APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But when elections depend on advertising expenditure and corporations are free to weild unlimited influence, politicians must please corporations inordinately. Your failure to understand this is why you are stupid.

Again I ask... what difference does it make if the money comes from a PAC group or a corporation? Is there something inherently different about currency coming from a corporation, which makes a politician behave differently? I don't get it!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce? If you are going to argue that we should restrict any "corporate" influence, wouldn't it have to include media corporations as well? Or do they get a pass with MoveOn.org and ACORN as purveyors of "truth" in America?

exactly....something the libs are scared to death of

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The difference is that when individual politicians are beholding to the average individual joe voter, they are not inclined to make special deals with corporations that use money to influence decisions for their profits. It's called corruption and I do not understand how you cannot see that?

Here's a breakdown analogy.

200,000 voters donate 10.00 dollars to a candidate (encouraged by his PAC's.) A corporation donates 400 million in ads for the same candidate. The candidate is elected; who will he be more beholden to? The guy's supplying the smart flashy ads presenting skewed truths bordering on falsehoods that secured his election or the average joes who vote lock-step with the BS ads?

But the thing is, we don't have a system where "joe voter" is the only financial influence for politicians! We're never going to live in THAT world! Someone is always going to find a way to funnel money into a political campaign, it's just how it goes. And yes, corporations will contribute money to the candidate who promises to help their interests... what the hell is wrong with that? Are you falling into the same trap as the pinheads, wanting to blame all evil on corporations, and acting like they are some independent entity devoid of human attribute? Corporations are made up of INDIVIDUALS! They are beholden to their stockholders and investors... if the politician in question is beholden to them, he is also beholden to the same stockholders and investors in the corporation! THE PEOPLE!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

exactly....something the libs are scared to death of

I really don't think they are! I think they would ban Fox News today if they could! I think it would suit all of them just fine if we let Rom Emanuel tell us daily what to think and believe, and do away with the "news" altogether! We already know they want to get rid of talk radio... Fairness Doctrine... what is that? Same thing! Censorship of FREE SPEECH!

 

[Canceled2]

But the thing is, we don't have a system where "joe voter" is the only financial influence for politicians! We're never going to live in THAT world! Someone is always going to find a way to funnel money into a political campaign, it's just how it goes. And yes, corporations will contribute money to the candidate who promises to help their interests... what the hell is wrong with that? Are you falling into the same trap as the pinheads, wanting to blame all evil on corporations, and acting like they are some independent entity devoid of human attribute? Corporations are made up of INDIVIDUALS! They are beholden to their stockholders and investors... if the politician in question is beholden to them, he is also beholden to the same stockholders and investors in the corporation! THE PEOPLE!

There will always be those who attempt to corrupt, yes, some will be able to funnel money, but you don't open the flood gates and say hell yeah go for it! No, you create laws that makes it illegal for ALL organizations, including personal PAC's. You use the governemnt to keep check on the governement!

Corporations operate as an entity that can weild abnormal power. It is not the same as an individual. Only 1% of individual's are that wealthy and that powerful.

The number of investors and or stockholders are again less than 2% of individuals. If a candidate is to be truly representative of his constituents, and not a handful, we need to remove the temptation to be so beholden. Certainly you do not think that a corporations self interests are neccesarilly equal to the interests of a candidates constituency?

I am not a pinhead, I am a poster with an opinion Dix, one you have not been able to sway your way is all. The anger right now is over the tone deaf, business as usual, don't listen to the people attitude. Allowing unimaginable amts of money to flow into the campaigns of particular candiates will, imo, only exacerbate it!

 

[Good Luck]

Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce?

This is exactly what the decision was about. All the rhetoric about corporate personhood (which I disagree with - it is not the purpose of granting the legal construct of corporation), or free speech rights, etc. is barking up the wrong tree. The decision was about equal application of the law with respect to Free PRESS, not free speech. Since it is impractical to limit the media (ie: press) without violating the 1st Amendment 9 ways from Sunday, then equal application of the law demands we apply the same rule to ALL corporations. It does not matter if we treat corporations as persons or not, the idea is the need to treat all of them the same. We can NOT apply the Constitution selectively, because that violates the very concept of being a Constitutional Republic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You use the governemnt to keep check on the governement!

You do realize that is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, right?

Corporations operate as an entity that can weild abnormal power. It is not the same as an individual. Only 1% of individual's are that wealthy and that powerful....The number of investors and or stockholders are again less than 2% of individuals.

Listen to what you're saying... it doesn't even make sense! Corporations are 100% people, they would simply not function without them! 100% of ALL Stockholders in ALL companies, are PEOPLE! INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE! What part of that are you not comprehending?

Corporations are NOT independent entities without human element! This is how you seem to want to view them, and it's patently unfair. Most corporations are not corrupt or interested in corruption, they are simply legitimate businesses in America, with normal reasonable interests related to trade and commerce.

At some point in time, did someone give you a cup with something sweet and fruity to drink? I think you may have been infected... Corporations are NOT our enemy! They are comprised of people just like you and me, and the interest of the corporation, is the interest of every stockholder, employee, investor, and the CEO! If they lobby a politician for something to advantage their corporation, doesn't it also benefit the people who work there, the investors, the affiliated individuals? Isn't that good for jobs and economic prosperity? Or have you started being overwhelmed with the thought that all capitalism is greed, and evil?

 

[Lao Tse]

Again I ask... what difference does it make if the money comes from a PAC group or a corporation? Is there something inherently different about currency coming from a corporation, which makes a politician behave differently? I don't get it!

Yes. Its the access to the massive quantities of cash corporations get. Maybe they take tarp next time and use it to lobby for more tarp. Maybe using massive cash to secure monopolies through election control becomes a new business model. Well isn't that freaking excellent.

And also, the expenditures are presumably controlled only by the executive level of the corporations, further disenfranchising people who actually work, who would maybe prefer other candidates who would be more pro laborer, and less asshole. Do you understand any of this?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is exactly what the decision was about. All the rhetoric about corporate personhood (which I disagree with - it is not the purpose of granting the legal construct of corporation), or free speech rights, etc. is barking up the wrong tree. The decision was about equal application of the law with respect to Free PRESS, not free speech. Since it is impractical to limit the media (ie: press) without violating the 1st Amendment 9 ways from Sunday, then equal application of the law demands we apply the same rule to ALL corporations. It does not matter if we treat corporations as persons or not, the idea is the need to treat all of them the same. We can NOT apply the Constitution selectively, because that violates the very concept of being a Constitutional Republic.

Exactly, but a corporation has the same right to free speech as any citizen. Congress shall make NO LAW... Not, Congress can make some laws if it feels it may help curb corruption!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes. Its the access to the massive quantities of cash corporations get. Maybe they take tarp next time and use it to lobby for more tarp. Maybe using massive cash to secure monopolies through election control becomes a new business model. Well isn't that freaking excellent.

And also, the expenditures are presumable controlled only by the executive level of the corporations, further disenfranchising people who actually work, who would maybe prefer other candidates who would be more pro laborer, and less asshole. Do you understand any of this?

I understand that every corporation in America has to produce an Annual Report, where it will chronicle any and all expenditures. I understand a CEO can't act arbitrarily to support something with the company money, without answering to the Board of Directors and Stockholders.

But primarily, what I understand is, regardless of what individuals of the company and powers that control the purse-strings of the company may have as political views, what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone down to the garbage collector in that company.

 

[Good Luck]

It's a good thought, and ideally, democracy would work that way.

Unfortunately, it isn't reality. I love the polls that they do showing that people don't want negative ads, but there are more of them every election. Because they work.

While it's a reality that people are influenced by such, that reality is slowly growing weaker. How many times over the past several years has a main stream news story come out, only to end up debunked by internet blogs forcing MSM to retract their story? How many times has an internet story forced the MSM to pick up what they would prefer to ignore? It's a movement, and it is growing stronger. During the height of a political campaign the internet is a hotbed of fact checking, debunking, and otherwise criticizing the latest political ads.

And you want to talk about reality, how about the reality that we will never, ever move away from monetary influence in government through the use of government regulation. Talk about asking the fox to guard the hen house from the wolves. It is not going to work because the very corruption we are fighting against is being used to keep the corruption going. The only way it WILL work is through the efforts currently observed, where the people themselves are taking on the responsibility of finding and disseminating truth amidst all the rhetoric and lies of the political (and main stream media) system. For a republic to work (we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!), the responsibility for keeping control of government MUST rest on the shoulders of the people, not be shoveled off on the very governnment we need to keep in control.

 

[Good Luck]

But primarily, what I understand is, regardless of what individuals of the company and powers that control the purse-strings of the company may have as political views, what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone down to the garbage collector in that company.

Unless the garbage collector is the one laid off so the corporation can still afford it's annual executive bonuses after a crap year.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Unless the garbage collector is the one laid off so the corporation can still afford it's annual executive bonuses after a crap year.

So what is this you're doing? Projecting some phantom corporate fraud onto ALL corporations in America? You mean, every company in America is laying off garbage collectors so they can line the pockets of their executives? And why is it YOUR business what THEY do with THEIR profits? Since WHEN did the US Constitution give YOU the right to determine what is best for them to spend their money on?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you want to talk about reality, how about the reality that we will never, ever move away from monetary influence in government through the use of government regulation. Talk about asking the fox to guard the hen house from the wolves. It is not going to work because the very corruption we are fighting against is being used to keep the corruption going. The only way it WILL work is through the efforts currently observed, where the people themselves are taking on the responsibility of finding and disseminating truth amidst all the rhetoric and lies of the political (and main stream media) system. For a republic to work (we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!), the responsibility for keeping control of government MUST rest on the shoulders of the people, not be shoveled off on the very governnment we need to keep in control.

Kudos! I agree with this 100%

 

[Good Luck]

So what is this you're doing? Projecting some phantom corporate fraud onto ALL corporations in America? You mean, every company in America is laying off garbage collectors so they can line the pockets of their executives? And why is it YOUR business what THEY do with THEIR profits? Since WHEN did the US Constitution give YOU the right to determine what is best for them to spend their money on?

No, but if you like beatinng up scarecrows, have at it.

I am pointing out that your claim of "anything that benefits the corporation benefits all who work for it" is, at best, overly broad, and at worst, outright denial of reality. Corporations will not hesitate to strengthen themselves at the cost of those working for it. That is not "fraud" - that is the way corporations work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes simply to grant greater benefit to those controlling it. Therefore "what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone" is just plain not true.

There are advantages to strong corporatism, including (in general, but with exceptions) a stronger economy than would be if corporatism were drastically weakened or overly regulated. And there are also many drawbacks, such as the corruption of government that results from the natural concentration of wealth derived from corporatism.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I really don't think they are! I think they would ban Fox News today if they could! I think it would suit all of them just fine if we let Rom Emanuel tell us daily what to think and believe, and do away with the "news" altogether! We already know they want to get rid of talk radio... Fairness Doctrine... what is that? Same thing! Censorship of FREE SPEECH!

no dixie....they don't want to get rid of their corporate media

 

[Don Quixote]

no, not the same rights. but the overwhelming case law is that corps are extended 1st amendment rights. i have no problem with this, if you want to deny corporations the 1st amendment, then you need to deny unions, political parties or any other organization that does not exist except by the laws that allow its creation.

i'm not positive that political parties have to incorporate, but the DNC party appears to be incorporated



even if they are not incorporated, if we don't want corps to have the ability to pay for politcal ads, then neither should any group or organization.

i agree, let politics go back to the individual level, but what about wealthy individuals, should they have more power than less wealthy individuals?

 

[Don Quixote]

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?

what about shell groups like citizens for/against -fill in the blank- and last week ads where the donors are not identified until after the election...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, but if you like beatinng up scarecrows, have at it.

I am pointing out that your claim of "anything that benefits the corporation benefits all who work for it" is, at best, overly broad, and at worst, outright denial of reality. Corporations will not hesitate to strengthen themselves at the cost of those working for it. That is not "fraud" - that is the way corporations work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes simply to grant greater benefit to those controlling it. Therefore "what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone" is just plain not true.

There are advantages to strong corporatism, including (in general, but with exceptions) a stronger economy than would be if corporatism were drastically weakened or overly regulated. And there are also many drawbacks, such as the corruption of government that results from the natural concentration of wealth derived from corporatism.

Earlier, when I said that anything which benefits the corporation, benefits all who work for it, I was making an admittedly over-simplified point. Corporations ARE people. Really simple point! It doesn't take a lot of pontification or explaining, a corporation IS the people who comprise it. I can't think of any instance a corporation would actively lobby for any political issue which benefited only the CEO or owners, at the expense of the employees and stockholders. Yeah, maybe through corruption... but corruption is illegal! What insanity makes you think we can stop corruption through regulations? We pass a law that says... no more corruption! Problem solved, right?

So we can reasonably agree, no matter what we do, there will still be corruption in politics and in corporate leadership. We can "reform" campaign finance all we like, and guess what? There will still be corruption at the end of the day... there will still be 'money' people finding ways to influence politicians.

My take is this... Full Transparency... Candidates must disclose where every single penny came from, no exceptions... Everyone has to disclose who they are in advertising... the rest takes care of itself. Let Freedom Ring!

This way, we have transparency as a public, to know who is behind who, what's really going on... we have MORE information about the candidates, not less! We are then empowered as MORE informed voters. This silly presumption that we are all just mind-numb robots who follow blindly what we're told to follow, and we can't smell a rat, is ridiculous. Then again, our electorate DID give us Obama!

My primary point has been this... Remember how, for a while, SUV's were demonized? It was so humorous, Rush routinely did SUV Alerts! Where he would literally read the report verbatim, and it sounded as if the SUV acted of its own volition and caused the havoc itself! Well, much the same thing has happened with "Corporations" ....the left has successfully demonized them! Even somewhat moderate conservatives will get sucked in to this idea that corporations act on their own volition... they are mad, out of control entities, with purely sinister intent! If we don't stop these evil corporations, they will completely take over our government and rule us all! It's just INSANE!

Corporations are comprised of PEOPLE! They are NOTHING without PEOPLE! The Corporation represents US, our JOBS, our LIVES, our FUTURE! They are US and WE are THEM! We need to stop demonizing corporations, because we are essentially demonizing ourselves!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i agree, let politics go back to the individual level, but what about wealthy individuals, should they have more power than less wealthy individuals?

i have asked the same question. should bill gate be prohibited from purchasing political ads? what about soros?

what about shell groups like citizens for/against -fill in the blank- and last week ads where the donors are not identified until after the election...

in the decision, scotus addressed shell groups and found shell groups, iirc, the same as corps...or similar....i skimmed it three days ago, so i might be wrong on that....but i think they made an issue about the shell groups and how they have speech and the actual corps do not