How are we feeling about this latest court ruling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

In my opinion, none of these organizations should be allowed to bribe our government. If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it. That spokesman should wait their turn in line to speak with whomever in government just like any other private citizen. But they should not be allowed to bribe, and that's all lobbying is, govt to get preferred treatment for their views.

Half of the problem with our govt is lack of term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. Letting these people sit in such positions of authority for basically their entire lives breeds a political elite that are corrupted by power. Our fore fathers warned of this danger in various writings. Term limits must be imposed.

The other half of the problem is the billions of dollars that flows to these political elites via lobbyists. No sane individual can honestly believe that letting such vast sums of money flow through the political system doesn't absolutely corrupt it. Why 'We The People' tolerate this obvious corruption by rationalizing 'that is just how things get done' is beyond me. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

In my opinion a law should be passed that no organization/corporation may contribute money to a politician, period. Contributions from individual citizens may only amount to $100 a year per politician. And that money must be strongly accounted for. If such a law were introduced you'd have the instant effect of

1) The rich and powerful really no longer have more buying power than the common citizen. Voters begin to matter after election day.

2) Politicians, still needing vast sums of money to run campaigns, would be forced to actually engage and listen to the people rather than just giving us lip service. When you need vast numbers of people to contribute to your campaign, you suddenly begin to take an interest in each and every one of them.

3) Politicians no longer become beholden to a few rich individuals/organizations. They aren't forced to pay back bribes via favorable legislation or treatment. At most if they piss off a voter, they lose 1 vote and $100 dollars. Maybe then principles and beliefs would guide their actions rather than perverting their power to ensure the bribes keep coming from a few powerful sources.

But considering Congress would have to pass such a law, don't hold your breath. We have the fox watching the chicken coup.

---

Again, +1.....

McCain-Feingold never should have happened.. That said, MuzzleFlash said it better than I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuzzleFlash

Mutt

You're playing into the socialist gameplan. You forget the media role. Limiting the ability of people of all stripes and political persuasions to organize and make their voices heard just empowers the mainstream media outlets. Organizing means unions, advocacy groups, political parties, corporations, partnerships, etc. It's un-American to limit who can say what and when about a politician. It's the downhill path to tyranny.

You also seem to assume that the people that spend the most and dominate the airwaves will usually win. There you are very mistaken. Read the book "Freakonomics" for a well done study that totally repudiates this myth.

---

I love how today's battle cry for some is 'socialism'. You disagree with me, you're a 'socialist'. You don't like Politician A or Party B, you're a 'socialist'.
It's almost like the McCarthy days when the same types used the word 'communist'. I really hope we don't decide to have hearings on whose a 'socialist'...

I am not forgetting the media role and I am not advocating limiting 'The People' from organizing and letting their collective voices be heard. I explicitly said "If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it.".

My view is these organizations should be forbidden from giving money directly to politicians. Money should be from actual citizens and limited per citizen to ensure no one has undue influence other than representing a majority view. Now if people want to pool their resources and run ads saying what they stand for and who they support, awesome! Welcome to America. But those ads should explicitly state who they are and the fact they have nothing to do with said politician/party other than a group endorsement.

And I never said anything about dominating airwaves and overall campaign spending. My issue is the fact the winners are invariably indebted to a few people/organizations if they do win. No one gives someone millions upon millions of dollars without expect something in return. The scariest part of our current system are the groups/individuals who give vast sums of money but never ever run an ad or openly endorse a candidate. What are they getting? What are we losing?

Allowing unlimited funds to flow into our system from rich corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals is the downhill path to tyranny and it's already begun. If being opposed to that makes me a 'socialist', so be it.

I think this is a good debate and I'm going to quote, copy, and paste it on another site. I'll leave the names out though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

Corporations are not people. They aren't citizens. They are a collection of legal documents setup to allow for business transactions and business ownership rights.

---

Response to this from another board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myshtern

No they aren't just a set of legal documents, they are legal entities. That's why they are double taxed and taxed specifically as a separate entity from the income of the owners of the firm. Taxation without representation? Shareholders' political interests do not need to align with the interests of the firm.

---

Corporations have been bribing governments for hundreds of years, the ruling is just the john putting an engagement ring on the whore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Response to this from another board.

Originally Posted by myshtern http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images...s/viewpost.gif
No they aren't just a set of legal documents, they are legal entities. That's why they are double taxed and taxed specifically as a separate entity from the income of the owners of the firm. Taxation without representation? Shareholders' political interests do not need to align with the interests of the firm.

---

Last I looked a legal entity wasn't a living and breathing American Citizen with the right to vote. While I'm well aware a Corporation is a 'person' when it comes to legalities, they do not qualify has someone to be represented.

Taxation without representation? That gave me a good chuckle. First of all the shareholders indeed pay the tax on corporate earnings. Since the tax levied on corporate earnings directly diminishes the value of dividends paid to the shareholders, or reduces the value of their shares, they do pay the tax. Just because it doesn't show up on their tax filings doesn't change the fact it's income deprived from them by their govt. That's a tax.

Now if the shareholders, officers and employees feel such a corporate tax is unfair or an undue burden; they have the right, as real citizens, to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see how preventing 'legal entities' from influencing govt is in any way bad for liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

I don't see how preventing 'legal entities' from influencing govt is in any way bad for liberty.

---

So that means we can and should restrict all legal entities? Would that not extend well beyond the evil corporation that I work for but also SAIU, ACORN, NRA, the AG lobby and all others?

Maybe that is the answer, it is even handed but it might just violate my right to free association and free speech. Seems that if I would choose to associate I would have to sacrifice some of my free speech rights.

I know it is a muddy issue but we must look at it from a different perspective. If we sanction taking rights away from one group then they will come for the next group. We know as gun owners that we are on that list. We must hold the line at the constitution, no more and no less. We can change the constitution if we want too, that is the correct method.

On a side note, if we want to make health care a right, we also need to add it to the constitution.

When we start to ignore our own laws for populist reason (many examples available if you want them) we enable our government to further oppress us by dividing us.

Let me make this very clear, I am that Corporation, and so are many of you. Many others on the forum are the Union. We all shoot together and talk together. We all value our freedoms. Now they start to divide us and suddenly we are ready to take each other’s rights away based on positions we think the other holds. The only thing that can prevent the populist rage pushed by politicians on both sides is the constitution.

OK, rant over.

[Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esaabye

So that means we can and should restrict all legal entities? Would that not extend well beyond the evil corporation that I work for but also SAIU, ACORN, NRA, the AG lobby and all others?

Maybe that is the answer, it is even handed but it might just violate my right to free association and free speech. Seems that if I would choose to associate I would have to sacrifice some of my free speech rights.

I know it is a muddy issue but we must look at it from a different perspective. If we sanction taking rights away from one group then they will come for the next group. We know as gun owners that we are on that list. We must hold the line at the constitution, no more and no less. We can change the constitution if we want too, that is the correct method.

On a side note, if we want to make health care a right, we also need to add it to the constitution.

When we start to ignore our own laws for populist reason (many examples available if you want them) we enable our government to further oppress us by dividing us.

Let me make this very clear, I am that Corporation, and so are many of you. Many others on the forum are the Union. We all shoot together and talk together. We all value our freedoms. Now they start to divide us and suddenly we are ready to take each other’s rights away based on positions we think the other holds. The only thing that can prevent the populist rage pushed by politicians on both sides is the constitution.

OK, rant over.

[Beer]

---

Maybe I'm not being clear - I am in no way against the association of like minded citizens who chose a 'legal entity' to be their common voice. I have no problem with these common voices taking out ads, flooding TV, and petitioning govt about their beliefs and causes. Those are activities protected by The Constitution.

I am against the bribing of public officials. That is what lobbying (in its current form) is, bribery. Preventing corporations, unions, stamp clubs, or whatever 'legal entity' you can think of from buying and selling our govt in no way prevents real, voting citizens from participating in their govt. If anything it ensures their wishes and heard and obeyed.

Wonder why illegal immigration is such a problem? Look at the special interests. Very powerful business groups have a vested interest in keeping a steady flow of cheap, exploitable labor. They 'vote' with campaign contributions. The American people cry out for reform, but we are drowned out by an ocean of bribes.

Wonder why your job is getting off shored? Or why we sign illogical free-trade agreements that flood our country with cheap foreign goods that destroy our domestic industries? Look to the lobbies. Look at the flow of 'contributions' from a few very powerful interests that stand to make vast sums of money by destroying your livelihoods. Do you think your votes stand a chance against all that money?

And for those techies out there, how do think the ridiculous Digital Millennium Copyright Act ever got passed? Yup, special interest and corporate lobbies. In the name of bribes, our govt threw out basically all of our fair use rights to appease their corporate masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

Maybe I'm not being clear - I am in no way against the association of like minded citizens who chose a 'legal entity' to be their common voice. I have no problem with these common voices taking out ads, flooding TV, and petitioning govt about their beliefs and causes. Those are activities protected by The Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

I am against the bribing of public officials. That is what lobbying (in its current form) is, bribery. Preventing corporations, unions, stamp clubs, or whatever 'legal entity' you can think of from buying and selling our govt in no way prevents real, voting citizens from participating in their govt. If anything it ensures their wishes and heard and obeyed.

Wonder why illegal immigration is such a problem? Look at the special interests. Very powerful business groups have a vested interest in keeping a steady flow of cheap, exploitable labor. They 'vote' with campaign contributions. The American people cry out for reform, but we are drowned out by an ocean of bribes.

Wonder why your job is getting off shored? Or why we sign illogical free-trade agreements that flood our country with cheap foreign goods that destroy our domestic industries? Look to the lobbies. Look at the flow of 'contributions' from a few very powerful interests that stand to make vast sums of money by destroying your livelihoods. Do you think your votes stand a chance against all that money?

And for those techies out there, how do think the ridiculous Digital Millennium Copyright Act ever got passed? Yup, special interest and corporate lobbies. In the name of bribes, our govt threw out basically all of our fair use rights to appease their corporate masters.

---

First, these are the good and necessary conversations we as Americans should be having. I am very happy we do discuss because every issue has both sides.

So let me understand, You do not have a problem with a ‘legal entity’ but just against those who would ‘bribe’ . That works just fine while you are the one judging the difference between the two.

So let me ask few questions…

How many cheap goods did you buy? Why, you know better, you should have paid a local union shop for that loaf of bread or that tv.
Did you buy your energy from the local options or did you pay market rate and get what was available?
Not happy the job got offshored, did you call all the reps 10 years ago and complain about the HB1 numbers?


So do I like the idea that a Company might be able to bribe a politician, no. Do I like the idea a politician would accept a bribe, no.

Do I understand that some people have uneven access or ability to influence the conversation based on past experience and current status, yes. It happened in 1772-1778 just as an example.

We are all created equal, then we must find our own ways. Look how far we have come from the original issue.

We try to justify reduction of rights of a small group who we think is not us.

If it is not us now it will be soon.