Fair Elections Bill

[Woodruff]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/how-to-get-our-citizens-actually-united/

[Night Strike]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

[Phatscotty]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

oh, and don't forget, corporations and the jobs they created are supposed to stay in the USA too and just shut up and deal with it, because they will get criticized if they move to less hostile business environments overseas.....

[patrickaa317]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/how-to-get-our-citizens-actually-united/

The pretty little graph didn't mention anything about unions nor was the word "union" mentioned on the page at all.

[Phatscotty]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/how-to-get-our-citizens-actually-united/

The pretty little graph didn't mention anything about unions nor was the word "union" mentioned on the page at all.

good observation. it's was left out for a reason, but then again it's the NY times

[saxitoxin]

It would be easier if Gandalf were president, but that's fantasy and not worth anyone's time discussing.

The same thing applies to advancing proposals that depend on amending the US constitution. The last amendment took 190 years from proposal to ratification. Good or bad, this an irrelevent proposal.

[PLAYER57832]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

EXACTLY -- as citizens, they already DO COUNT.. just not more than average people, though only technically the same even before the changes.

And... if the people in charge are not citizens, then no, they have no right to have a say in who gets elected.

[PLAYER57832]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/how-to-get-our-citizens-actually-united/

The pretty little graph didn't mention anything about unions nor was the word "union" mentioned on the page at all.

good observation. it's was left out for a reason, but then again it's the NY times

I see, so they go back to 1989, well before a LOT of regulations changed, when the economy (and thus donations by more "average" people) were up, the concentration of power at the top no where near as it is now ... and that is supposed to be a honest comparison?

[PLAYER57832]

I tried to down load some more comprehensive data, (from a place called "open secrets" and californiawatch.org ) but the files were apparently too large for my computer.

I will try to look for some shortened data. However, that is part of the problem, I think. The information is just so much that we have to rely upon third and fourth hand sources, very few (if any) of which are completely objective.

[Timminz]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

[AndyDufresne]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Don't they already get a say...since they are run by people who can vote?

I'd like to get my multiple-say too, so I am starting up a shell corporation, KT Inc. (short for Koopa Troopa).




--Andy

[spurgistan]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

My basketball team is run by people. Does my basketball team get a say in who gets elected? How many votes does my basketball team get? And why can't we all just be individuals, and follow the laws that govern contributions and voting for individuals? I thought we liked being individuals. I thought this was America. Why do you hate America?

[GreecePwns]

Corporate personhood is based on the 14th Amendment, which can be seen here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You tell me where it says anything about corporations being people.

[AndyDufresne]

You tell me where it says anything about corporations being people.

Let me put on my Scalia glasses, and I'll get back to you. Angrily. And red faced.


--Andy

[saxitoxin]

Corporate personhood is based on the 14th Amendment, which can be seen here:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You tell me where it says anything about corporations being people.

I'm not sure about that, I think you'll find it's defined by statute in Title 15 of the USC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127

It's critical for the Democrats to advance the myth that a constitutional amendment is needed to abolish corporate personhood because (1) they won't have to answer the uncomfortable question about why they didn't just amend statute law during the two years they controlled congress and the presidency, and (2) it establishes an impossible standard - the US constitution is essentially unamendable so they can never be blamed dor doing nothing.

The Supreme Court doesn't explain in blue collar English their decisions and, because Democrats plurality demographic are those with a high school education or less, it's an easy buck to pass.

Editorials like the one Woodruff posted are part of this myth-making strategy.

[Haggis_McMutton]

It would be easier if Gandalf were president.

I'd actually go out and vote if Gandalf was running.

[Night Strike]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Actually, I have.

[Lootifer]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Actually, I have.

So where are the CEO's and other high level executives, in a fair elections bill environment, getting prevented from voting??

Or do you want voting rights for corporations as well as the individuals involved in the corporations?

[Night Strike]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Actually, I have.

So where are the CEO's and other high level executives, in a fair elections bill environment, getting prevented from voting??

Or do you want voting rights for corporations as well as the individuals involved in the corporations?

No, I have never said, nor believed, that corporations (or any group) should get their own vote.

By the way, if they really wanted "fair elections", they would be whole-heartedly supporting Voter ID laws, not limiting political speech.

[MegaProphet]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

Those people count they have a vote just like everyone else. Why should they be able to vote with their pocket as well?

[patches70]

Those people count they have a vote just like everyone else. Why should they be able to vote with their pocket as well?

What's stopping you from voting with your own pocket?
If corporations are supporting a candidate you like or plan to vote for, are you as equally disturbed then as well?
Can people, anyone, spend their money as they so wish so long as they are not harming others?
Can a private business spend their own money as they wish?
Instead of corporations, would it be all right if you and your neighbors agree to pool some money together and collectively buy ad space in the local newspaper supporting which ever candidate you wish? Or any other political speech with your own group money pooled over a large number of your neighbors?
If there is nothing wrong with that, then how can anyone care what a corporation says?
Are corporations forcing people to vote one way or another or are they just trying to convey a message and it's up to those who hear it to decide for themselves?
Does the outrage toward the corporations making political speech extend the same toward Unions?


Just some questions is all I'm asking. You won't find anyone else more against crony capitalism than I, but I also believe that a person or business can spend their money any way they deem fit so long as they are not harming me, my family or my neighbors (or anyone else for that matter). And that a person or business must accept the consequences (read- no bailouts) of their own actions. Endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech in no way should be feared. Be it a person or a group of people.
If a group is campaigning against your own political interests, then start your own group or join one that already lies within your own ideology. More power to you. Just don't go out threatening people or coercing people. Speak, if people want to listen, let them. If people don't want to listen, let them not listen. If people oppose your point of view, so be it. Take it out at the ballot box, or forums or newspaper, whatever floats your boat.

[Woodruff]

If corporations are supporting a candidate you like or plan to vote for, are you as equally disturbed then as well?

Absolutely, I am. I very firmly believe in public financing of campaigns with equal, and pretty limited, funds.

Does the outrage toward the corporations making political speech extend the same toward Unions?

I can't speak for him, but it does for me.

Just some questions is all I'm asking. You won't find anyone else more against crony capitalism than I, but I also believe that a person or business can spend their money any way they deem fit so long as they are not harming me, my family or my neighbors (or anyone else for that matter).

I am of the opinion that corporations being in the back pocket of politicians is unquestionably harming you, your family and your neighbors. The money needs to be significantly reduced in politics.

[patches70]

I am of the opinion that corporations being in the back pocket of politicians is unquestionably harming you, your family and your neighbors. The money needs to be significantly reduced in politics.

Well, just imagine Woodruff, you own your own company and you are incorporated as to limit your liability. In case something goes awry, you don't want you and your family to be taken down with your company. You are legal, regulated, you have employees and all the things and headaches that go with business.
You have stockholders, who by law you must maximize profits for their benefit. Not illegally, mind you, within the limits of the law, but you have an obligation and fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. As by US law.

Now your company produces an energy drink. In the upcoming elections you've got one guy who wants to have your product banned. The other guy is totally willing to just let you keep on running your business, so long as you stay within the current required legal constraints and regulations and such.

It would be not only in your business interests to support the 2nd guy, it would be your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to protect your business. Why should you be barred from placing an add in the newspaper stating your opposition to the proposed destruction of your business by one candidate?

I'm not talking bribes and kickbacks. I'm not saying you should do anything illegal. Why shouldn't you be able as the CEO of your company, to use company funds to donate to the candidate who is in line with the interests of your business? Donate to the the extent of the law I say.
After that, why could you not use your own funds under your control through the company to make your company's position known to the public on your own dime?

That's really all that the Citizen's United case does. Let's companies speak for themselves in public on their own dime. Not that of the taxpayer. It's a speech issue.

Bribes, officials not upholding the law, kickbacks, all are illegal. Companies that do that should be prosecuted. Individuals that facilitate such things should be arrested. Politicians who accept bribes should be impeached and arrested. And that is a separate issue in regards to if companies should or should not be allowed to make known publicly and at their own expense, for which side they stand on candidates and issues.

I can't imagine why anyone would have any problem with that. It's a speech issue. And if you want to be heard by the most people the most efficient way, it most often costs money. There should be no limits to legal speech or how much you or companies should be allowed to spend to get their message out. Again, at no time can anyone who hears said message be compelled one way or the other as to the merits of the message. Again, the paying of bribes and kickbacks is already illegal and just need to be prosecuted. Money should not enable anyone, including companies, to get away with committing a crime. But speech is another matter all together.

What point is there to making new laws when the existing laws are not being upheld as it is? Uphold the current laws, insist on it before being ready to institute a ton of new laws that cost taxpayers even more money trying to enforce them when the government agencies seem unable to even enforce the laws already on the books. That's all I'm saying.

[Woodruff]

I am of the opinion that corporations being in the back pocket of politicians is unquestionably harming you, your family and your neighbors. The money needs to be significantly reduced in politics.

Well, just imagine Woodruff, you own your own company and you are incorporated as to limit your liability. In case something goes awry, you don't want you and your family to be taken down with your company. You are legal, regulated, you have employees and all the things and headaches that go with business.
You have stockholders, who by law you must maximize profits for their benefit. Not illegally, mind you, within the limits of the law, but you have an obligation and fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. As by US law.

Now your company produces an energy drink. In the upcoming elections you've got one guy who wants to have your product banned. The other guy is totally willing to just let you keep on running your business, so long as you stay within the current required legal constraints and regulations and such.

It would be not only in your business interests to support the 2nd guy, it would be your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to protect your business. Why should you be barred from placing an add in the newspaper stating your opposition to the proposed destruction of your business by one candidate?

I understand WHY corporations do what they do. I don't blame them so much, since they're allowed to do so. I quite simply believe that their ability to influence things of that nature should be removed by limited campaign financing.

That's really all that the Citizen's United case does. Let's companies speak for themselves in public on their own dime. Not that of the taxpayer. It's a speech issue.

Unfortunately, the "unintended cost" (I hate you, BBS!) of that policy is that corporations are starting to own politicians to the point where legislation is happening in their favor in return for those "investments in speech", even when those corporations are doing nothing that is necessarily illegal. The politicians still feel beholden to them, because that is where the future money is going to come from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That is, in my opinion, a very serious problem in our current political world in the United States.

What point is there to making new laws when the existing laws are not being upheld as it is? Uphold the current laws, insist on it before being ready to institute a ton of new laws that cost taxpayers even more money trying to enforce them when the government agencies seem unable to even enforce the laws already on the books. That's all I'm saying.

Campaign finance reform could simplify things enormously. It wouldn't complicate things (if done properly).

[patches70]

I understand WHY corporations do what they do. I don't blame them so much, since they're allowed to do so. I quite simply believe that their ability to influence things of that nature should be removed by limited campaign financing.

I'm pretty sure there are already campaign financing limits in force as it is.

Unfortunately, the "unintended cost" (I hate you, BBS!) of that policy is that corporations are starting to own politicians to the point where legislation is happening in their favor in return for those "investments in speech", even when those corporations are doing nothing that is necessarily illegal. The politicians still feel beholden to them, because that is where the future money is going to come from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That is, in my opinion, a very serious problem in our current political world in the United States.

You get stuck in a rock and a hard place as a politician. Congress has to regulate commerce, right? So, for instance, Congress has to write the regulations on the Big Pharma industry. Now, how much do you think and average Senator or Representative knows about drug production, drug interaction, research, costs, etc etc etc? Who do you think is going to actually write the regulations?
Big Pharma of course.

Now, you might be quick to say "That's messed up and wrong!" but think about it, if you have to write the regulations on an industry and you don't know crap about said industry, wouldn't you have no choice but to consult the experts?

Of course, this gives the perception (rightly so I'd say) that Congress is being used, duped, bought, or whatever term you want, but hell, do you want some idiot politician writing regulations on subjects he doesn't know a damn thing about?

Just sayin' is all. Like I said, it's a rock and a hard place and not always quite so "black and white".

Campaign finance reform could simplify things enormously. It wouldn't complicate things (if done properly).

I don't know about you, but I have serious doubts in Congress' ability to do much of anything "properly"......<chuckles>

Companies and individuals should not be allowed or able to buy politicians. However, companies and individuals should not be limited in speech, political or otherwise. Just because they got the big bucks to buy television time is no reason to deny them the ability to speak to the public and make known their stance on issues.

If you wanted, Woodruff, you could take your own money, make your own political add and have it aired on TV. You could make a Youtube political add and it should in no way count against the politician or cause you are supporting. You should be able to spend all the money you could wish to spend without restriction making your own adds. And people do that, you know. It's fine by me because it's a free speech issue and should not be infringed upon, be you an individual, small or large company.

Now giving politicians money directly, that's another matter and is already covered by plenty of campaign finance laws. Whether or not that's effective depends on how much faith you have in your fellow human beings. Plenty of idiots out there who will believe anything told to them, but by and by I'd as soon as just let people make up their own minds. If they want to vote for liars and frauds then they have plenty of choices.....