which are currently able to bypass talking to the electorate because they can cloister with the Congresscritters et al.

misterman said:
It's no different from any other previous unacceptable justifications people have argued in an attempt to censor. You simply don't like the fact that the people are choosing to vote a certain way based on certain speech, so you want to ban that speech. You declare this to be "harmful side effects" but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point.
Take the sugar industry example posted earlier. Did the public discuss the issue and form an opinion that they would like to give an extra $5 apiece to the Fanul family? No. The Fanjul family didn't talk to the electorate about it. I suspect that upwards of 90% of the US electorate has no idea about it.
I am very much for the Fanjul family making their case and being heard. I am so totally for it that I want them to take their case out of the seclusion of only having to discuss it with Congresscritters and have them announce aloud to the nation and let the electorate hear it. If you want to call that censorship, I am not sure what to say.
The issue is that we currently are not, as you said, "[using] our right to discuss and vote." No one is discussing these things with us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom