• 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!

Corporate v. individual Speech

Rich2018 said:
Why don't the pro-American left or anti-American right not exist ?

What is being "anti-American" and why would anyone oppose it.


Can you give any example of the left wing Anti-America or the right wing ?
Click to expand...
Can you understand sarcasm when you see it?
 
HumblePi said:
My comment was a reply to comment #42, perhaps it would be good for you to go back to that and then you would know what my point is.
Click to expand...

I did read post 42, that's why I asked ??
 
Bullseye said:
Can you understand sarcasm when you see it?
Click to expand...

Oh that wasn't sarcasm...


It was, if anything, a sardonic reply.

Do you know the difference ? I guess you'll have to look the word up.


So you weren't serious when you said the anti-America right doesn't exist ?
O the pro-American left >?
 
Rich2018 said:
Oh that wasn't sarcasm...


It was, if anything, a sardonic reply.

Do you know the difference ? I guess you'll have to look the word up.


So you weren't serious when you said the anti-America right doesn't exist ?
O the pro-American left >?
Click to expand...
Take it any way you want.
 
HumblePi said:
According to your link the NRA would be prohibited from contributing to a PAC since the NRA is an incorporated entity. As a matter of fact the NRA has their very own PAC, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), it is the lobbying arm of the NRA and it manages its political action committee (PAC) and the Political Victory Fund (PVF).

Top recipients of contributions from gun-rights donors
Candidate Office Amount
Cruz, Ted (R-TX)Senate$309,021
McSally, Martha (R-AZ)House$227,928
Scalise, Steve (R-LA)House$132,831
Nunes, Devin (R-CA)House$95,093
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)House$85,168
Heller, Dean (R-NV)Senate$76,713
James, John (R-MI)Senate$75,099
Ryan, Paul (R-WI)House$65,347
Scott, Rick (R-FL)Senate$61,752
Hawley, Josh (R-MO)Senate$59,760
Source: OpenSecrets.org
Click to expand...

The NRA-ILA is a different part of the NRA that lobbies law-makers and monitors State legislatures and Congress to determine whether or not they are introducing legislation that would harm firearm owners. I know because I've been on the Alaska NRA-ILA Steering Committee for the last 28 years. We were instrumental in getting the Alaska State Constitution amended in 1994, acknowledging the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA contributes primarily to Republican candidates, just as the ACLU contributes primarily to Democrat candidates. They are both PACs and they are both allowed to contribute to candidates and to other PACs.
 
Glitch said:
The NRA-ILA is a different part of the NRA that lobbies law-makers and monitors State legislatures and Congress to determine whether or not they are introducing legislation that would harm firearm owners. I know because I've been on the Alaska NRA-ILA Steering Committee for the last 28 years. We were instrumental in getting the Alaska State Constitution amended in 1994, acknowledging the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA contributes primarily to Republican candidates, just as the ACLU contributes primarily to Democrat candidates. They are both PACs and they are both allowed to contribute to candidates and to other PACs.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was proving a point to 'Bullseye' who erroneously stated that corporations are prohibited from contributing to a candidate's campaign.
 
Rich2018 said:
That characterization, while a little harsh, of the GOP is fair I grant you.

Where do you see the Democratic party "bumbling" Biden's ability not to get tongue twisted while making speeches it at the very least embarrassing but hardly "bumbling"

Of course the Democratic party covers a wide spectrum of economic and political thought and will contain some differences. Again this is hardly "bumbling"


Say what you mean and give examples.
Click to expand...

They lost control of the government to red map, they lost the presidency to a screaming carrot, and their best hope of stopping Tweetycult is Biden, who should probably be put in a soundproof closet until next November.

Bumbling is generous.
 
Greenbeard said:
You're blurring the line between a separate segregated fund pooling individual contributions and the use of corporate treasury dollars to influence elections. These are not the same thing. If "only individuals have a voice" then corporate treasury funds should not be allowed for electioneering purposes.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same thing about unions?
 
Corporations are legal persons because they are legal fictions. Corporations are man-made fictions and thus being artificial cannot enjoy natural rights. Corporations do not possess brains and a nervous system with which to formulate independent ideas behind speech. They are told what to say by their managers and sometimes their owners. Corporations lack the mechanisms to articulate the ideas which they are incapable of formulating independently. They must rely on spokespersons to speak for them and thus have no voice of their own. Corporations lack any moral character or ethical compass except for the single imperative of the pursuit of profits and therefore lack the capacity to act ethically in society with a wide spectrum of interests and responsibilities unless directed to do so by their management or shareholders. Thus corporations and other legal fictions like unions, associations, etc. should not be allowed to participate in political processes. That should be reserved for human beings.

Corporations use money as a political-speech force-multiplier to amplify their owners' political agenda unfairly. The law does not allow an individual/real person to disrupt a public and private spaces continuously with megaphones or very loud PA systems to promote their political agenda, so why should corporations be allowed to saturate public spaces with their amplified political speech? The answer is money and influence. Using money the corporatists have fixed the political system to be preferential to their interests and money is the cement which is used to buttress that preferential status quo. Take away the cement and the buttresses will fail bringing the whole corrupted preferential status quo down too. Truly representative democracy will once again supplant oligarchy and the state will better serve the interests of its citizens rather than stateless corporations with transnational interests.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
HumblePi said:
Actually, I was proving a point to 'Bullseye' who erroneously stated that corporations are prohibited from contributing to a candidate's campaign.
Click to expand...

*Who can't contribute

Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)*

Who can and can't contribute
 
hanger4 said:
*Who can't contribute

Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)*

Who can and can't contribute
Click to expand...

As I stated in my response to Bullseye, the NRA is a corporation. They skirt around the campaign finance laws by contributing through one of their two PACS. And, they are a non-profit corporation but still --- a corporation.
 
HumblePi said:
As I stated in my response to Bullseye, the NRA is a corporation. They skirt around the campaign finance laws by contributing through one of their two PACS. And, they are a non-profit corporation but still --- a corporation.
Click to expand...

When you abide by the law it is not considered skirting around the law. That would be like saying since you didn't kill anyone today you skirted around the laws against murder. That would be a stupid thing to suggest. Just as stupid as suggesting the NRA skirted around campaign finance laws by abiding by the law.
 
HumblePi said:
As I stated in my response to Bullseye, the NRA is a corporation. They skirt around the campaign finance laws by contributing through one of their two PACS. And, they are a non-profit corporation but still --- a corporation.
Click to expand...

The NRA is a 501c4 non profit and is no more "skirting" than Planned Parenthood or anyone of a number non-profits that also have a PAC.
 
hanger4 said:
The NRA is a 501c4 non profit and is no more "skirting" than Planned Parenthood or anyone of a number non-profits that also have a PAC.
Click to expand...

Just like a charity, any non-profit corporation generally doesn’t pay taxes on the money it raises or earns. There are a few things the NRA can’t do as a nonprofit. It can’t primarily benefit private individuals through excessive compensation or companies rather than the public. It can’t make engaging in politics its main purpose. And it can’t break laws, including campaign finance laws.

First, instead of being run to advance NRA missions like to “defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans,” the group mainly enriches NRA executives and boosts the bottom line of Ackerman McQueen, an advertising company that runs the NRA TV video channel. The second is admittedly odd given that Oliver North was paid by Ackerman McQueen through a contractual relationship.

The second reason that the NRA might run afoul of campaign finance violations is because Oliver North is raising concerns related to media reports of allegations that the NRA illegally funneled millions of dollars in Russian money to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The IRS could theoretically determine the NRA was operated for an illegal purpose and revoke its tax exempt status.
 
HumblePi said:
Just like a charity, any non-profit corporation generally doesn’t pay taxes on the money it raises or earns. There are a few things the NRA can’t do as a nonprofit. It can’t primarily benefit private individuals through excessive compensation or companies rather than the public. It can’t make engaging in politics its main purpose. And it can’t break laws, including campaign finance laws.

First, instead of being run to advance NRA missions like to “defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans,” the group mainly enriches NRA executives and boosts the bottom line of Ackerman McQueen, an advertising company that runs the NRA TV video channel. The second is admittedly odd given that Oliver North was paid by Ackerman McQueen through a contractual relationship.

The second reason that the NRA might run afoul of campaign finance violations is because Oliver North is raising concerns related to media reports of allegations that the NRA illegally funneled millions of dollars in Russian money to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The IRS could theoretically determine the NRA was operated for an illegal purpose and revoke its tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

I'll not play your partisan goalpost moving, if you want to go after all "dark money" I'm with ya. Picking out one because of your partisan views is highly disingenuous.
 
clapee said:
Since Citizens United, there has been a public controversy over the protections of commercial speech versus individual speech.

The limit of individual speech is basically that one cannot incite violence against another or others or incite a riot or riotous behavior. The basic idea is that an individual should not do harm against another or others, and speech aimed to do physical harm is rightfully regulated.

It has been said that corporate speech can be more heavily regulated. On its face, that may appear to be true. However, usually the commercial speech that is prohibited has been deemed harmful to others. For example, the FCC prohibits curse words and nudity from public broadcast so as not to subject children to such things, the premise being exposure to such things is harmful to children.

It would appear, then, the justification of regulating commercial speech and individual speech is the same. The difference might be said is the potential impact of commercial speech versus individual speech.

And so, that begs the question, why ought the government be allowed to regulate commercial political speech moreso than individual political speech? Corporations are nothing more than a collection of persons who own and operate a concern. How can one differentiate a collection of persons and an individual? Even if one can differentiate, what justifies that differentiation with regard to regulating political speech?

And, before we get into rote responses that money in politics is bad, I would state at the outset that such a sentiment is merely conclusory. I do not accept as axiomatic that money in politics is bad. What specifically about money in politics is bad?
Click to expand...

I'm all for corporations buying whatever politician they want, but contributions from corporations to politicians should be taxed at a punitive rate and all records are public.

That said, despite the claims of certain politicians, corporations ARE NOT persons. They are legal fictions, nothing more, and the law should reflect that simple fact.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm all for corporations buying whatever politician they want, but contributions from corporations to politicians should be taxed at a punitive rate and all records are public.

That said, despite the claims of certain politicians, corporations ARE NOT persons. They are legal fictions, nothing more, and the law should reflect that simple fact.
Click to expand...

I don't like the fact that a supposed representative of the people takes a corporation's money and being bought and paid for.


The same rules should apply to members of congress that apply to cabinet members
No corporate donations.
No gifts that don't have the giver's name on it.
 
Evilroddy said:
Corporations are legal persons because they are legal fictions. Corporations are man-made fictions and thus being artificial cannot enjoy natural rights. Corporations do not possess brains and a nervous system with which to formulate independent ideas behind speech. They are told what to say by their managers and sometimes their owners. Corporations lack the mechanisms to articulate the ideas which they are incapable of formulating independently. They must rely on spokespersons to speak for them and thus have no voice of their own. Corporations lack any moral character or ethical compass except for the single imperative of the pursuit of profits and therefore lack the capacity to act ethically in society with a wide spectrum of interests and responsibilities unless directed to do so by their management or shareholders. Thus corporations and other legal fictions like unions, associations, etc. should not be allowed to participate in political processes. That should be reserved for human beings.

Corporations use money as a political-speech force-multiplier to amplify their owners' political agenda unfairly. The law does not allow an individual/real person to disrupt a public and private spaces continuously with megaphones or very loud PA systems to promote their political agenda, so why should corporations be allowed to saturate public spaces with their amplified political speech? The answer is money and influence. Using money the corporatists have fixed the political system to be preferential to their interests and money is the cement which is used to buttress that preferential status quo. Take away the cement and the buttresses will fail bringing the whole corrupted preferential status quo down too. Truly representative democracy will once again supplant oligarchy and the state will better serve the interests of its citizens rather than stateless corporations with transnational interests.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Your post is truly fascinating. The first paragraph is dedicated to how a corporation isn’t a person, though gives many examples how it cannot act but through persons...

Then your second paragraph is dedicated to explain how people use corporations to multiply their beliefs.

So that begs the question...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom