EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to Steve B
Re: Lobbying Needs to Be Outlawed....
said by Steve B  :Throwing money at a congress person or senator to 'buy' their vote needs to be outlawed, plain and simple. Why shouldn't companies be allowed to present their positions to elected representatives? |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by EPS :said by Steve B :Throwing money at a congress person or senator to 'buy' their vote needs to be outlawed, plain and simple. Why shouldn't companies be allowed to present their positions to elected representatives? are you saying "present" = $$
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| 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. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to EPS
said by EPS :said by Steve B :Throwing money at a congress person or senator to 'buy' their vote needs to be outlawed, plain and simple. Why shouldn't companies be allowed to present their positions to elected representatives? Because companies don't vote in the election of the representatives. Those "elected" representatives are supposed to represent the electorate; common voters such as you and I.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | 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 |
|
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM | 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. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | A corporation is simply a legal fiction created by, owned by, and maintained by... you guessed it, People. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by EPS :A corporation is simply a legal fiction created by, owned by, and maintained by... you guessed it, People. However, not all people... As well, the corporations I may have invested my money in certainly don't always take the same stance on certain issues that I do.
Corporations are not legal citizens, either, and can not be held accountable the same way that an ordinary citizen who votes can, so their voice should not be allow to be heard via bribes lobbying.
When the legal person that is the corporation can be drafted for war, arrested and imprisoned, and held to the same legal and ethical standards of every corporeal person, then maybe they should be allowed to influence politics.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| 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... |
|
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| 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? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to EPS
said by EPS :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? <sarcasm>Then we should give the right to vote to corporations, don't you think?</sarcasm>
Seriously, a corporation is not a person, regardless of fictional attributes of personhood. Putting a corporation on the same level as I am on is outrageous.
Might as well scrap the Constitution, and give over the government to the corporate interests.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| 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. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by EPS :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. Only up to 5% of their Adjusted Gross Incomes.
Maybe the board will up their compensation a bit to make up for it.
Maybe; but I suspect that it would take more than "a bit" to matter. And wouldn't the strings attached to the added compensation be a wonderful sound bite for the news folks!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
