The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Couple of questions:

If you argue that corporations shouldn't have the right to contribute political money, do you also hold that labor unions shouldn't be able to make monetary contributions as well?

What would you do about the vast amounts of money being poured into the Democratic Party by multinational corporations (ie., Apple, Google, etc.)?

It doesn't matter which party it is. Any large financially loaded institution has the potential to be harmful. It may be that some of those institutions are motivated by good intentiond but one can't assume everyonr would agree that the intentions are good.

And in other news. I am finding the interpretations of the President's speech yesterday fascinating. I listened to it and felt it to be like non-commital milque toast, not much of anything that would inspire me but nothing to rant about either. Wasn't quite sure why it was given. I have read and heard various interpretations from both sides since and I am sure I must not have been listening to the same in speech. Talk about projecting your agenda/ assuming the agenda! When people have preconceived notions about someone it sure colors what they hear. This goes for both sides. The spinometers must be half way to China by now in parrallel tunnels! It would be very interesting to give a written version of the speech to people, without an identified speaker or labeling it from their party and see what they thought then.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No corporation should be allowed to donate to ANY political campaign or PAC, period. Corporations are business entities, not people.

Unions and trade associations and business associations (such as the Chamber of Commerce) should be allowed provided that they have the majority support (based on a vote) of their members.

Last time I checked, a corporation was made up of people--shareholders, board members, employees, etc--just like unions or trade associations. So what you're saying is that tax filing status (for-profit vs. not-for-profit) should determine the ability of a group of people to contribute to political causes. It could be argued that corporations have MORE of a right to contribute as they are tax-paying entities in most cases, whereas labor unions are typically organized as not-for-profit outfits.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Last time I checked, a corporation was made up of people--shareholders, board members, employees, etc--just like unions or trade associations. So what you're saying is that tax filing status (for-profit vs. not-for-profit) should determine the ability of a group of people to contribute to political causes. It could be argued that corporations have MORE of a right to contribute as they are tax-paying entities in most cases, whereas labor unions are typically organized as not-for-profit outfits.

How bout we allow other nations to funnel unlimited money into candidates. After all, countries are made up of people.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Last time I checked, a corporation was made up of people--shareholders, board members, employees, etc--just like unions or trade associations. So what you're saying is that tax filing status (for-profit vs. not-for-profit) should determine the ability of a group of people to contribute to political causes. It could be argued that corporations have MORE of a right to contribute as they are tax-paying entities in most cases, whereas labor unions are typically organized as not-for-profit outfits.

Corporations are set up as specific entities to conduct business and make a profit.

The other groups are set up with the express purpose of speaking for their individual members (who are taxpayers) and giving them a collective voice.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Corporations are set up as specific entities to conduct business and make a profit.

The other groups are set up with the express purpose of speaking for their individual members (who are taxpayers) and giving them a collective voice.

Wrong. The other groups are set up with the express purpose of benefitting their members, including fiscally and politically. No different than a corporation. The only difference is tax status. Each should be able to have a collective voice.

As for foreign money: Pretty sure there's already international money being pumped into both parties. Try to control it? Sure. Good luck though.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

To answer your original question, I don't think any collective group should be able to bribe, er, contribute to campaigns. Contributions should be made only by an individual eligible voter and there should be a very low cap. As it stands now, elections are decided by dollars, not votes, and that is neither fair nor healthy for participatory democracy. It's just another form of schoolyard bullying, with dollars instead of muscles.

Look at the Tea Party (if you must) as an example of the opposite kind of democracy. Although there was plenty of astroturfing to get it going, and although it has spread largely because it has a free, uncritical, 24/7 propaganda outlet in every home, at the end of the day it is actual humans actually getting off their duffs, taking the time to go to rallies, and building (or alienating) additional support through their direct political action. They may be (OK, are) completely misguided in their ideas, but they are an excellent example of direct democracy. Would that, instead of merely grousing about it, liberals show the same dedication as individuals, rather than waiting for common sense to somehow magically reassert itself without their effort.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

To answer your original question, I don't think any collective group should be able to bribe, er, contribute to campaigns. Contributions should be made only by an individual eligible voter and there should be a very low cap. As it stands now, elections are decided by dollars, not votes, and that is neither fair nor healthy for participatory democracy. It's just another form of schoolyard bullying, with dollars instead of muscles.

Or put in a restriction that organizations can only contribute up to the same amount raised through individual donations.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

To answer your original question, I don't think any collective group should be able to bribe, er, contribute to campaigns. Contributions should be made only by an individual eligible voter and there should be a very low cap. As it stands now, elections are decided by dollars, not votes, and that is neither fair nor healthy for participatory democracy. It's just another form of schoolyard bullying, with dollars instead of muscles.

Dollars don't equal votes. Dollars equal advertising. You still need the voter to pull the lever, as ads still can't vote according to my sources.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Dollars don't equal votes. Dollars equal advertising. You still need the voter to pull the lever, as ads still can't vote according to my sources.

Rather simple outlook. With the amount of research and psychology put into the advertising it is pretty easy to manipulate people who aren't critical thinkers to begin with. Just look at all the people who blindly follow Faux News and MSNBC like they were gospel, even when they change the story midstream.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If you mean because of Citizens United, all you need is a well-timed Democratic president for when the reactionary wall of the Court crumbles. Scalia aint gonna live forever. The Slaughterhouse Cases, Plessy vs Ferguson and Lochner vs New York didn't require a constitutional amendment to fix them -- just an intelligent reading of the Constitution whereby the Court repudiated its mistake.

Wouldn't the easiest way to do this be for Congress to pass a law limiting the rights enjoyed by corporations? Their current power derives from the feature of their construction that they are to be treated like a person. However, this is just a legal fiction that has no bar to being undone that I am aware of.

The other magic bullet would be some sort of impersonal, algorithmic redistricting that completely removed that power from the state legislatures. The whole gerrymandering system is an obscenity perpetrated by both parties.

I think this is a lost cause, because both parties feel like the current system works to their benefit. Ideally, I think it could be solved with as little as a simple perimeter to area ratio limit.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Dollars don't equal votes. Dollars equal advertising. You still need the voter to pull the lever, as ads still can't vote according to my sources.

Oh come on...you and I both know a catchy slogan is usually enough to get someone to pull that lever. Have enough money to plaster it everywhere and the sheep come a flocking!

As for whether unions should be allowed to contribute...no. Individuals who choose to can, but corporations and unions should be left out of this. The Supreme Court basically screwed over everyone by allowing this crap.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Oh come on...you and I both know a catchy slogan is usually enough to get someone to pull that lever. Have enough money to plaster it everywhere and the sheep come a flocking!

Hope and Change ... eh?

As for whether unions should be allowed to contribute...no. Individuals who choose to can, but corporations and unions should be left out of this.

+1

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Hope and Change was exactly what I was thinking...or Dubya tallking about "Restoring Values to the White House" and blah blah blah.

1) Find catchy slogan
2) print out posters and bumper stickers
3)?
4) bacon
5) WIN! (profit)

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Hope and Change was exactly what I was thinking...or Dubya tallking about "Restoring Values to the White House" and blah blah blah.

1) Find catchy slogan
2) print out posters and bumper stickers
3)?
4) bacon
5) WIN! (profit)

If that's Kevin Bacon you win because you only did it in five degrees, not six, of separation.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Rather simple outlook. With the amount of research and psychology put into the advertising it is pretty easy to manipulate people who aren't critical thinkers to begin with. Just look at all the people who blindly follow Faux News and MSNBC like they were gospel, even when they change the story midstream.

If the outcome of our elections truly hinge on psychological chicanery and slick marketing, perhaps it is time that we start requiring an intelligence test for voters.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The South would be screwed

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Dollars don't equal votes. Dollars equal advertising. You still need the voter to pull the lever, as ads still can't vote according to my sources.

You don't think advertising changes consumption patterns? Because if that's true, a lot of people are wasting an awful lot of money on their marketing departments.

It's obvious that political ads make a huge difference in elections. Cue scary music: "Senator Bedfellow voted to destroy the family farm!" You don't think that sells, and here's the important part, regardless of what Senator Bedfellow's real position is? If you can convince a thousand people to pony up a thousand dollars each to run that ad, God bless you. Of course, before they contribute you'll have to make a good case for it. As it stands now, ADM can pay that out of pocket lint to punish Bedfellow for voting against ethanol subsidies.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

The South would be screwed

So would a lot of other areas that will go unnamed to avoid political incorrectness.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If the outcome of our elections truly hinge on psychological chicanery and slick marketing, perhaps it is time that we start requiring an intelligence test for voters.

It does

And frankly I think a basic test with simple yes/no questions based on what is contained within the constitution as a requirement to vote would be just fine. (No interpretations just direct quotes and whether or not they are in it)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If the outcome of our elections truly hinge on psychological chicanery and slick marketing, perhaps it is time that we start requiring an intelligence test for voters.

Weight votes by SAT score. Every election would be between the Dems and the Libertarians. Which actually sounds great.