Sources: Lamar Smith, Harry Reid, NPR [$1 lobbyist = $222 tax breaks]
quote: This bribery must be recognized and must be put to an end. It is anti-innovation. It is anti-freedom. It is anti-American.
quote: Now I know I've been talking to a radical.
quote: Anyone who seriously talks about breaking the First Amendment
quote: seriously discusses banning corporations
quote: In what warped mind of yours do you figure we can "eliminate" corporations and still have a viable economy capable of serving our 330+ million citizens? Are you insane.
quote: If you have to do something THAT radical to get around Citizens United, how can you possibly convince yourself the ruling was so wrong?
quote: First off, I was merely telling a previous poster about the two ways the law could be changed. How does that make me a radical?
quote: I already know that you don't agree with either option, but that doesn't give you the right to assume that I am advocating either when all I said was that both were options.
quote: I am not advocating a sharp turn from capitalism or a citizen's freedom of expression. All I am offering is minor tunings to the current structure to make it more in tune with the sentiment of some of the other posters.
quote: I bet you are still outraged by the Twenty-First Amendment "breaking" the Eighteen Amendment.
quote: Banning corporations assumes that people have a right to form corporations. They do not.
quote: Corporations are like driving, people don't have a right to get into a car and drive, neither do people with regard to corporations.
quote: The ruling is wrong because corporations are not equivalent to people.
quote: Corporations on the other hand, are faceless entities that allow a small group of individuals to use laws, unequal in application, to amplify their speech in a manner that is often contrary to the will of the individuals subsidizing that message. Now you tell me, which sounds more Constitutional and democratic?
quote: Well I owe you an apology. It read as if you were being quite literal and not hypothetical. Regardless, I crossed a line and I'm sorry.
quote: We have to remember we live in a WORLD economy. If corporations were banned in America, how many companies would chose to pack up and move operations oversees? And think what that would do to our country and economy. I can't even begin to predict all the far ranging consequences such a thing would cause.
quote: Legally, you're wrong. Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons. I'm highly simplifying things by using this statement, of course. But "corporate person-hood" was decided back in the 1800's.
quote: Excuse me but, for the most part, EVERYONE has the right to earn the privilege to drive. People do have the right to get into a car and drive, provided they have met the legal terms involved in doing so. Getting a license, having insurance etc etc.The ACT of driving might not be a right, but the EARNING of the privilege certainly is.
quote: I would like you to quantify the statement that there is no "right" to form a corporation. Because, to me, this is an anti-American statement. We have the right to voluntary association, that much is certain. I can't find a single Supreme Court ruling, or legal document for that matter, that validates your assertion. Not ONE. Can you provide something tangible so that I may further understand your position?
quote: Again, legally they are. Corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this concept. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. Corporate person-hood is why you can sue a corporation for damages or harm, by the way. Or do you like the idea of a CEO or group of shareholders being personally sued for every action of a person or persons in the corp? Or other legal pitfalls.
quote: I'm actually confused about which you would rather do. Banning corporations en' total, or overturning the legal interpretation of "corporate person-hood"?
quote: It's time people stop party blinders! Wake up and vote for someone who values integrity! (if you can find one)
quote: Maybe it's time we amend the constitution with a "Separation of Corporation and State".Should the government ever tell a corporation which person to elect as a CEO and run the company? No! Should a corporation tell our government (through bribery or direct!) which laws to enact and bind all people and other corporations by? Never! They do not stand for us, WE stand for us.
quote: Look @ who is currently in the lead in the presidential race -- Obama and Romney.
quote: But are the small donors protecting him from "evil big business" even real? Or are they just one lobbyist donating multiple times?
quote: More likely the banks realize they're unpopular and playing along to boost someone who's proven to be on their side.
quote: At least we know the RIAA/MPAA won't be giving their $$ to Obama because on this issue he actually DID side against them.
quote: Romney already had a head start over all the other candidates because he ran in 2008 and was able to keep all of the campaign money. He had a 3yr old war chest before most other candidates even considered running.
quote: Most of the time, one person will hold a fundraiser for a candidate and will require a maximum allowable donation for the candidate and a voluntary donation for the candidate's PAC or the National Party Committee of the candidate. This person, known as a "bundler" will gather all the donations, tie it to the guest list and donate it as one big lump sum to the candidate. So, yes, the donors are almost assuredly real, but most of them are not common people, but instead are the wealthier portion of society that has plenty of money to give the PAC, National Committee, and candidate.
quote: What's Romney supposed to do? Apparently it takes $900,000,000,000 to run a campaign in this day and age that has a chance of winning, and if that's what he has to do to turn this disaster around, then so be it.
quote: Perhaps you're right. Maybe Romney is only moderately corrupt and not super duper corrupt so he will be unable to beat Obama... there's lots of ways you could look @ it philosophically.
quote: he gulf between CEO and their workforce is untenable.
quote: Greed is the motivation of CEO's these days (sweeping blanket statement)
quote: Did you not even BOTHER to read the link I put?That Open Secrets page listed the campaign contributions for THIS year alone, by quarter -- Romney was wildly ahead.
quote: Again you didn't read carefully. I was specifically referring to small $200 or less contributions.
quote: So we're exclusively blaming "the corporations" for everything that's ever gone wrong with our Government and society at large? How convenient. You're taking the Obama rhetoric and cranking it up to 11, I see. You realize you're dictating that we make corporations and employees second class citizens, right?Not that I'm against your idea exactly, but if it's gotten to the point that we have to cut our Constitution in half and split the country up between "us" and the "corporations", just because our elected officials have no integrity, I'm wondering what's the point? Might as well give up if things are that bad.You're trying to make a radical idea, that would effect virtually thousands of laws and statutes and require millions more pages of legislation, sound so simple and neat. Simply making an Amendment (and I would like to see how these same people would possibly PASS such a thing) can't be all there is to it. I would like to know the real meat and potatoes of how we legislate this. Not to mention actually enforce it. It doesn't stop under the table bribery, which is what would probably just happen anyway.
quote: you're dictating that we make corporations...second class citizens, right?
quote: What we do in life... echoes in eternity.
quote: but if it's gotten to the point that we have to cut our Constitution in half and split the country up between "us" and the "corporations"
quote: Just seems like it would lead to a lot of prejudicial situations. Let's say I'm rich because my parents left me a huge inheritance and I want to give a candidate or Congressman $10 million dollars for something, whatever. I'm not affiliated with a corporation in any way. So legally I could do that, but a Corporation couldn't? And what's to stop a Corporation from hiding a money trail and doing the same thing though a third party?
quote: It just seems like a HUGE mess to me. A them vs. us mentality.
quote: Not to mention you guys are REALLY cranking up the class warfare, which grates me for some reason because it's intellectually dishonest. Money is NOT the root of all our evils.
quote: It seems you're essentially admitting that corporations purchasing favors is bad, but you're saying it's too hard to stop.
quote: When you let them commit to mass bribery, you've essentially put a "For Sale" sign on the White House lawn.
quote: Let's say I'm rich because my parents left me a huge inheritance and I want to give a candidate or Congressman $10 million dollars for something, whatever. I'm not affiliated with a corporation in any way. So legally I could do that, but a Corporation couldn't?
quote: And what's to stop a Corporation from hiding a money trail and doing the same thing though a third party?
quote: The ruling that made corporations people for legal purposes changed things.
quote: The right of citizens to tell the government what to do has been destroyed
quote: And all of you seem to be REALLY confused about this ruling. The ruling did not disturb the ban on corporations donating directly to candidates. That hasn't been changed. You people, and the rabid Left in general, act as if this ruling opened up some kind of floodgate of corruption and bribery. Which is absurd and not accurate at all.
quote: The ruling upheld the First Amendment. It didn't make them "people". And you know what, the ruling was correct. We don't just follow the Constitution when it's convenient or when there's no consequences. Barring corporations from political speech was wrong and illegal, plain and simple. Do you realize that's the MOST basic First Amendment principle? That the government has no business regulating political speech.
quote: But I suppose you know more about the Constitution than 5 Supreme Court justices?
quote: Maybe it's time we amend the constitution with a "Separation of Corporation and State".
quote: I've seen several articles using the term "populist; where I believe a better word would be "popular". Is it a conscious choice?
quote: I agree that populist can have the meaning you imply, but it does have some negative connotations, especially for a European such as me (demagoguery & anti-intellectual). But if you stand by it and by your post I can see you do, then you're certainly right.
quote: It's ironic... Adam Smith said the government should stay out of business... but what he failed to predict was the dangers of the reverse occurring... big business financially fondling for favors the government.