Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Media Issues
 "We the People" NOT "We the Corporations"
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 12/02/2011 :  23:56:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Well it seems to be straying from having a voice in elections to lobbying and, well I'm not sure what else... I had thought the concern over corporate personhood was about incorporated groups fundraising for their candidates, or otherwise making statements/commercials, etc on political/election issues as well as advertising either for or against certain candidates.
It's all tied together in the First Amendment. Fundraising, advertising and lobbying all get protected together for corporations, or all get limited together. There's no point in (say) banning corporate lobbying if you're going to allow corporations to collect and spend unlimited amounts to get particular candidates elected. We're talking about corporate influence of the government.
So felons should be prohibited from both voting and free political speech? They are a group prohibited from voting, but why prohibit their speech as well? If not them where is the line drawn?
Well, if you're going to force me to get pedantic, we draw the line at any person or group who, at any time, had the potential to legally vote in any local, state or Federal election under then-current laws either at that moment or any time in the future. This guarantees free political speech not only to convicted felons, but also to six-year-olds, while not guaranteeing that right to any corporation.

Actually, a better line is the one my coworker suggested: any individual or group that can be imprisoned can have free speech. Since corporations, which exist only as a legal entities (on paper) cannot go to jail, they don't get a say in who creates or executes the laws (or what those laws say). Laws which can result in flesh-and-blood people going to prison, while corporations often face nothing more than wrist-slapping fines.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  00:50:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Kil That at least is equal. Dave Makes a lot of sense. But I think it gets very untidy in then determning what is corporate political advertisment and thus what is banned. Is a NGO groups ad on climate change a political message? It certainly has political and electoral consequences. Which came first incorporated labour unions or the political and electoral action they took to gain better working conditions? (remember that in the early days of the labor movement probably before they were incorporated, most governments acted against them)...

I can imagine many scenarios where non commercial incorporated groups could be McCarthyized while speaking for progressive changes. These groups get huge benefits (like massive fundraising power, and protection, even anonimity, for their leaders) from incorporating that they could not get as a group of individuals (as the world systems stand) and many of them really are working for progressive changes. It seems to me an impossible task for government to honestly and fairly weed out the few bad apples while offering freedom and progress to all.
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  01:23:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Also let me add that my neonate v aqueous solution quip was more in regards to the trend of this thread towards the abolution of all corporations, than a laissez-faire stance on elecion and political finance reform, which I can agree needs some serious attention.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  09:39:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Kil That at least is equal. Dave Makes a lot of sense. But I think it gets very untidy in then determning what is corporate political advertisment and thus what is banned. Is a NGO groups ad on climate change a political message? It certainly has political and electoral consequences.
Interestingly, I think if the speech of massive, for-profit corporations gets curtailed with regard to subjects like climate change, there will be much less need for NGOs to work to counteract it.
Which came first incorporated labour unions or the political and electoral action they took to gain better working conditions? (remember that in the early days of the labor movement probably before they were incorporated, most governments acted against them)...
Is that because the companies the people were trying to get protection from had their way in the government? If the corporate influence had been eliminated, would the government still have acted against the workers?
I can imagine many scenarios where non commercial incorporated groups could be McCarthyized while speaking for progressive changes. These groups get huge benefits (like massive fundraising power, and protection, even anonimity, for their leaders) from incorporating that they could not get as a group of individuals (as the world systems stand) and many of them really are working for progressive changes. It seems to me an impossible task for government to honestly and fairly weed out the few bad apples while offering freedom and progress to all.
Maybe we just need to create some rules differentiating between political and non-political corporations, and enforce those rules with an iron fist. One of them could be that political corporations must be not-for-profit, with mandated caps on compensation for their executives.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9680 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  11:29:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Limit the contribution size of organised groups and unions and such according to the number of members (in case of unions) or employees (in case of corporations) they have.


(edit: this was just a random thought that crossed my mind, which I didn't put much thought into. I just tossed it out for you to pick apart...)

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/03/2011 11:32:27
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  18:23:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
DaveI'd guess once you start allowing some form of potential unequal megaphone, corporations for profit (and everyone else) would find loopholes to exploit it. Like it or not money is the motor of the world and it is more persistent than water in finding a flow path.

Dr. MNot a terrible concept but perhaps with so many of these things not so easy to implement.

And that drives me bug nuttiest of all about this. We the taxpayers have to pay more money to create institutions to try to police the crooks we elected into power who without that would be crooks. Because they just can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar, and there are too many "outside agents" offering very pretty cookies.

I have to ask isn't a better way to remove as many as possible (politicians, political offices, and institutions of state) and limit the corruption by limiting the scope of possible corruption?
Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/03/2011 19:23:25
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13470 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  18:41:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I still like my 100 dollar contribution cap on everyone, including unions and corporations. As I see it, the people who work for or are represented by those bigger groups will still have the freedom to decent from the "group" ideal, by making contributions to whomever they choose.

Of course, to make that work in full, NO MORE GIFTS OR CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS!!! Only the one hundred dollar contribution, like everyone else.

Congress should not be the place to go to get rich. And breaking those laws should be a federal offense with a mandatory fine or jail sentence if found guilty. Similar to insider trading laws that sent Martha Stewart to prison.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2011 :  20:35:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

DaveI'd guess once you start allowing some form of potential unequal megaphone, corporations for profit (and everyone else) would find loopholes to exploit it.
They do that already. The idea is to make it more difficult.
Like it or not money is the motor of the world and it is more persistent than water in finding a flow path.
I'm not so jaded yet that I don't think a solution is possible in which the regulated no longer get to have more influence on the regulations than do the citizens. Hell, it's already illegal for a person to go around to his officemates collecting money to be donated to a political campaign, so why not just criminalize all non-personal donations, and limit the personal ones? It's not a complete solution, just a small start.
I have to ask isn't a better way to remove as many as possible (politicians, political offices, and institutions of state) and limit the corruption by limiting the scope of possible corruption?
Not without massively amending the Constitution. Of course, any solution I put forth would probably require that, too (especially since I'd like to see top-3 voting established in order to give third-party candidates a decent shot at office).

Or, we could just wait for the day that the populace wakes up and decides to vote for good government instead of for the best sound bites. But the day that happens is the day that we probably won't need government very much, too. When the vast majority of individuals choose to put forth the effort to think about and strive towards what's best for all of us, that's when a utopia will arise.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  13:52:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

I can imagine many scenarios where non commercial incorporated groups could be McCarthyized while speaking for progressive changes. These groups get huge benefits (like massive fundraising power, and protection, even anonimity, for their leaders) from incorporating that they could not get as a group of individuals (as the world systems stand) and many of them really are working for progressive changes. It seems to me an impossible task for government to honestly and fairly weed out the few bad apples while offering freedom and progress to all.
A "few" bad apples? Really? You think that billion dollars election budgets are caused by a few bad apples? It is estimated that this 2012 campaign will spend 3 billion on advertising alone.
LINK
Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion
and that was before the supreme court raised the limit to unlimited for corporations this 2012 cycle.

Well! "many of them really are working for progressive changes" and many of them are working to throw us into some very bad places. Like restoring christian prayer in schools to pick a baby one, like The Discovery Institute. The discovery institute has no power to vote but because of their "fundraising power, and protection, even anonimity, for their leaders" They are free to donate tonnes of money, as they are now permitted, that benefits any politician willing to trade MY and YOUR interests for the cash needed to get elected. No one is getting elected without tonnes of cash. Way more than they can get from the voters alone. It's sources like this one and not a "few" but thousands of other sources that BUY their influence with politicians when the throw their bribe money into the foray.

We must eliminate this tsunami of cash that is nothing but a democracy destroying, politician buying wave about to run over the voters. That is about to destroy Amercia's democracy that is supposted to serve the voters that elect them. Influences must be eliminated so that the leaders "we" vote for work for "US" the electorate. These influences have shown to be very effective at serving the corporate need in favor of the voters, in the past. With the $$$ floodgate opened, we're cooked.


Originally posted by Kil

I still like my 100 dollar contribution cap on everyone,

I like that too.
including unions and corporations. As I see it, the people who work for or are represented by those bigger groups will still have the freedom to decent from the "group" ideal, by making contributions to whomever they choose.

I don't agree with the, ",,,including unions and corporations" part.
Corporations are property that are bought and sold like a car. The only difference being the price. Property that is owned by the share holder/s being one person or more. They all have their $100 limit, should they choose to use it. They should not get to exceed their limit through their ownership of property that has been issued a corporate charter or any other property that the law grants applicable. Slaves in the early USA were counted as a 2/3 vote for elections, slaves were property. That voting power was use to further enslave the very people the votes came from. For slave holders how cool was that??? They enjoyed more votes than any non-slave holding citizen based on how much human property they held!

Corporations, unions, even the discovery institute have "people" who support them as corporations and I say those people who support have the same limit and they should not get to give more through any other corporation or groups (etc). Owners of corporations should not have more political influence upon the government that any other non-corporate owning voter because they own a class of property that has political influence gotten through the law. Law are created and this one needs to be changed. Nor should any voters voice be diminished by such influence. About property, your car is property but your car can't submit a $100 campaign contributions today, so why does corporations being property get political speech?

That is so wrong, because it will only serve to throw out of balance the power of wealthy votes have over the poors. Who should not by their financial state have any less valuable of a vote compared to the wealthy. It must be corrected. Look at how much power this problem has redirected before the 2010 supreme court ruling and the direction we have gone.

Maybe that supreme court ruling is a blessing in disguise. If by giving them unlimited limits, the error that they ever got to use their money to by influence will be eliminated. Sooner than later.

By KIl,,
,,,, Similar to insider trading laws that sent Martha Stewart to prison.
Wrong, wrong. M. Stewart did not spend time in jail for insider trading.
It's a fine point but requires noting. It was because she chose to talk to the (cops) investigators, possibly with out an attorney. Although they could never show she was guilty of insider trading, it was because she made conflicting statements to the investigators, during different interviews, over different days. After enough questioning sooner or later there's bound to be a contradiction. She was found guilty of "lying" to investigators. She obviously didn't have her attorney involved because they would have NEVER permitted that to happen. Certainly not if she had this lawyer.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13470 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  14:14:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
SS:
I don't agree with the, ",,,including unions and corporations" part.

Well, given that corporations have already been given the same first amendment rights as individuals with regard to campaign contributions by the Supreme Court, I just see this as a way to level the playing field without running afoul of the courts decision, which was a very bad one. If Exxon (the cough-cough person) wants to contribute, the cap on them will be the same for them as it is for everyone else. One hundred bucks. That could be legislated and still fall within the Supreme Court's incredibly stupid interpretation of the constitution.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  15:00:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Limit the contribution size of organised groups and unions and such according to the number of members (in case of unions) or employees (in case of corporations) they have.


(edit: this was just a random thought that crossed my mind, which I didn't put much thought into. I just tossed it out for you to pick apart...)

Good one but all bad. With your thought DR Mabuse, I'm against them allowing political contributions by any corporation, period. I'm saying they are allowed to only voters up to a universal limit, violators would face jail if convicted. If they want they can try to get their members or employees see why a candidate is better over another but not to outsiders unrelated to a group or company.

Simple as that. Not complicated at all.

American citizen voters should be the only one's to contribute to their politicians. Isn't that what a democracy all about? You give your vote to whom supports you and you'll vote their ass out when you choose. All that extra money only confuses the issues with the booming voices of dollars donated by non-voters, non-players in the game but benefactors by possible manipulation.

Another thing, whether with unions, corporations or organizations there is no way all the members of a group will all vote lock step with their unions or companies. In that case those who choose to vote differently than how their organization desire, will be seeing that money spent to support those they will vote against. Union dues are paid by members can represent them to the company they work for and nothing else. If they did not work for the company they wouldn't be paying them dues. Let the individual workers donate to whom they want politically, up to a universal limit equal for all voters and eliminate unions ability to counter members or workers leanings with their own money. In that example one's money can be sent to candidates they oppose. That's crazy but it's what's happening now. Another reason why it should stop.

I say eliminate corporations ability to make political donations of any kind or they loose their charter, game over, without a slap on the wrist, which we all know is a joke. Loosing their charter for trying to illegally corrupt the process seems about right. Like a corporate death penalty.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  17:42:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What is 300 million (population) times 100? (Kil's dollar limit). If my math is correct the pool still far surpasses anything spent now. My point SS is that yes a few billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.

In the 08 campaign Obama raised more than 650 million for itself, a large portion of the whole election pie, and much of that from small, individual internet contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008#Fundraising

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008
Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/05/2011 17:57:39
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26014 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  19:54:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

What is 300 million (population) times 100? (Kil's dollar limit). If my math is correct the pool still far surpasses anything spent now. My point SS is that yes a few billion dollars is a drop in the bucket.
Sure, 16 million donations of $100 each could have funded the entire 2008 presidential election, but how many people actually donate? 16 million donors would be 12% of 2008's actual voters. And how many people would donate the maximum?

It's not a representative sample, but of the people who I knew voted in 2008, way under 12% donated anything to anyone. Most preferred to just grumble about the way the races were going.

Hey, is the proposed limit $100 per candidate? Rich people and big corporations could still do a hell of a lot more than poor people with that, donating $100 to hundreds or thousands of state and local candidates as well as multiple Federal candidates, along with national, state and local party committee donations. Heck, if the House of Representatives is evenly split, and you like what one party is doing, that's almost $22K in donations right there.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13470 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  20:31:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hey, is the proposed limit $100 per candidate? Rich people and big corporations could still do a hell of a lot more than poor people with that, donating $100 to hundreds or thousands of state and local candidates as well as multiple Federal candidates, along with national, state and local party committee donations. Heck, if the House of Representatives is evenly split, and you like what one party is doing, that's almost $22K in donations right there.
Yeah. The rich could spread more of it around, but there are way more middle class (though the size is shrinking) and even poor people who might kick down something. Also, not all of the rich are Republicans.

I think if the Republicans were told that they could only spend 100 per candidate, initiative or pac, they would squeal like pigs and claim that they're victim's of class warfare, just like they do when it's suggested that there be an increase in taxes on the wealthiest americans. But for some reason, it's not class warfare raising the payroll tax rate on the middle class and poor. (Of course, NOW that people are watching them, they're not going to raise the payroll tax rate because this is an election year. They'll put that one off until next year.)

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2011 :  21:10:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Interesting it seems dems outspend (and thus outraise) rebubs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php

I found this looking for historical data. But whta I would really like to see is much longer period of time and paired with population inflation and GDP.
Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/05/2011 21:13:44
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.97 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000