ISPs Try to Kill UTOPIA For Good Before New Funding Comes → Re: Corporations need to be stripped of "Personhood".

Wow, scary. Do you really believe that you should be told by the government who you can or cant give your money to, or spend your money on, for whatever reason? (and by money, that would also include equivalents, like trades, time, etc... Example: You are not allowed to speak at a fundraiser for X because even though you are doing it for free, it's still a "benefit")

This would effectively stifle free speech. I am ashamed to see Americans support this :-(

I think you're being a bit dramatic for effect. You, as a person, could do a fundraiser for a politician. So could Bill Gates. Microsoft could not. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's not exactly the end of freedom.

And I'm ashamed that our ELECTED Representatives actually believe that corporations have the best interests of the people at heart and continue to take $$$ from them and their lobbyists to champion bills that only do those corporations good and no one else.

Free Speech is for the PEOPLE ... not corporations.

The problem is not elected representatives taking money, it's that the elected representatives are given enough power that it's worth giving them tons of money.

Could my family? What about my soccer team? What about my improv group?
No it's not the end of freedom, it's just another in a long line of erosion by simply having the government control political speech. Which of course means they'll stifle the actions of groups they disagree with, and encourage the actions of those they oppose.

Taking money to sway or otherwise influence the adoption of laws or bills is an unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain. It's called Graft ... and it's a crime ... both to take and to give.

Our present system of lobbyists controlling Congressional influence is Graft run amuck.

You're missing the point. YOU can. People who work for a corporation could. The actual Corporation COULD NOT. That is the difference.

What makes you think politicians believe that?

If I were a politician, my working assumption would be that everyone coming to see me about an issue has some self-interest they want to promote.

In fact I'd be suspicious of anyone claiming to speak for the "best interests of the people".

So, you're fine with the Supreme Court* making new laws from the bench that allow anyone from any country to undermine elections in this country?

* A power that they Constitutionally do not have.

Politicians on both sides of the isle have come out stating how most of their time is spent begging for money from corporate backers.

Since Citizens United back in 2010 this problem has just exploded. Before it there was maximum contribution laws. After they are afraid to even try and complain about it since PACs can be used to throw and unlimited amount of money at them.

You don't think foreign companies and governments haven't thrown their money into these PACs to get results favorable to them?

Move to amend seeks to remove the ability for money to be used in this way and it would again be illegal for it to be done.

"Making new laws from the bench" is what the losing side in an appellate case always says. They would have been perfectly fine with the court "making new laws" if it had been in their favor. The concept of judicial review has been around for a few hundred years and judges have been making case law for a heck of a lot longer than that. Considering the alternatives, I'm more than fine with it, it's the same system I'd implement if it were up to me.