Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bill to Ban Corporate Money in Politics

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

  1. IcyPatriot

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

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,329
    Likes Received:
    497
    Ratings:
    +1,142 / 13 / -27

    #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:
    24,916
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    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:
    18,180
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +290 / 11 / -10

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,174
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +274 / 3 / -3

    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:
    24,916
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


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

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,174
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +274 / 3 / -3

    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:
    24,916
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12


    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:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -1

    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:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -1

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,174
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +274 / 3 / -3

    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 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,197
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +572 / 6 / -2

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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 ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,329
    Likes Received:
    497
    Ratings:
    +1,142 / 13 / -27

    #87 Jersey

  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    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 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +132 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    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 In the Starting Line-Up

    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 Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    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 In the Starting Line-Up

    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.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>