Comcast Appeals FCC Throttling Ruling > Lobbying Needs to Be Outlawed....

Lobbying Needs to Be Outlawed....

Ain't going to happen. You could expect EVERY lobbyist in the country to lobby against it.

reply to Steve B

I was just making a comment about lobbying in general since the article mentioned it. That's all.

reply to Steve B

Well if a company feels that a candidate or politican's positions will further its interests, why shouldn't said company be permitted to donate funds to aid in that candidate's campaign?

Of course, if you outlawed corporations from making said contributions you would just have the CEOs / directors / etc. making the donations instead, which is their Supreme Court-granted right under the Constitution.

reply to EPS

reply to EPS
My idea of campaign finance reform: Only registered voters can contribute, and only up to 5% of their Adjusted Gross Income on their 1040 forms.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

reply to EPS
Because corporations don't vote so what should they have an inside track to what the populace wants???

Remember, it's: We the People........

Well it used to be.

A corporation is simply a legal fiction created by, owned by, and maintained by... you guessed it, People.

reply to Steve B
Yes, I agree, vote obama then.

Don't be fooled by the hot librarian looking VP, compare the policy differences for yourself and do your own fact checking.

reply to EPS
Corporations don't represent the People, only the Investors. They should not be given the powers of the People; unless you want to hold the CEOs of corporations criminally, and civilly responsible for the actions of the corporations.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

In some cases CEOs can be held responsible for corporate activities.

The Supreme Court has ruled that giving money to candidates is a form of speech that is protected under the Constitution. Are you saying that corporations should be denied the rights of free speech? That sets a dangerous precedent for censorship... "I'm sorry, this newspaper is owned by the New York Times Company, so it's not covered by the right of free press, we're shutting it down" Am I now taking the argument to ridiculous levels? Of course...

Ah, but did the company WRITE that paper? No, it didn't. People did. Legal citizens whose rights are 'guaranteed'. Therefore, the newspaper IS a form of speech, as it was the people themselves who wrote it.

However, a corporation giving bribes to their favorite candidate is NOT an act of people, it is the act of an entity which cannot vote, and yet is given the same rights as any legal citizen (barring said ability to vote, of course). Why should they be able to vote with money?

reply to EPS

reply to lordofwhee
A corporation is a group of people pooling their resources for the common interests, nothing more. Of course a corporation wouldn't have the right to vote, because each member of the group of people whose resources are being pooled already has the right to vote as an individual, and you could get extra votes just by starting up shell companies, so obviously a bad idea there.

If you say that the "corporation" can not donate money to favored candidates, then instead people involved with the corporation will donate money to the same candidates for the same interests. Maybe the board will up their compensation a bit to make up for it.