I disagree with mookie 100%.

First of all, limiting the exercise of free speech from ANY entity in the US in unconstitutional, period. Secondly, allowing corporations to openly donate anything (while STILL having so-called soft money bans in place) will help the public's awareness of who's donating to what.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but right now corporations can donate money just the same - while keeping fairly anonymous, through donating to 501s which were exempt from federal limits. Furthermore, those donations did not need to be made public record, ergo allowing for the money to flow even more freely.

Finally, who's to say that money is the end-all be all of the electoral process? The people who are pissed about this should be pushing more for an informed electorate, rather than assuming that everyone's just a dolt and will do what the next ad will tell them to.

If that's the case, we have far greater problems than who's donating what.

Theres the rub. Corporations should not be considered entities. If they want so bad to have the same rights as people, let them have the same obligations. Personal income tax rates apply, as well as jail time for CEOs if the company breaks the law.

Oh come on, now. I know you're smarter than that.

And then another congressional watchdog commitie will be formed.

Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop

Since when does donating money have anything to do with free speech? It is money, not words. What if this union donates a crap load to contender A but some union employees like contender B?

Hello,
i suppose all those Obama haters will now rejoice and hope things will get back like they were during McCarthy, Nixon, and the Bushs :haha:

Well, not really "funny" :nope:

Right here we have a Mister Roland Koch, being a condemned criminal for corruption and whatnot, certainly bribed by industry, just threw out the intendant of one of Germany's biggest TV stations, because he tolerated party-critic TV spots - certainly about THE party that is closely "related" (money-wise) to the industry.
There are so much scandals here with big business bribing the politicians and parties (right-wing, that is) that the people don't even want to hear about it anymore. I guess Koch's shining example is Mr. Berlusconi from Italy "lol".
Not really funny either :nope::nope:

Greetings,
Catfish

Hope that's not the pot in your U-Boat. :haha:

Don't get me started on the latest FDP crap with their hotel stay taxation cap (after receiving a 1.1 million € donation of a big hotelier). I'm really exited to see their new man for checking the products of pharmaceutical companies too (The current one who always resisted the lobby and made sure that the people only got stuff that worked for the smallest price has been sacked by them today. The official reason is that he used a car illegally on the expense of the taxpayer but he denied that. He made some enemies with the big pharmaceutical companies though.... Why do I have the feeling that the new guy will be so much more pro expensive stuff.:damn:). Well, we voted predator capitalists and we got predator capitalists. Sometimes I think this country is full of idiots.

Dont you find it the least bit curious that this gets turned over when the democrats are fighting for their political life?

It would seem to me that this would make them happy.

Companies still cannot directly contribute money to a candidate so your use of "sponsor" is misleading at best and if a mayor changes zoning laws to favor one company over another he's just setting himself up for a lawsuit.

So you totally ignore the fact that your corporate owned Boston globe can publish partisan propaganda as "news" and get away with it but you object to Joe Liquor store owner being able to send out a flyer asking it's patrons to support the candidate that opposes higher liquor taxes? This type of thing is why the law was thrown out.

Not just ACORN but the New York Times, the Boston Globe and a million other liberal rags. Those media CORPORATIONS get to run political ads under the guise of "news".

Hello,
only that in Germany, those newspapers are mostly owned and influenced (like the right-wing politicians) by industries and big business. And this does NOT change when a "leftist" party is being elected - as soon as this happens those "news" get really disgusting, and are like B$ as their intentions are obvious.
In Australia, they call the newspapers "truth makers" :yep:

Strange that every day happens exactly as much, as fits into a newspaper...

@Schroeder
" ... Sometimes I think this country [Germany] is full of idiots. ..."

Sometimes ? You are an idiot.
no not really :rotfl2:;)

Greetings,
Catfish

Lead by the upper 1% who will F*ck over everyone else.

If you're so against corporations pushing a political agenda, I am failing to see where the disconnect is. They've been given a green light to do so even more.

I've read the the whole thread carefully, and in the end I believe Mookiemookie has hit it on the head, and Skybirds view is accurate, and Aramikes "informed electorate", will be the next crook when he gets to Washington and stuffs his pockets also.

The United States is not a Democracy at all, but a full blown Anarchy, and most always has been. Who will introduce the first bill to change the name of the "United States of America" to a truthful and proper name.....

People already have their say as individuals. Now they get to have their say as individuals AND as part of a corporation. Their voice counts DOUBLE what yours and mine do?

Then you might as well disband the Democratic party, the ACLU, the NAACP, the AARP, Teamsters Union and any other organization that gives their members both an individual and a group say.

And you ignored it before but what's your take on Corporate owned news organizations like MSNBC? What makes them worthy of exemption from your corporate politicking ban?

What precisely is this "counts double" that you mentioned.

The only count that .. well.. counts is the election and there is still one vote per person. No one is saying that corporations will be getting a vote.

Can you identify the logical fallacy in the above? Because I'm sure August can't!!!

Corporations are nothing more than a group of individuals who collectively conduct business together. Ergo, personal income tax rates DO apply. As do capital gains taxes.

Furthermore, you're missing a very important point - neither I, nor anyone else, is actually supporting corporations having the same rights as a private citizen. That, my friend, would mean something else entirely - the right to actually vote.

Moving on, let me ask you this: would you support the same restrictions being applied to unions? Do you support restricting the publication of books during election seasons? How about censoring the corporate-owned editorial boards of newspapers from endorsing candidates?

Frankly, I think the idea that allowing the exercise of free speech to be EXTENDED to corporations during electoral season is anti-Constitution. The Constitution exists solely to restrict government, and it is quite clear regarding free speech. Hence, corporations needn't have rights extended to them - they should already have those rights.

As an aside, I find this constant demonization of corporations from the left to be ironic and trite - ironic considering that, during this season of the healthcare debate corporations are the primary providers of insurance to workers; and trite considering the hypocrisy involved with ignoring the unions who are somehow allowed a pass on the restrictions so sought after for corporations (although one of them, I believe the SEIU, donated $60 MILLION to Obama).

Finally, need I remind you that our electoral process was chugging along just fine PRIOR to McCain/Feingold? Sure, soft money WAS a problem, but as it affected both parties equally, it really just cancelled itself out. Besides, soft money is still banned (which I agree with).Wait, you're going to take ONE sentence out of a paragraph supporting it, and claim that somehow it defaults itself?

There was a point there, and I clarified it in the following sentences. Either you just missed it or you're intentionally attempting to discredit the idea out of context.

Shame. ;)

If I understood it correctly then he fears that the companies will simply buy the elected guys and get their will this way, regardless who was voted.