ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Other than child porn what can one find that isn't on the internet?
Reading comprehension, 13
(Hint: it was a yes or no question.)
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
Why restrict this to "for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes"?
People seem to think that the idea of a "corporation is a person" is some recent development that resulted from a dastardly conspiracy led by Richard Mellon Scaife (the previous right-wing bogeyman), the Koch Brothers (the latest and greatest right-wing bogeyman) or Colonel Sanders (the capo famiglia of the Pentaverate). In actuality, it originates from Supreme Court rulings in the 19th century the point of which were to ensure enforceability of contracts where one party is a chartered company.
If we can find another mechanism to provide this same protection the the concept of corporate personhood can be dumped into the "ashbin of history".
Why restrict this to "for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes"?
People seem to think that the idea of a "corporation is a person" is some recent development that resulted from a dastardly conspiracy led by Richard Mellon Scaife (the previous right-wing bogeyman), the Koch Brothers (the latest and greatest right-wing bogeyman) or Colonel Sanders (the capo famiglia of the Pentaverate). In actuality, it originates from Supreme Court rulings in the 19th century the point of which were to ensure enforceability of contracts where one party is a chartered company.
If we can find another mechanism to provide this same protection the the concept of corporate personhood can be dumped into the "ashbin of history".
1. The "or other" clause seems pretty inclusive to me, but I'd just as soon make everybody happy and restrict all campaigning to publicly donated air time, on the public dime. To hell with making it permissive where you have to rule out specific ways you campaign. Make it restrictive and dictate how you are allowed to campaign. Obviously permissive did not work.
2.a., yes, Corporate "personhood" is one of those things that make first year law students chuckle until they realize it's considered very first year to chuckle at such things.
2.b. However, the legal fiction developed for purposes of enforcing contracts has recently been extended to include claims that corporate money is how such "persons" "speak," and has gone way beyond that relatively harmless joke.
We have two choices: either define and reign in the range of this "personhood" or simply await the day when Corporations insist on the right to vote, based either on the number of employees they pay, or more likely, the amount of money they make.
At that point redistricting will be done with a stack of annual reports and the House of Representatives will be divided directly among Microsoft, Apple, Dupont, and the like. After all, the people -- you know, flesh-and-blood people -- and political parties just get in the way, mixing up all sorts of other things in the business of Corporate America.
1. The "or other" clause seems pretty inclusive to me,
Inclusive of businesses only.
Quote:
established for business purposes or to promote business interests
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
but I'd just as soon make everybody happy and restrict all campaigning to publicly donated air time, on the public dime. To hell with making it permissive where you have to rule out specific ways you campaign. Make it restrictive and dictate how you are allowed to campaign. Obviously permissive did not work.
For all the whining the media does about money in politics, you don't hear them offering this option and they seem happy to take everyone's money. Maybe they don't have mirrors in the bathrooms at CNN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
2.b. However, the legal fiction developed for purposes of enforcing contracts has recently been extended to include claims that corporate money is how such "persons" "speak," and has gone way beyond that relatively harmless joke.
Which is why it is important to find an alternative mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
We have two choices: either define and reign in the range of this "personhood" or simply await the day when Corporations insist on the right to vote, based either on the number of employees they pay, or more likely, the amount of money they make.
Or get rid of the idea and provide a legal mechanism for the enforceability of contracts involving non-persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
At that point redistricting will be done with a stack of annual reports and the House of Representatives will be divided directly among Microsoft, Apple, Dupont, and the like. After all, the people -- you know, flesh-and-blood people -- and political parties just get in the way, mixing up all sorts of other things in the business of Corporate America.
For all the whining the media does about money in politics, you don't hear them offering this option and they seem happy to take everyone's money. Maybe they don't have mirrors in the bathrooms at CNN....Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets
True all that.
Your table shows out of 25, 13 are private business interests and 12 are unions If I counted right. Shows how the funding scam is pretty even on both sides. We can quibble about the total amounts of money, etc, but the picture is pretty clear that any banning of campaign contributions has to include both corporate and union interests.
There's no reason why we can't come up with a separate mechanism for legal redress for corporations. Maybe three: One for Corporations vs. corporations and another for individuals vs. corporations, and a third for individuals vs. individuals. There are different court systems already for divorce, housing, patents, etc. Why the hell not?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
True all that.
Your table shows out of 25, 13 are private business interests and 12 are unions If I counted right. Shows how the funding scam is pretty even on both sides. We can quibble about the total amounts of money, etc, but the picture is pretty clear that any banning of campaign contributions has to include both corporate and union interests.
There's no reason why we can't come up with a separate mechanism for legal redress for corporations. Maybe three: One for Corporations vs. corporations and another for individuals vs. corporations, and a third for individuals vs. individuals. There are different court systems already for divorce, housing, patents, etc. Why the hell not?
Unions would fall under the rubric of a "business interest." They have their officers and their paid salaries. But if not, I'd support clarifying language in this specific mechanism so that it was clear that no organized fundraising is permissible, and over in the FEC world, would back very low single person contributions.
By the way I'd wager that when you're looking at a "top donors list" from 89-05, you'll probably drop more corporate donors from the list, because the largest unions are by and large continuous entitities from 89 onward. Koch industries (for example) weighs in so low on the list because of the time window used, is my guess. Corporations and PACs change identity as often as suits their business needs, hanging out a new shingle to fleece us through the bankruptcy laws they use to shed their obligations -- or just for the sake of the aesthetics. How often have you seen an ad saying "The National Mineworkers Union is now MineProle, to serve you better!"?
But all this is why I'm just plain tired of trying to regulate in a permissive environment when it comes to money in politics.
It should be a specifically restrictive environment.
You should have to get out your volunteers, ciculate a petition, prove you're ballot-worthy, and when you're proven ballot-worthy, you should have to take the same amount of public air time as every other ballot-worthy candidate, week by week. Zero paid political ads.
And while we're at it, stop with dark music, dark photo retouching extravaganzas. A candidate and a powerpoint for 15 minutes a week. No motion graphics, no capturing the feed directly to the powerpoint: you show the camera seeing a slide-show.
I mean, I personally have no desire for the charty graphy world to take over, but Perot could do it with big posters of charts.
Really, they should be able to speak their piece for the week and move on.
What it's become is a circus with so little to do with the issues it's horrifying that we think it's "democracy." It's an entertainment format more than anything.
I'll add one note: I actually like the pubbie debates, because for the most part, they are just saying their wrong opinions.
I don't like that their wrong opinions will be packaged in terrifying 30-second spots and plastered all over the TV all next year including football season. Gag.
So that's my perfect world as regards this process. A lot of central planning, I know. But christ, look at the alternative.
As you'd expect, the current donors list is much much lighter on Union involvement (none in the top 9 donors) -- using the 2012 campaign as the window:
The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.
Interesting how the "all time donor" search is the easiest one to find out there in the google echo chamber, right? The guts of where the big giving is is here.
This isn't partisan. They're fairly even in terms of their effect, because businesses have to buy both sides' affection at least to some extent.
But the reality is that money is coming from business, not unions, predominantly.
21Likes
Re: Bill to Ban Corporate Money in Politics
Linear Mode
