Talk-Polywell.org

Maine has become the 13th state wanting to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. Vote was 111-33 house 25-9 senate.

Citizens United

They join Montana, Colorado, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maryland and New Mexico.

Stubby wrote:Maine has become the 13th state wanting to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. Vote was 111-33 house 25-9 senate.

Citizens United

They join Montana, Colorado, West Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maryland and New Mexico.

About 21 more to go.

I don't see why corps shouldn't have a say in how they are governed.

In any case you can't fix the problem with laws. What needs to be done is a severe shrinkage of government.

And more people parroting the leftist lies about that case.

The law under consideration restricted some corporate entities from speaking on behalf of their members while exempting the corporate entities known as unions. The court found that a double standard and struck down the law.

A corporation is a collective of shareholders, and derives its rights, including the rights to speak and own property, from the persons who comprise it.

The specific corporation in the case was 3 people, and was formed for the purpose of presenting politically relevant speech.

I did know about the union angle. The rest is currently unfamiliar. I still think corps should have a voice.

I still say that a corporate entity is not a person until texas frys one in the electric chair.

hanelyp wrote:And more people parroting the leftist lies about that case.

The law under consideration restricted some corporate entities from speaking on behalf of their members while exempting the corporate entities known as unions. The court found that a double standard and struck down the law.

A corporation is a collective of shareholders, and derives its rights, including the rights to speak and own property, from the persons who comprise it.

Are you proposing we give corporations the right to vote as well?

The specific corporation in the case was 3 people, and was formed for the purpose of presenting politically relevant speech.

Actually there are several variations of the proposed BILL

Please notice your concern is addressed by H.R. Res. 88, a bipartisan resolution.

I'm not aware of anyone proposing that corporations should have the vote. I and many others are suggesting that corporations should have the freedom to do what any other assembly of people may do as a collective action.

Corporate personhood is a bit of a legal fiction that facilitates the corporation exercising the collective rights of shareholders. Note that there is legal resident status for real persons who are not citizens with voting rights. These not citizen persons are still permitted to own property and receive most constitutional protections.

There is a death penalty of sorts for corporations, Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation to pay back persons wronged.

I'd rather corporations exercise speech in the open and in their own name rather than in back room deals or through shadowy shell group lobbying groups.

hanelyp wrote:
I'd rather corporations exercise speech in the open and in their own name rather than in back room deals or through shadowy shell group lobbying groups.

That would be a nice step forward.

Perhaps the best way to reduce the power of money over elections is to allow the voters to vote in opposition to candidates also. Money buys votes. Currently, it can only buy votes in favor because that is the only option. We need Full Option Voting so that the money might buy more “opposed” votes than “in favor”. If this were to happen, then spending money would no longer be such a sure thing.

KitemanSA wrote:Perhaps the best way to reduce the power of money

Publicly funded elections. Take the big money out of the process, no Union PACS, no Corporate PACS, no Issue PACS.

Roger wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Perhaps the best way to reduce the power of money

Publicly funded elections. Take the big money out of the process, no Union PACS, no Corporate PACS, no Issue PACS.

No choice.

I hope it gathers no steam at all. In fact, I think it's actually not; this comforts me.

I can only have contempt for the idiots and fools who think that we can do better than free speech--free by the actual definition of the concept, free from government interference. That's a "hell no" to Roger, in particular. Get back under your rock with Rousseau.

There is no spending by individuals alone or in concert, which cannot buy a vote which is not for sale. If they are for sale, the transaction will take place, law or no. I would prefer it be done publicly and with open debate.

It is not possible to restrict the speech of "corporations" without restricting the speech of individuals. I cannot conceive of why this is not obvious to all. Corporations do not in fact exist, individuals do, individuals are all that exist to in fact be restricted.

And no, elections should never be "publicly funded". The public doesn't exist, only individuals do.

Filtering (or worse, removing) the feedback of candidates getting money solely on the basis of the support they receive from their supporters means the world of politicians becomes ever more hermetic and separated from reality--less able to self correct The idiocy of Keynesianism is already proving abjectly refractory to reality--which is that it has never worked yet, except to produce debt, paralysis in decline, and ennui. We see it suit too many "inside Washington" agendas, it may not be discarded except also with any hope of returning to what was best in 1775 and 1787.

This thread itself is about discarding the 1st amendment. Among some other circles populated by lefty idiots who think we can do better than liberty, the 1st and 2nd should be put into the grave. I can almost believe MSimon thinks the chief thing wrong with the derogation of the 4th and 5th amendments is the nexus those slights have to drug policy--it is among the least of them.

If there has been any actual progress in the science of political economy since 1775, it has solely been the object lesson 1933 through 1945 provides to us. It is as Locke and other have mentioned, not possible for the social contract to mandate acts or tolerance for acts which are repugnant to the conscience, "just following order" excuses nothing.

We have so much money in elections because we have so much up for sale. The best way to reduce money in politics is to reduce the arbitrary government power up for sale.

Every word HanelyP said is true, however.

It is entirely contrary to the goals of both the most and least traditional progressives to secularly reduce the scope of government.

Neither the Rogers nor the Diogeneses will be happy unless they have a government with which they can hope to cajol, patrol, and control the public, whatever end their ideologies intend.

Liberty terrifies them. Having a "night watchman" state is something they cannot comprehend.

Publicly funded elections. Take the big money out of the process, no Union PACS, no Corporate PACS, no Issue PACS.

What Roger said.

This American Life did a good story on how members of congress spend no less than 50% of their time begging for money. Some of it for themselves, some of it for the party, some of it for their political allies. There are two problems here. First, their job is to represent people, not to be high class beggars. Second, you're going to be far more beholden to the few people who pay to put you in office than the many who vote to put you there.

We need a system where anyone who wants to run for any office is guaranteed access to travel funds, aides, media time, etc. Yes, this means we need a 3rd party, independent, non political, 100% open, transparent, organization running all of this. Rant and rail against such an organization all you want, it's better than a few multi-billionaires (and their corporations) carpet bombing the media with attack ads for 2 out of every 4 years.

Leaders should be elected based on their ideas, their strengths, and their skills. We need leaders who will pass policies based on what is best for their constituents, not their financial backers. We don't have such a system today. We have a system where leaders are elected based on who're the best brown nosers to the wealthiest among us. This applies to both parties.

None of this will ever happen of course. Not until/unless we see something like France in the late 1700s. We've already had the financial crisis, we're pretty close in the wealth disparity, and we're constantly moving towards more and more regressive tax policy. I really don't want to see riots in the streets (any more than we already do), but I'm not sure how else you solve the wealth disparity issue. The poor cannot vote to change the rigged system (it's rigged against them after all), and everyone from the upper middle class to the obscenely wealthy think the system works just fine and the poor are complaining over biases that don't exist, lazy, or simply intellectually/genetically inferior.

I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up.