U.S. Presidential Debates & Election

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

501c4's don't have to disclose the sources of their donors. What's to stop a foreign corporation from funding one in order to influence an election? What's to stop a foreign company from opening an American subsidiary and donating money to a candidate? Apparently nothing since Credit Suisse has given Romney over $600,000. Barclays over $400,000. UBS $400,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/co...p?id=N00000286

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.


If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks.

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

What's to stop them? The law.

What's to stop me from committing any crime? No law can prevent anyone from deliberately committing a crime. It can only provide a venue of punishment and redress.


If you read the fine print, this website tells how entities get on the list.

1. They gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization (This is not illegal. There is a difference between donating to a PAC and to the candidate directly.)

or

2. individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Again, nothing illegal as long as the individuals are US citizens. There is a difference between tallying up individual donations and sorting them by employer and the amount the employer donates. This is one of the tricks these "monitoring" organizations do.

Consider this: If somehow it could be determined that members of the military donated megabucks to a candidate, does that mean that the DoD donated megabucks to the candidate? Of course not.

Donations from a corporation to a PAC need to be counted separately than donations from individual employees of that corporation. Like counting coconuts and cinder blocks.

To lump them together, gives an inaccurate picture.

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Brings up one of my pet ideas - no more corporate/PAC campaign financing. Make it so only individuals can contribute to a political campaign. Of course there's a snowball's chance of it ever happening, but I think it would ease my mind, at least, that only U.S. citizens are the ones influencing elections.

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I got your back on this one Mookie - if you can't go in and pull a lever (does anyone actually DO that anymore?) - then you should not be able to give to a campaign.

With that said - that would mean corporations - and unions - would both be out in the cold. Just think - so many lobbyists out of work because they couldn't bring money to the table....

Of course - there should also be a $1000 personal contribution limit in my view as well - so one side or the other doesn't "buy" the election. But that would "infringe free speech" according to the courts...

My company had hired a lobbyist to get an esoteric part of some financial regulation changed. I actually agreed with what we wanted to see changed, as it would have benefited small business as well as the financial markets.

We were told by upper management, in their plea for donations to the PAC we set up, that to get a Congressperson's ear you have to either take them out to an expensive (talking $1000's of dollars expensive) dinner or donate to their campaign directly. Otherwise you get a staffer who may or may not relay your request to the Congressperson.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Platapus]

First amendment of the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People have the right to form associations


Corporations are associations formed by people


If people have the right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress, why would not an association of people not have that the same right?



Well it happens to be the law and it has nothing to do with Citizens United.



Title 1 United States Code (1947,1948,1951)

n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—



words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

....


the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

So the cogent question is not why would corporations (associations of people) not be allowed equal freedoms, but under what auspice can the government infringe on this?

People often banter about the phrase "corporations are not people" Of course corporations are people. They are formed as associations of people. I have never seen a corporation do something by itself.

[Buddahaid]

That still boils down to money equals free speech so put your money where your mouth is rules.

[vienna]

People often banter about the phrase "corporations are not people" Of course corporations are people. They are formed as associations of people. I have never seen a corporation do something by itself.

At least not until the corporation is caught doing something illegal or unethical. Suddenly, all of the people in the leadership of the "association" disavow any culpability for the their actions and want any blame and punishment or liability laid on the mythical entity known as the "corpoartion". It sort of like "I've imagined there is a dragon and I control it, but, if it trashes your kingdon, take it up with the dragon, It's not our fault". And, so, they happliy skip out the door and fly away on their golden parachutes...


<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

At least not until the corporation is caught doing something illegal or unethical. Suddenly, all of the people in the leadership of the "association" disavow any culpability for the their actions and want any blame and punishment or liability laid on the mythical entity known as the "corpoartion". It sort of like "I've imagined there is a dragon and I control it, but, if it trashes your kingdon, take it up with the dragon, It's not our fault". And, so, the happliy skip out the door and fly away on their golden parachutes...


<O>

You mean like the Obama administrations response to the Libya attack and Operation Fast and Furious? They seem as adept at dodging responsibility as any corporation exec.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I have never seen a corporation do something by itself.

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'll believe corporations are people when one goes to jail and Texas executes it.

To argue a corporation is a person is ridiculous on its face. A corporation is not flesh and blood. It has no citizenship. Why would you grant a corporation say over the political process of a country when it owes absolutely no loyalty to one? A corporation can move it's home office to any country it desires and that decision is based on pure profit and economic motives, not any sense of patriotism or duty to a country.

A corporation is an association of people enacted to reduce liability and facilitate economic activity. It is not a person. It has the economic rights of an individual - can own land, enter into contracts, conduct trade, etc - but where I take issue is that just because we've assigned corporations the economic rights of an individual, that doesn't mean that we need to assign it political rights as well. You ask why an association of people shouldn't have a say in the political process but that's a red herring - it ignores the fact that a corporation is an association of people acting to an economic end, not a political one. No one starts a company in order to engage in the democratic process, they start one in order to make money. You're conflating the two aspects when they should remain separate. There are already avenues for people to associate together in order to influence the democratic process - PACs, for one. Why do we need to grant corporations more rights that don't pertain to their core purpose?

To say that a corporation is an association of people and it should be granted rights is to ignore what a corporation actually is. Does the mail clerk at Goldman Sachs have a say in corporate policy? So why should we grant Goldman political rights when in actuality the actions of a corporation are decided by a very small group of people at the top of the organization? That's granting those people a lot of power, and it's not granting that same power to those lower on the totem pole.

The same could be said of unions - they are not created to engage in politics - they are created to protect their workers. They are not run by the workers - but by a select few "union bosses" who steer the direction fo the union as they see fit.