RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeTomOver said:
To what degree do these super PAC's represent your own interests, Rus ?
Which ones? You might as well ask which newspapers or blogs one likes. They're a means to express political speech independent of the message.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Should corporations be considered people under the law ?
[43 posts] [13 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
And to what degree does your opposition to these "super PACs" spring from the fact that they do not represent your own causes, TomOver? You seem pretty OK with the HuffPo one (to the point of coming up with excuses why it's somehow "different" because you agree with its ideology).
Posted 3 months ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
And to what degree does your opposition to these "super PACs" spring from the fact that they do not represent your own causes, TomOver? You seem pretty OK with the HuffPo one (to the point of coming up with excuses why it's somehow "different" because you agree with its ideology).Is it good for our political system when our politicians are beholden to a small minority of people with the money to buy the public policies favorable to them ?
As things are currently structured, it's highly unlikely someone can get elected without raising a lot of money. And the money that comes from ordinary citizens' contributions--$25 here, maybe $50 there---can't compare with the money of big corporations, not by a long shot. Nor can unions, environmental or other advocacy groups muster amounts of money comparable to big corporations.
Some of the corporations may embrace 'corporate responsibility.' Good for them. But voting with our dollars only goes so far, especially when a few corporations or less control access to goods and services such as energy. Also, consider the monopolies in the dairy and pork industry.
We shouldn't have a system that puts our national interest at the mercy of the voluntary good behavior of corporations. On another but similar note, progressives shouldn't remain silent about expanding executive powers just because we might like the current occupant of the Oval Office. I mention this because the key issue is checks and balances. That pertains to governmental and corporate power.
But some people don't believe in that. They apparently think that if we allow the profit motive to trump all else, that will bring the best of all possible worlds. To borrow a phrase from another writer, the belief that private financial markets will solve all problems is a modern form of witchcraft.
Calling for a constitutional amendment nullifying corporate personhood seems appropriate, though it might be a long shot. But how about, for starters, publicly funded campaigns ?
The majority of people involved with Move to Amend and with Occupy seem to not so much have a problem with someone's ability to buy a yacht or a summer home. The outrage comes when leaders in a big corporation or super wealthy individuals can more or less buy public policy, at the expense of our communities and our national interest.
Part of the mystery about rank-in-file conservatives--the vast majority of which are NOT part of the "1 percent" -- is the energy they put into defending those above them in the socio-economic strata. Perhaps it's because they identify with them, hoping--that is, fantasizing--that maybe someday they'll rise to that level?
It can be painful to come to terms with how power is concentrating in fewer hands in our country, and its possible consequences. Also, many people may blame the poor, illegal immigrants or other convenient scapegoats, instead of confronting the abuse of power at its source.
That sort of divide-and-conquer is textbook sociology, history, and political science. It calls to mind a quote attributed to robber baron Jay Gould: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
A two paragraph post would have been an appetizer. You get a complimentary five course meal.
Posted 3 months ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
'Michael on the South Side.'We spoke at Occupy the Courts on Jan 20, as Columbus joined more than 100 cities and towns across the US to protest against the two year old US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United V Federal Election Commission. Many of those who gathered call for a constitutional amendment to clearly say a corporation is not a person and money is not speech.
“The Tea Party in Boston, more than 200 years ago was originally started to protest corporate power. The Tea Party today is being lied to by their hijacking leaders called Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers. These two financial entities have totally corrupted and lied to the Tea Party people."
He said there is a growing number of people in the Tea Party movement that are waking up, and realizing it’s not all about money and corporate profits.
"It’s about people. People are what’s important. People come first. The corporations will then make their money when they sell to the people. The GNP is made up mostly by the power of the people, not the corporations. We need to realize this and I just hope the people in the Tea Party Movement begin to think for themselves. Think and discern for yourself and not what Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity and Foxy News likes to tell you.”
He agreed that the more liberal and more progressive major news outlets also are owned by big corporations.
“Both partisan sides of the aisle have vested interests to maintain the status quo. Republicans want to maintain their power and their constituents and Democrats want to maintain their power and their constituents. But what is happening is a movement called populism that is starting to rise up in America. It’s a viewpoint that buys into neither side. It’s all about making the people first priority."
But taking aim at conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, he said what they are not saying is what is scary and revealing.
“For one thing, they to say corporations pay enough tax and that capital gains (taxes) at 12 to 15 percent is sufficient, when in reality, Warrne Buffet, for example, his secretary paid 30-35 percent, but Warren Buffet said he only pays 9-10 percent. That just shows you that the rich who make their money off of capital gains are corrupting the system. They need to pay more. They earn their money thru capital gains. Others earn their money thru digging ditches. It doesn’t matter how you earn your money. The fact is you earn your money and you need to pay an equitable amount, like everybody else."
He said a good example of the corporate abuse of power exists in the prison system.
"They’re making money off of incarcerating people and if you noticed, there are certain groups of people that get incarcerated at higher rates and percentages for committing similar crimes such as cocaine and marijuana use. If you have lots of money, you can buy your version of justice and escape prison. But if you’re poor, you go to prison and you spend lots of time there because the profitable prison corporations get their money from the government."
As a second example of the corporate abuse of power, he mentioned for-profit healthcare.
“You look at their profit margins. Their profits are increasing, all at the expense of We the People. This is outrageous--- what’s happening. We need to put the government back into the hands of We the People thru a grassroots populist movement made up of both parties."
But he said media consolidation is the most glaring example of excessive corporate power.
“Back in 1996, we had the Communications Act that deregulated communications. It allowed TV and radio companies to buy up in similar markets multiple stations. In other words, after 1996 we began shifting the power of media into fewer and fewer hands...The corporations have totally hijacked the government by manipulating and monopolizing communication.”
He said populism, which is good in itself, can be twisted to the left or to the right in order to exploit the people of a nation.
“But when it’s governed properly and you allow the people to maintain the power. Then, hopefully we can steer it in the right direction. You got to keep money out of politics, and keep it at the lowest possible ground level you can have it at."
Posted 3 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
TomOver said:
Is it good for our political system when our politicians are beholden to a small minority of people with the money to buy the public policies favorable to them ?As things are currently structured, it's highly unlikely someone can get elected without raising a lot of money. And the money that comes from ordinary citizens' contributions--$25 here, maybe $50 there---can't compare with the money of big corporations, not by a long shot. Nor can unions, environmental or other advocacy groups muster amounts of money comparable to big corporations.
Really? Actually, Ron Paul has a surprisingly well-funded political campaign (probably second only to Mitt Romney), and almost all of it is from individual contributions. He has very few corporate backers.
That fact should tell you something about whether a higher proportion of individual contributors actually implies a superior candidate.
Some of the corporations may embrace 'corporate responsibility.' Good for them. But voting with our dollars only goes so far, especially when a few corporations or less control access to goods and services such as energy. Also, consider the monopolies in the dairy and pork industry.
We do not vote with our dollars. Money does not buy elections. Ron Paul could give me $100,000 and I would still not vote for him. Do you think Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would be instant locks for the presidency if someone just handed them $1 billion each?
We shouldn't have a system that puts our national interest at the mercy of the voluntary good behavior of corporations.
True. Fortunately, we don't.
But some people don't believe in that. They apparently think that if we allow the profit motive to trump all else, that will bring the best of all possible worlds. To borrow a phrase from another writer, the belief that private financial markets will solve all problems is a modern form of witchcraft.
No, we believe that individuals do not sacrifice their rights when they contribute their money to a common enterprise (i.e., a corporation). Corporations do not have voting rights, for example, because there are human beings behind them and controlling them; to give corporations voting rights would be to give a natural person or persons multiple votes. However, to deny them free speech rights necessarily involves suppressing the speech of a human being (or more than one).
We believe that any suppression of expression is antithetical to democracy; the fact that the expression is funded by a corporate bank account instead of an individual one is immaterial. Allegiance to the profit motive is a red herring, and you should know better if you've done any serious investigation of your opponents' positions (though I should know enough to have a healthy skepticism about that possibility). We support free speech rights for unions, universities, not-for-profit corporations, and all other corporate entities that often are not staunch defenders of free enterprise, to put it mildly. Don't get me wrong, most of us who defend Citizens United believe that strong protection of free expression is economically advantageous, but it is also consistent with higher, more fundamental principles of basic liberty.
Calling for a constitutional amendment nullifying corporate personhood seems appropriate, though it might be a long shot. But how about, for starters, publicly funded campaigns ?
Waxing rhetorical about "corporate personhood" is the hallmark of someone who simply does not understand the issue. Corporate personhood is an essentially immutable fact of our legal system. Legal personhood simply means existence as an entity at law. Ending corporate personhood wouldn't just stop corporations from contributing to political causes, it would end their existence entirely. To say that this would prompt a significant amount of overseas relocations for American enterprises is an understatement.
The issue is which constitutional rights corporate persons enjoy. It is essentially unquestioned that they have Fourth Amendment rights (you need a search warrant to search their property). They have Fifth Amendment rights (they have the right to due process, and they also have the right to compensation if their property is taken via eminent domain). They have Seventh Amendment rights (the right to a jury in civil cases, as preserved by that amendment). Heck, they presumably have Third Amendment rights (the U.S. Army cannot force Starwood Hotels to act as a barracks). They have First Amendment right to freedom of the press (or if they don't, that's news to the New York Times). Yet somehow progressives seem to think that these rights stop at the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The self-serving cynicism of such a position is more than a little off-putting ... denying fundamental rights in order to secure a financial advantage in election campaigns.
Part of the mystery about rank-in-file conservatives--the vast majority of which are NOT part of the "1 percent" -- is the energy they put into defending those above them in the socio-economic strata. Perhaps it's because they identify with them, hoping--that is, fantasizing--that maybe someday they'll rise to that level?
Or perhaps they don't want to hamstring their own employers.
It can be painful to come to terms with how power is concentrating in fewer hands in our country, and its possible consequences. Also, many people may blame the poor, illegal immigrants or other convenient scapegoats, instead of confronting the abuse of power at its source.
Power is dispersed across 300 million hands in this country (less those too young to vote). All men are equal at the ballot box. The way you get to the "concentrated power" meme is to assume that vast numbers people are just so dumb or gullible that they'll just do whatever someone with a lot of money tells them via an expensive advertising campaign. Again, the cynicism is galling.
It takes money and a good message (or at least a better one than one's opponent) to win an election campaign.
A two paragraph post would have been an appetizer. You get a complimentary five course meal.
Five courses of flakes, fruits, and nuts.
Posted 3 months ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
gramarye said:
We do not vote with our dollars. Money does not buy elections. Ron Paul could give me $100,000 and I would still not vote for him. Do you think Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would be instant locks for the presidency if someone just handed them $1 billion each?
The money would not sway your vote, but your experience is hardly the rule for every voter. Money buys a candidate the bully pulpit - he can run ads, he can buy a ground operation to reach voters in person and the best advisers available. Money buys marketing. Look at Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. They have basically the same positions, similar experience. But one raised far more money, spent that money to market himself and will end up with the nomination, while the other (doing and saying pretty much exactly what Romney did) never got out of the 2-3% range.
Money = marketing, and marketing works.
Posted 3 months ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
joev said:
Money = marketing, and marketing works.
Not always. Romney outspent Newt in SC, but still lost.
Posted 3 months ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Not always. Romney outspent Newt in SC, but still lost.Money isn't EVERYTHING but money is damn important in politics. All the money in the world couldn't get Massachusetts to vote for Ron Paul, but it could get Nevada to vote for him.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
Freakonomics Author Gives 'Big Fat No' to Idea Money Buys Elections
(link does start a video, sorry.)
To me, the money shot (he he he) is italicized below :
The influence of Super PACs may be uncertain but he says the roughly $10 million Sheldon Adelson and his wife have spent supporting Newt Gingrich pales in comparison to the "$100 of millions" of dollars worth of "free advertising" major candidates get from coverage on the nightly news or participating in televised debates.
A.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
-
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
-
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
@ Gramarye : Nice...thanks : thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. It's not a matter of me agreeing with you, though that may (or may not) happen if I sincerely process your points. Instead, it's the fact that you've offered thoughtful counterpoints. And doing that is a public service.
Posted 3 months ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall said:
Freakonomics Author Gives 'Big Fat No' to Idea Money Buys Elections(link does start a video, sorry.)
To me, the money shot (he he he) is italicized below :
The influence of Super PACs may be uncertain but he says the roughly $10 million Sheldon Adelson and his wife have spent supporting Newt Gingrich pales in comparison to the "$100 of millions" of dollars worth of "free advertising" major candidates get from coverage on the nightly news or participating in televised debates.
A.
Thanks, Andrew. We got to check this info out. 'We' refers to those aliens controlling my thoughts from the other end of the galaxy. Or maybe it's descendants of humans in some sort of arcade in the distant future who violate my REM sleep as they recreationally try to get me to change their past/our future.
Posted 3 months ago # -
NoCowsGo
Victorian Village
Login to Send PM
The corporate form is a creature of state law which is designed to provide (1) limited liability, and (2) favored tax status.
Presumably, states could amend their corporate code to preclude entities who take advantage of the corporate form from using corporate funds for election purposes. This would solve the concern (if there is one) about corporate money in politics. Nor is this foreclosed by Citizens United, to the best of my understanding.
No states seem interested in doing so. Nor has this been a focus of any progressive advocacy (as an outside observer).
To me, the real question is whether you are willing to enforce a law precluding Bill Gates/George Soros/Sheldon Adelson from using their own billions to advocate for candidates or causes. If you're not willing to ban this, than any system you design will not affect the progressive concern of "too much money in politics." And if you are willing to ban people from using their own money for political advocacy, that creates a whole host of obvious line-drawing problems. And personally, that's not a country I'd like to live in, where you can spend a billion dollars on anything you want except a candidate you really believe in or cause you really support.
Posted 3 months ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall said:
Freakonomics Author Gives 'Big Fat No' to Idea Money Buys Elections(link does start a video, sorry.)
To me, the money shot (he he he) is italicized below :
The influence of Super PACs may be uncertain but he says the roughly $10 million Sheldon Adelson and his wife have spent supporting Newt Gingrich pales in comparison to the "$100 of millions" of dollars worth of "free advertising" major candidates get from coverage on the nightly news or participating in televised debates.
A.
The comments in response to Dubner's points from that link might be worth a read.
Posted 3 months ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.