[Mogura]

Maximum limit for corporations, lobby groups, and individuals: $1,000 (not adjusted for inflation and tax deductable). Lobbying groups would be

Everything that is wrong with the world today is that corporations, lobbying groups, and wealthy individuals wield too much power over politicians (and politicians whore themselves out too much to corporations lobbying groups, and wealthy individuals). Between all of this wielding and whoring, people who just want to earn a living to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table and a better standard of living for their families get fucked.

I say we should level the playing field. Everybody gets an equal say in determining the future of the government of their country to which they pay taxes. It's good for you, it's good for me, it's good for the country. Let's dismantle the corporatocracy that our nation has become and reinstitute democracy!

[Pandemonium]

I am assuming you live in the US. Just remember:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There was a court case in the US on this topic. The laws limiting aspects of political contributions and the allowable scope for lobby groups to be involved in the political discourse were thrown out because they were seen to be unconstitutional. The laws abridged freedom of speech. Be it the speech of individuals or groups of individuals such as lobby groups. You would have to amend the US constitution.

I hope you know that lobby groups cover a vast array of organisations such as unions, sierra club, NRA, etc.

[thod]

Freedom of speech is not freedom of action. One is not exercising one's freedom of speech when one chooses to stab a passer-by. The entire basis of the law is that one does not have freedom of action.

[davai]

Democracy is overrated. What we need is a meritocratic style of dictatorship where leaders and their cronies can be ousted if they don't do things well. The pre-requisites for effective leadership should be decided by independent groups who are themselves judged by more independent groups ad infinitum.

Yes, i haven't fully thought this through, and no, i'm not entirely serious either.

[Feral]

But money is speech, and corporations are people...

The average Joe does not have the resources to speak louder than corporations. Some people are more equal than others.

[aku chi]

Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Everything that is wrong with the world today is that corporations, lobbying groups, and wealthy individuals wield too much power over politicians (and politicians whore themselves out too much to corporations lobbying groups, and wealthy individuals). Between all of this wielding and whoring, people who just want to earn a living to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table and a better standard of living for their families get fucked.

I agree with your goals, but I urge you to consider the problem further. Consider:

1) How would your suggested legislation prevent large interest groups from forming a myriad of smaller groups - each capable of contributing $1000 to a political campaign?

2) How would such legislation pass, when the only individuals with the power to pass legislation have an interest in keeping the current system in place? This is a major problem that has plagued all campaign finance reform legislation in the past. The politicians end up passing legislation so complex that lay-people will not read it - but it has an attractive name and so provides some positive popularity for the politicians who sign it. Meanwhile, the complex details of the reform place superficial barriers for contributions that large interest groups have no difficulty working around. Individuals and smaller groups, on the other hand, may find their political power diminished by campaign finance reform legislation.

3) Assuming that campaign finance reform legislation that would actually accomplish your goals was passed, how would you combat the illegal influence (bribes, etc...) that interest groups could still exert on law-makers?

4) Assuming all of your goals were achieved, have you given consideration to the inverse problem? If campaign contributions are so hard to come by, personally financing an election campaign would become increasingly manditory for politicians. This would prevent all but the wealthiest of individuals from being elected to a contested public office.

[spect]

my idea was an x amount per-person.

each person's free ability to split it up as wanted would include giving the rights of that money to a group. meaning if they did not have the money or interest, a group could politically donate that x amount in their name.

full accounting to the listing of people, money, and rights received would be required to submit for record keeping. huge punitive damages levied against violations, bordering on dissolving the group or up to a x50 amount of fines levied against a corporation, with 4 year exemption from the ability for following donations.

incentive is there for political groups and corporations to more directly engage people and the public for their contributions while representing in their name. also protects freedom of association and power because people, not groups or corporations, have a democratically equal influence to each other. all while protecting the rights and power of assembly to act collectively, like political parties and unions.

just an idea

[Pandemonium]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But money is speech, and corporations are people...

I am assuming you live in the US. Your first amendment is pretty clear. Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not distinguish between natural and legal persons.

Here is an interesting question for all you anti corporate personhood people; What aspects of corporations being legal persons do you dislike?

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The average Joe does not have the resources to speak louder than corporations. Some people are more equal than others.

Come on now. This is why people join unions, pacs and various other lobby groups.

[spect]

	Originally Posted by Pandemonium To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What aspects of corporations being legal persons do you dislike?

basic premise that depersonalizes and devalues something inherent, and adds unnecessary confusion to a simple concept. economics, politics, philosophies, laws, societies... they are all expressions of people and distinguishable as thier actions. people are the basic self-contained unit that can be uniquely identified and classified as separate from all that, and with a generalized concept of those collective actions to be serving their purpose.

[Pandemonium]

Originally Posted by spect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

basic premise that depersonalizes and devalues something inherent, and adds unnecessary confusion to a simple concept. economics, politics, philosophies, laws, societies... they are all expressions of people and distinguishable as thier actions. people are the basic self-contained unit that can be uniquely identified and classified as separate from all that, and with a generalized concept of those collective actions to be serving their purpose.

So you just dislike the word 'person' being associated with their legal status?

[spect]

its not semantics

[Pandemonium]

	Originally Posted by spect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	its not semantics

Could you make your answer more ostensible?

[Mogura]

Great responses. I have a big picture vision of fairness and equality for all, but you INTJs have done great with mapping out the details and identifying risks.

So, yeah, I'd like to modify my proposal that only individuals are allowed to contribute to political campaign funds. Let's keep it simple.

	Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1) How would your suggested legislation prevent large interest groups from forming a myriad of smaller groups - each capable of contributing $1000 to a political campaign?

As per above, only individuals can make a contribution.

Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2) How would such legislation pass, when the only individuals with the power to pass legislation have an interest in keeping the current system in place? This is a major problem that has plagued all campaign finance reform legislation in the past. The politicians end up passing legislation so complex that lay-people will not read it - but it has an attractive name and so provides some positive popularity for the politicians who sign it. Meanwhile, the complex details of the reform place superficial barriers for contributions that large interest groups have no difficulty working around. Individuals and smaller groups, on the other hand, may find their political power diminished by campaign finance reform legislation.

Tricky one. Let me ponder that.

	Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	3) Assuming that campaign finance reform legislation that would actually accomplish your goals was passed, how would you combat the illegal influence (bribes, etc...) that interest groups could still exert on law-makers?

I suppose that the methods already used to combat such crimes would be employed.

	Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4) Assuming all of your goals were achieved, have you given consideration to the inverse problem? If campaign contributions are so hard to come by, personally financing an election campaign would become increasingly manditory for politicians. This would prevent all but the wealthiest of individuals from being elected to a contested public office.

Yes, I have considered that. As a candidate would indeed be an individual then they would get to contribute the maximum of $1,000 to their own campaign fund. If the candidate needs more money to finance their campaign, then they'd better hope that other people with $1,000 burning holes in their pockets like what they have to say or identify with the values they represent...

[Hidden0477]

Apparently you guys haven't heard about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). If you thought you have freedom of speech, in the US, as far as the internet goes, if SOPA is signed into legislation, you can say goodbye to your said right to freedom of speech.

[aku chi]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Great responses. I have a big picture vision of fairness and equality for all, but you INTJs have done great with mapping out the details and identifying risks.

Glad to be of service. It's an important issue that deserves discussion, but I also fear that there is no silver bullet to make the political process fair and equal (in fact, it may be an unsolveable problem). I am especially skeptical of any proposal to change the political system that can only come to be from within the political system. A constitutional amendment might be necessary in such instances. But a subject as complex and fluid as campaign finance is ill suited for constitutional language (which is necessarily succinct and static).

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As per above, only individuals can make a contribution.

A sound idea. What of indirect forms of re-election contribution, like advertisements? Could interest groups (or individuals) self-fund advertisements for or against particular candidates without limit? What about funding advertisements, forming rallies, etc.. about political issues in general and not political candidates? Such actions might also increase a politician's chance of re-election? Wouldn't any legislation restricting political advertisements infringe upon the right to free speech?

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I suppose that the methods already used to combat such crimes would be employed.

But they may no longer be sufficient. If the means to legally exchange money for political influence are restricted, the inclination to use illegal exchanges for political influence would grow.

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, I have considered that. As a candidate would indeed be an individual then they would get to contribute the maximum of $1,000 to their own campaign fund. If the candidate needs more money to finance their campaign, then they'd better hope that other people with $1,000 burning holes in their pockets like what they have to say or identify with the values they represent...

a) Wouldn't it be easy for prospective politicians to pay off individuals to contribute to their campaign? ("Here's $1000. Contribute it to my campaign and I'll send you a check for $1500.")
b) Wouldn't it be exceptionally difficult/costly to audit every expenditure related to re-election (TV commericals, radio commercials, internet advertisements, billboards, fliers, rally premises, etc...) for every candidate?

[thod]

	Here is an interesting question for all you anti corporate personhood people; What aspects of corporations being legal persons do you dislike?

If a corporation is a person, then it cannot be owned. That would be slavery. If it is a person, then it must be subject to the same laws as natural people. Yet not one corporation is behind bars. If a corporation is a person, then it must be subject to income tax. If a corporation is a person, it must have the right to vote and be subject to conscription in times of need. The list is endless. A corporation is a legal fiction allowing a group (shareholders) to be represented as a single entity. It has no will of it's own, it implements the collective will of it's shareholders. Should a corporation do wrong, it is not the corporation that has done wrong, it is the directors of that corporation that have done wrong.

Given all this, I agree that corporations should be able to give money. This is because, for me, it is not the corporation giving, it is the shareholders who are giving. It is no different to if they each gave money in person. I have set up and closed down companies in the past. It costs a few hundred dollars. They are that easy to create. If you give them the vote, I will set up a thousand.

Nope, the problem is not one of corporations giving, but one of anyone giving. What is occurring is old-fashioned bribery. Bribing a public official is an offence. These corporates are not stupid. They have analysed the cost-benefit ratio of making such bribes. They continue to do so because they get back more than they put in. But then where does that extra come from? You guessed it, it is the general public. Thus we have a scheme which is against the public interest. We elect our officials to act in the public interest, thus they have a duty to prevent this sort of thing.

	I am assuming you live in the US. Your first amendment is pretty clear. Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not distinguish between natural and legal persons.

Once again you fail to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of action. Suppose we passed a law limiting each party to 10 hours of TV time. This is not abridging freedom of speech in that they may say whatever the pleased during that time. How about if we reduced that to zero hours? It could be argued that by denying a platform we are denying them freedom of speech. Yet one does not have the right to make speeches wherever one wishes. One cannot go to a rock concert and take the stage from the performer. How about if the media moguls decided to reject all campaigns from one side? They would argue that their property rights allowed them to do this. Yet in doing so they are restricting the 'freedom of speech' of those who wish to buy air time.

What your argument comes down to is that money should be the arbiter not of free speech (you can still speak) but of access to the audience. This sits very well with the Republican party since they, in general, have the most money. Thus is no different to having the justice system influenced by money.

The simplest solution is to ban ALL political contributions. Have all campaigns funded from the public purse. The cost of this is tiny compared with the costs of bad governance that arises from the bribery.

[Pandemonium]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If a corporation is a person, then it cannot be owned. That would be slavery. If it is a person, then it must be subject to the same laws as natural people. Yet not one corporation is behind bars. If a corporation is a person, then it must be subject to income tax. If a corporation is a person, it must have the right to vote and be subject to conscription in times of need. The list is endless. A corporation is a legal fiction allowing a group (shareholders) to be represented as a single entity. It has no will of it's own, it implements the collective will of it's shareholders. Should a corporation do wrong, it is not the corporation that has done wrong, it is the directors of that corporation that have done wrong.

You confusing matters. A corporation being a legal person is not the same as a natural person.

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Given all this, I agree that corporations should be able to give money. This is because, for me, it is not the corporation giving, it is the shareholders who are giving. It is no different to if they each gave money in person. I have set up and closed down companies in the past. It costs a few hundred dollars. They are that easy to create. If you give them the vote, I will set up a thousand. Nope, the problem is not one of corporations giving, but one of anyone giving. What is occurring is old-fashioned bribery. Bribing a public official is an offence. These corporates are not stupid. They have analysed the cost-benefit ratio of making such bribes. They continue to do so because they get back more than they put in. But then where does that extra come from? You guessed it, it is the general public. Thus we have a scheme which is against the public interest. We elect our officials to act in the public interest, thus they have a duty to prevent this sort of thing.

I see. You're against limited liability. Perhaps, you should state that explicitly rather than a crusade about corporate personhood.

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Once again you fail to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of action. Suppose we passed a law limiting each party to 10 hours of TV time. This is not abridging freedom of speech in that they may say whatever the pleased during that time. How about if we reduced that to zero hours? It could be argued that by denying a platform we are denying them freedom of speech. Yet one does not have the right to make speeches wherever one wishes. One cannot go to a rock concert and take the stage from the performer. How about if the media moguls decided to reject all campaigns from one side? They would argue that their property rights allowed them to do this. Yet in doing so they are restricting the 'freedom of speech' of those who wish to buy air time. What your argument comes down to is that money should be the arbiter not of free speech (you can still speak) but of access to the audience. This sits very well with the Republican party since they, in general, have the most money. Thus is no different to having the justice system influenced by money. The simplest solution is to ban ALL political contributions. Have all campaigns funded from the public purse. The cost of this is tiny compared with the costs of bad governance that arises from the bribery.

Hey! Don't argue with me. Argue with your supreme court.

[thod]

	You confusing matters. A corporation being a legal person is not the same as a natural person.

Corporations have always been 'legal entities', not people. There has always been a distinction between a 'natural person' and a legal entity. There are many sorts of legal entity, each having different attributes. The corporations are using the 'person' argument to selectively acquire new rights whilst avoiding those responsibilities they do not want. The constitutional arguments pertain to 'natural people' only. It is hard to argue that a man-made fiction has God-given rights.

	I see. You're against limited liability. Perhaps, you should state that explicitly rather than a crusade about corporate personhood.

Limited liability is a different issue. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility, and all that.

The big issue is 'access to audience'. If the monied interests control that, then the issue of freedom of speech is irrelevant.

[zibber]

CAP all you want!

We'll just flip the script anduh....

PAC!

Man!

jones

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Pandemonium To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am assuming you live in the US. Your first amendment is pretty clear. Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not distinguish between natural and legal persons. Here is an interesting question for all you anti corporate personhood people; What aspects of corporations being legal persons do you dislike?

Erm... they are not born, they do not die, they do not bleed, they do not breed. They are made up of people, and those people are people, but a group of ten people does not equal eleven people, no matter what paper you have that says so.

per·son/ˈpərsən/
Noun:

A human being regarded as an individual.
Used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual.

So the fact that corporations are not people in and of themselves is the problem that I have with corporations being people.

	Come on now. This is why people join unions, pacs and various other lobby groups.

Hahahaa! Right. Our unions are being destroyed, and having all of their powers stripped, and the institution itself vilified. Say you're a union member here now, and you're some sort of terrorist. PACS are... well, those are a bunch of people putting their individual monies together. I'm fine with people with their people money, but corporations still should not count as an extra person. Lobbying is one of the reasons this country is going down the shitter so fast, because politicians can and are bought. It's legal bribery.

If not contribution limits, then they definitely need term limits.