JOIN THE FIGHT to end corporate ownership of the Government!

[Atreus21]

I'll never understand the abject ignorance some people have of them being torn apart from the behind. Repeatedly.

By whom? The corporations who have gained money by making things that people voluntarily hand their money over to purchase?

 

[yhelothar]

Actually Chomsky is a perfect reference in this case. If banning corporate personhood is essentially giving the government the power to be tyrants against businesses, it would be the polar opposite of the interest of an anarchist to ban it. Thus, given that even an anarchist supports the banning of corporate personhood, clearly demonstrates that your assumptions are incorrect.

 

[yhelothar]

By whom? The corporations who have gained money by making things that people voluntarily hand their money over to purchase?

You seem decently articulate with your words, so I'm going to guess you can read, especially the title of the thread you're posting in.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "forgot" to read it.

/slowly backs away from thread.

 

[Juddog]

You seem decently articulate with your words, so I'm going to guess you can read, especially the title of the thread you're posting in.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just "forgot" to read it.

/slowly backs away from thread.

Welcome to AT P&N, enjoy your stay.

You'll find several shills in this forum that only can ever agree to what the talking heads say about their party and everybody else is wrong. The equivalent to a religious zealot, except worshipping a political party instead of a deity. Suggesting something that benefits the common person (the majority) instead of their party will instantly be shot down, no matter how much sense it makes.

Those in power like to stay in power, and right now both the Republicans and Democrats have a carefully balanced blame-game system which has people ping-ponging back and forth between the two parties without ever getting an actual candidate which is there for the common good of the people they are supposed to represent. Our political system has become rotten to the core.

 

[palehorse]

Our political system has become rotten to the core.

truth.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Just going by what it says:

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly.

I rest my case....

Then you failed because you cannot restrict the rights of corporations without additionally going after unions, non-profits, special lobbying groups, etc at the same time. In the end this is a horrible bill slanted to only go after corporations while leaving all the other aforementioned groups untouched and thus handing government over to the democrat party comrade.

 

[JSt0rm]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Welcome to AT P&N, enjoy your stay.

You'll find several shills in this forum that only can ever agree to what the talking heads say about their party and everybody else is wrong. The equivalent to a religious zealot, except worshipping a political party instead of a deity. Suggesting something that benefits the common person (the majority) instead of their party will instantly be shot down, no matter how much sense it makes.

Those in power like to stay in power, and right now both the Republicans and Democrats have a carefully balanced blame-game system which has people ping-ponging back and forth between the two parties without ever getting an actual candidate which is there for the common good of the people they are supposed to represent. Our political system has become rotten to the core.

QFT

 

[palehorse]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

/thumbsup

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't have an issue with the Amendment including a statement similar to "Corporations are not people." However, as cybersage pointed out, corps must still retain many of the rights that individuals have -- just not ALL of the rights. Articulating that is not easy, but it's absolutely necessary.

That can all be done through legislation. The same laws that establish the framework for creating corporations can also define the rights they do and do not have. It is the rights of individuals, living human beings, that are inalienable, however, and should be recognized in the Constitution itself.

 

[Bowfinger]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Aikouka]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

I was considering that for awhile, but I don't think it would work. The problem that you'll run into is that it will become way too expensive. Campaigns are not cheap, and that's really one of the reasons how we can effectively limit who will run for office (which is a good and bad thing). The problem is... what will happen if we state that taxpayers will foot the bill for a campaign? Will any Joe Schmoe who thinks he can handle running for office decide to run (on the taxpayer's dime)?

We have a "media state" in our country right now with things like television and such, but we've also got an interesting medium called "the Internet". I think it'd be fascinating for a person to only run using what amounts to viral campaigning over the Internet, and for the person to actually be successful in his/her campaign (that doesn't necessarily mean that they win, but get a decent amount of support).

 

[glenn1]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

Or, you could reduce the size and scope of federal government so that corporations wouldn't feel the need to be engaged in the political donation game. Corporations aren't trying to obtain "ownership" of government, they're paying protection money to politicians lest they be regulated out of business or laws passed that destroy their business model. Couple that with government-loving politicians dangling huge federal spending contracts in front of companies to buy their political contributions, and that's the root of the problem rather than corporate political spending.

 

[JSt0rm]

Or, you could reduce the size and scope of federal government so that corporations wouldn't feel the need to be engaged in the political donation game. Corporations aren't trying to obtain "ownership" of government, they're paying protection money to politicians lest they be regulated out of business or laws passed that destroy their business model. Couple that with government-loving politicians dangling huge federal spending contracts in front of companies to buy their political contributions, and that's the root of the problem rather than corporate political spending.

under my system if that is the will of the people that is what would happen. No one could influence those elected.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

Outstanding answer!!!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Outstanding answer!!!!!

That is one of the teaparty propositions. That is the one that needs to be the next amendment. We dont need congress to pass that law. We can force them via a amendment from the majority of states. That is the beauty of our system.

 

[yhelothar]

Then you failed because you cannot restrict the rights of corporations without additionally going after unions, non-profits, special lobbying groups, etc at the same time. In the end this is a horrible bill slanted to only go after corporations while leaving all the other aforementioned groups untouched and thus handing government over to the democrat party comrade.

no u

You failed because you quoted a guy who cherry picked the ripest lines to set up his straw man argument. He also failed.

Read more carefully next time and don't jump the gun with your emotions. Patience is a virtue.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

So if industries are polluting the environment you don't think environmental groups have the right to run TV ads about it?

 

[JSt0rm]

So if industries are polluting the environment you don't think environmental groups have the right to run TV ads about it?

I dont know. I think that if we remove all money from politics and pay those people well we will find that our government will function for the people by the people. A company dumping pollutants into the air and water can really only do that via subverting the systems in place by buying politicians. We are removing that ability and replacing all of our congress people with competent individuals who have the public interest in mind.

 

[cybrsage]

no u

You failed because you quoted a guy who cherry picked the ripest lines to set up his straw man argument. He also failed.

Read more carefully next time and don't jump the gun with your emotions. Patience is a virtue.

The potential amendment fails because it singles out one group then becomes ambiguous. Courts routinely rule that the spirit of the law is based on the specific items mentioned and not the generic items mentioned.

This amendment is biased and should not even be entertained. Remove all mention of corps and it loses being biased against corps.

 

[Spikesoldier]

look what we need is no money in politics. No corps no unions no donations. All run on tax payer money with a national voting holiday.

This is what we need. All of us.

QFMFT

also, i applaud your ability to ding both sides, call a spade a spade, and grasp the whole picture. bravo. we need more posters like you.

the only way i would only improve your suggestion would be to have the federal government - by means of the FCC mandate that the candidates get FREE air time rather than paying millions of dollars a pop that would come from taxpayers.

 

[werepossum]

I have to agree -- Chomsky was one of the worst possible references you could have chosen to make a point, any point... ever.

I violently twitch when I see that name...

Seconded.

If the Occupiers had any intelligence they'd first beg for donations for soap and shampoo, which would do wonders for any point they might try making. Then I'd suggest developing a sense of irony, to properly understand "Give me money so that I can change politics by removing money."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I dont know. I think that if we remove all money from politics and pay those people well we will find that our government will function for the people by the people. A company dumping pollutants into the air and water can really only do that via subverting the systems in place by buying politicians. We are removing that ability and replacing all of our congress people with competent individuals who have the public interest in mind.

The good politicians wouldn't magically get put into office. How would the average voter know if a particular politician supported good environmental policies? Some third party group has to put out information. Where do you draw the line between a news organization, a think tank, and political advertising? Do you want to let the politicians make that distinction? IMO free speech and disclosure is only real protection against corruption.

 

[yhelothar]

The potential amendment fails because it singles out one group then becomes ambiguous. Courts routinely rule that the spirit of the law is based on the specific items mentioned and not the generic items mentioned.

This amendment is biased and should not even be entertained. Remove all mention of corps and it loses being biased against corps.

No. Just stop. You've been cherry picking lines off the site, misquoting, making naive assumptions that's ridiculous, and now you can't make a clear interpretation of the word PERSON or ENTITY in the sentence:
No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.
According to you, "person or entity" in that line means corporations only, and judges would clearly interpret that as unions can freely make millions of dollars of donations.

I can't even imagine the kind of mental gymnastics you must undergo to make that kind of leap of logic. :|

 

[glenn1]

QFMFT

also, i applaud your ability to ding both sides, call a spade a spade, and grasp the whole picture. bravo. we need more posters like you.

the only way i would only improve your suggestion would be to have the federal government - by means of the FCC mandate that the candidates get FREE air time rather than paying millions of dollars a pop that would come from taxpayers.

I'd rather we ban political ads on TV altogether. Not only would that remove much of the need for politicians to take bribes (err, I mean "donations") from corporations, who wants to watch that shit anyway?