Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bill to Ban Corporate Money in Politics

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Interesting bill from Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL):

    http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3

    Bye Bye First Amendment. When Politicians tell who and what people can contribute we are cooked. Not even the fig leaf of excluding contributions that are not from individuals.....


    This of course was done so the largest contributors (Unions and Trial Lawyers) can fund their favorites....
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Bad enough that Congress is bought, let the presidency be selected by some fairer system. Why should special interests on the left or right be accorded so much control? Make it easy for people to contribute via their tax forms, limit donations to under $100, and let people be able to choose the political party of their choice, and you might see the rise of a true third party.
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    While there's certainly an argument that spending = speech, the idea that this kind of law ends the first amendment is hyperbole.


    Why would trial lawyers be exempt?
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    The Trial Lawyers technically is a not for profit org........
  6. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    What are "The Trial Lawyers"?

    Not even sure what you're talking about anymore. Law firms incorporate.

    If you're claiming that they aren't technically corporations (b/c they're a PC or an LLP, etc.), that goes for a large % of what we consider corporations, which would mean that a large % of corporations also would be exempt.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    The OP specified for profit corps this allows dome corps to contribute to spend $$$. This is not an accident.


    From the OP:



    Note the use of the term for-profit. This means not for profit corps could continue their political activities. as could 527c corps. The author of the bill only wants to restrict political speech from those her perceives as political opponents.



    You reading skills could use a lot of help.


    Here is the page for the Trial Lawyers and another link about their political contributions:

    http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/default.htm

    [/url]http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065[/url]

    Follow the money.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  8. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    LOL... This sounds like the desperate rationalization of a person who knows without a shadow of a doubt that the future of political "balance" for the RW in this country is utterly toast without bribes and gifts.

    Only a con would pervert the first amendment to somehow pretend it means that purchasing power is "freedom of expression."
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  9. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Of all people here, you really shouldn't be telling anyone this.

    Unless a conservative is under investigation. Then pretend the money trail is irrelevant. LOL
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    What is a dome corp?


    :rofl::rofl:That's pretty funny coming from a guy who can barely read or write.

    Especially given that your post didn't really address much of the post it supposedly was a response to and in no way illuminated what your're struggling to say.

    The only real question here is whether your point is unintentionally wrong b/c you have no business knowledge or if it's intentionally wrong b/c you don't like trial attorneys.


    Are you under the impression that only the big bad trial lawyers use 527cs?

    Who are the other not for profit corps you're referring to?

    What is to stop other corporations from using the same tactics / structures "The Trial Lawyers" employ?

    This sounds like yet another issue you simply haven't thought out. Instead you read it on some righty blog and posted it here as fact.
  11. DropKickFlutie

    DropKickFlutie Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Corporations should stop being counted and treated as if they were human beings. Corporations act like psychopaths/sociopaths. If they get the same rights, then stop the tiny slaps on the wrist when they break laws .
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    This will happen. The Supreme Court was wrong on this one. Same as they were wrong on the eminent domain case in New London.

    Just saw Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader agree on this issue on CSPAN2 (yes, I'm a dork) sitting across from each other and pretty much agreeing on neatrly everything except religion and multiculturalism. Both strongly anti-corporatism (as opposed to anti-corporation) and imperialism. Very interesting one-hour, uncut discussion.

    Corporations, like neocons and jesus freaks, have overstepped their cultural limits and will be receiving a well-deserved smack-down from the People. I would take this measure and expand it to include non-profits as well. Unions and other "charities" are no more "people" than a for-profit corporation.
  13. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I have to say, I'm not a fan of this. I'd have to read into the bill to opine specifically, but corporations pay taxes and have a stake in policy, just like a number of other groups, associations, and assorted other entities do. That doesn't mean we can't have controls or regs with respect to campaign money, but outright banning I don't like. This screams of lobbyist = bad, regulations = evil type stuff. Again, I have to look at the bill which I haven't, but an outright ban, on the surface, isn't my thing.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Paying taxes does not make you a person. Foreign governments pay tarrifs and have treaties with us. They also support our military adventures, trade raw materials, and participate in our activities a lot. Many "American" corporations are transnational. Millions of foreigners are heavily invested in those corporations as shareholders and investors. Does that give them the right to have a say in our politics?

    How bout we get a huge amount of the money out of politics and allow only American citizens to contribute to candidates? Why shouldn't the citizens decide how much corporations are taxed? How could that be bad? The Constitution does not grant personhood to corporations, unions, foreign governments nor space aliens. It grants rights to the American People. You can call a dog a cat, but it's still going to be a dog.
  15. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,492
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It seems to me that the expression:

    is pretty clear. The proposed amendment specifically points out that corporations aren't people, but its power to regulate money in elections is complete.

    Elections should test the candidates' ability to lead and innovate, not collect money. I's love to see it added to the Constitution, but it'll never happen in this climate.
  17. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    Bill sounds interesting and seems to be a good "opening point" for discussing this issue and coming up with a solution.

    To those that argue the corps/unions/"Trial Lawyers" are people you are wrong. Those entities are legal in nature, not carbon based. Legal entities have no rights other than the ones that come from setting up their cos. by whatever legal form they choose (LLC etc). They have as much as right to the 1st amendment as my dog does, which is nada.

    A ban on all corp campaign donations probably goes to far, however it is at least a worthy jumping off point for discussion and negotiation.

    Off the top I would support a $100 or $1000 per person, which could either be done while preparing your taxes, or done via personal check but is not tax deductable.

    My only fear would be that corps/unions etc; whether big or small, would find someway to build into their HR policies that any future political donations made by any employee would have to be approved by said corp/union/etc and thus have a way around the limit, whatever it is. If companies can set aside other terms for employment as they currently do, Im sure their bands of corp lawyers could find a way to get a company policy in place regarding campaign donations.

    This is at least a good first step, but to SD's point (which I agree with) I dont see this happening at least while DC is working the way it has been. This form of "American Fascism" - corps and the government in cahoots; one playing the master to the puppet to get elected, then the roles flipping once in office will be a tough nut to crack. Donation limits on a per person basis together with term limits of all pols could get it going in the right direction IMHO.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011
  18. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This is good... and to highlight why, I will use a great analogy of how the freedom of speech is not thrown away.

    I am on a football team. We have 52 players. Each player is allowed to donate, and voice their opinion. This team generates 1,000,000 dollars for the owners, which is a corporation, owned by 10 people who make up the majority of the shares. Each of these 10 people can donate, vote, and voice their opinion. The corporation, which is a legal construct, has no voice, has no vote.

    Where in that scenario are we trampling on someone freedom of speech?

    Also, I would simply like to see a law which says, you are only entitled to represent yourself, and you are only allowed 1 votes as a citizen. That's it... why? Because if you already represent yourself, there is no one left capable to vote/talk/donate/support on behalf of a company. When someone in a company gives money, they are now acting as 2 people, themselves, and this legally created person, and we all would be furious if 1 person had the rights of more than 1 person.

    Ron Paul wants to end Corporatism in this country. Whether you are OWS or Tea Party, it's something you can support. No other candidate even mentions it. Obama said he would change it, instead he doubled down. End the corruption, join the Revolution. ;)
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    As long as the same laws apply to unions, corporations or any other group with business interests, I'd be fine with it.

    This particular bill better apply the laws equally to the above groups or it's just a scam on Americans.
  20. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Corporations should not spend money on wants. That money should be funneled to it's owners and they spend it.

    Same with all groups. No collective should be able to spend money in that manner with Politics.
  21. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    So I guess you and I oppose ANY special interest $$ political contributions...I know I do.
  22. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well you have to define that better.

    If I personally like a union, I can donate to a candidate and say, you better support my union.

    I just don't want the Union donating a boat load of money directly to the candidate.

    If 100,000 people want to give money to a pro union person, good for them and their organizational skills.
  23. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    Unions and 'not for profit' groups like say the trial lawyers are exempted.

    This is the danger of letting politicians decide what political speech is allowed and which is not allowed.

    Corps are no different than unions, as opposed to Unions are composed of Union members, Corporations are composed of shareholders.....
  24. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Which is exactly why I think they all should be banned from donating to campaigns.
  25. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    First of all, comparing a "corporation" to a foreign government, as you're doing here, is apples and oranges. At least to me it is. I'm talking about US businesses and companies. A corporation that "lives" inside our borders, and is subject to the very laws and policies passed by government. Corporations aren't people in a physical sense, but in an operational sense with respect to government, they are in many ways just as affected by policy. I know that's not going to be a popular view in this forum, or even with the broader public, but popular has nothing to do with right and wrong, or reality. Understand though, that my saying this doesn't mean I like corporations or believe that they should be allowed to write blank checks to politicians. I don't. I just think that banning something because it's not popular, or cuz someone doesn't like it, is wrong. The responsibility of moral, and ethical conduct belongs to the elected official.

    If the people decided that a 100% tax rate were justified, and should be imposed on corporations, would that be ok, since it would be "the people" who decided it? What if the people, 47% of which don't currently pay income taxes, eventually decide that incomes above $50,000 should be taxed at 90%? Would that be ok? That's mob rule and we don't have a mob rule system. My point is that the people should elect their officials, and the officials should then, through the structure of our government, pass laws, levy taxes, and insitutute policy. The idea that a company shouldn't be able to donate/contrubute to the people who will pass laws, levy taxes, and institute policy that directly affects them inside the country with which they operate, is wrong imo. Companies and corporations can't vote. That's where they aren't people. They are directly affected by policies passed by politicians, and in that sense should have a voice to some degree. I look at the commercial property taxes we pay out of this office, and how they've gone up anywhere from 10-17% per year, for something like 7 straight years now. Are the companies footing those bills not allowed a say politically? I think they are to a degree.
  26. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    Sorry I don't trust the Politicians to decide who the First Amendment does and does not apply to.

    The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech yet now we rationalize that it protects porn yet political speech can be limited?????

    No Thanks.
  27. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Why do you think trial lawyers are "not for profit"?

    If you're referring to them creating advocacy groups, why can't other corporations simply do the same?
  28. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -3


    Because they are an industry groups that charges it members fees and doesn't bill customers directly in a commercial enterprise.

    Think Chamber of Commerce, AMA and so on.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011
  29. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    right -- you're referring to groups they form, not trial lawyers and law firms themselves.

    So why couldn't other corporations, not just law firms (trial lawyers or other) form the same entities, thereby getting around this proposed bill?
  30. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Freedom of speech is a very pesky thing for the left. What they hate about it the most is everyone gets to practice it, even all those *******s that disagree with them.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011

Share This Page