quote: My point here is that the power is with the wrong people... the lawyers, the corporation's lobbyists, and the board of directors. The action should be on the people, the employees. It should be independent of corporate money and influence, which may or may not be form a domestic source.
quote: Yes, decrease the size and power of government, but you can also reduce/eliminate corporate lobbying. They are not mutually exclusive. I'd be happy to see both happen simultaneously.
quote: It really isn't. There is an army of full time, well funded lobbyists whispering in the ears of every politician they can find. Who is representing the people? Not the lobbyists and not the politicians once they've accepted all of their contributions.
quote: A limit on political contributions is merely a limit on legalized bribery - unless you think bribery is a legitimate form of free speech (and unfortunately it seems the Supreme Court ruled it as such).
quote: People/corporations are free to spend their money on propaganda ladled TV, radio, and newspapers. If they can convince the people to fight for their cause, then good for them. That should be the extent of free speech that money can buy.
quote: So by limiting contributions maybe some people lose their "freedom" to individually dictate government policy
quote: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that they should limit to $100, I mean they when you give a political donation, you get a tax credit on your income tax for that year.
quote: The power to lobby on a corporation's behalf lies squarely where it should - in the hands of the shareholders.
quote: If you reduce the size/power of the government, it makes corporate lobbying irrelevant.
quote: How is that any different than giving the money to a campaign or a PAC?
quote: No individual is dictating government policy! Come on now.
quote: I reject the premise that campaign contributions are bribery