Politics

[wizards8507]

You don't see the problem with #4? The governments doing the regulating are the same individuals running for office. You get one party in power once and it's game over.

Also "corporations" and "labor unions" are nothing but abstract concepts built upon the individuals that make them up. Those individuals all have free speech.

Money isn't free speech but advertisements ARE free speech and you buy them with money.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[wizards8507]

I think he meant Oligopoly, at least that is what I think he meant.

He keeps quoting Jefferson's point about oligarchy but uses it to criticize oligopoly. They aren't the same thing so the Jefferson quote is irrelevant with regards to what he's describing.

Jefferson feared concentrated political power much more than concentrated economic power.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[pkt77242]

He keeps quoting Jefferson's point about oligarchy but uses it to criticize oligopoly. They aren't the same thing so the Jefferson quote is irrelevant with regards to what he's describing.

Jefferson feared concentrated political power much more than concentrated economic power.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I agree he feared that more but he did fear concentrated economic power as well as evidenced by a quote that Chicago already posted.

"I hope that we crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

 

[connor_in]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[pkt77242]

You don't see the problem with #4? The governments doing the regulating are the same individuals running for office. You get one party in power once and it's game over.

Also "corporations" and "labor unions" are nothing but abstract concepts built upon the individuals that make them up. Those individuals all have free speech.

Money isn't free speech but advertisements ARE free speech and you buy them with money.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Here are my ideas to fix elections.

1. non-individuals can not give to candidates
2. money given to DNC and RNC can not be given to candidates or used to run ads for candidates.
2. Double the amount allowed to be given to a candidate but require that each candidate have a website that lists who donated to them and how much so that it is completely transparent who gave money and how much.
3. Get rid of PACs and Super PACs. Only candidates can run ads.
4. Change how we do elections. I like having everyone in the primary field and the two candidates with the highest votes go onto the general election (they could both be Dems or Repubs or non affiliated, who cares).

I am sure there are other changes but I can't think of them right now.

 

[Cackalacky]

He keeps quoting Jefferson's point about oligarchy but uses it to criticize oligopoly. They aren't the same thing so the Jefferson quote is irrelevant with regards to what he's describing.

Jefferson feared concentrated political power much more than concentrated economic power.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

The oligopolists are the oligarchy?

 

[wizards8507]

I couldn't multi-quote from my phone but now that I'm back at a computer I'll take these one at a time.

1 - Rights of the Consitution apply to only natural persons not corporations or labor unions

You clearly don't understand the ruling in Citizens United. The ruling was not that "a corporation is a person," as I'm sure you repeat over and over again to anyone who will listen, but that "a corporation is made up of people" (i.e. the shareholders and management). Those people all have the rights of "natural persons," regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof with a corporation or labor union. If they freely associate with those groups, they give their consent for the group to pool resources and more effectively target their message.

2 - Money is not free speech

No, but advertisements ARE free speech, and money buys advertisements. Let me get this straight. Joe's Pizza, Inc. earns $150,000 and pays all applicable taxes to the IRS. He's left with $100,000. You're telling me that Joe, the sole shareholder of Joe's Pizza, Inc. should not be free to LITERALLY GIVE AWAY the money that he earned by making a product that people need, want, or desire?

3 - This amendment shall not restrict freedom of the press

Score one for the good guys.

4 - Campaign contributions can be regulated by federal, state , and local governments

This is the most ridiculous one of all. The "federal, state, and local governments" might not do the regulating in the one that you, chicago51, believe is appropriate. Once you give them that power you cannot control how they wield it (see also: conservatives who supported the Patriot Act but bitch about the NSA). Government power and regulation is fine when YOUR guy is in charge.

 

[connor_in]

Mother Jones Scribe: Tea Party Akin to Joker in Batman Films, 'Just Wants to Burn the Village' | NewsBusters

Really...?

 

[GoIrish41]

First of all, there's plenty of money on the left too. Obama outraised everyone ever. I don't particularly like the impact that money plays in politics but free speech is free speech. Any evil that comes from money in politics is less evil (IMO) than stifling that speech.

No argument about too much money on the left from me. That said, it was not the left that pushed for a law saying that corporations are people with the same rights to free speech as citizens. That was the right and the right leaning Supreme Court upheld that law, they turned elections from a street fight where you had to bring enough people to fight in order to prevail, to an all out war in which resources became more important than people. Who are the generals in that war? They are the heads of the biggest corporations in the country, who's money buys influence that has not been seen since the Guilded Age. Are those corporate heads people who are entitled to free speech? Absolutely. Their free speech should carry just as much weight as yours and mine. We both know that isn't the case. They use their massive amounts of cash to purchase a seat at the table with politicians (on both sides of the isle). That influence includes, but is not limited to, actually writing the laws that give them a special advantages in the marketplace and hold the influence of the workers (who are the actual citizens) at bay. It isn't free speech. It is an absolute corruption of our system of government that will never benefit the average American unless by complete accident.

 

[wizards8507]

1. non-individuals can not give to candidates

A corporation (or labor union, or association) is nothing more than a "whole bunch of individuals." There's fundamentally no difference between a "corporation" giving to a candidate and all the individuals who make up that corporation giving to the candidate.

2. money given to DNC and RNC can not be given to candidates or used to run ads for candidates.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

3. Double the amount allowed to be given to a candidate but require that each candidate have a website that lists who donated to them and how much so that it is completely transparent who gave money and how much.

That already exists. Anyone who donates over $200 is on the list.

4. Get rid of PACs and Super PACs. Only candidates can run ads.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

5. Change how we do elections. I like having everyone in the primary field and the two candidates with the highest votes go onto the general election (they could both be Dems or Repubs or non affiliated, who cares).

The primary is NOT run by the Federal Government, it is run by the individual political parties based on state and party laws. You CAN go on to the general election without a party affiliation. There is no federal law that says how primaries have to work or even that they have to exist. If the Democrat party wanted to just declare that Hillary Clinton is the nominee without a primary, they could go right ahead and do that.

 

[wizards8507]

No argument about too much money on the left from me. That said, it was not the left that pushed for a law saying that corporations are people with the same rights to free speech as citizens.

Tell me what you think a corporation is.

 

[chicago51]

Here are my ideas to fix elections.

1. non-individuals can not give to candidates
2. money given to DNC and RNC can not be given to candidates or used to run ads for candidates.
2. Double the amount allowed to be given to a candidate but require that each candidate have a website that lists who donated to them and how much so that it is completely transparent who gave money and how much.
3. Get rid of PACs and Super PACs. Only candidates can run ads.
4. Change how we do elections. I like having everyone in the primary field and the two candidates with the highest votes go onto the general election (they could both be Dems or Repubs or non affiliated, who cares).

I am sure there are other changes but I can't think of them right now.

Nice post.

Point 4 is a step toward instant runoff voting which I am a big fan of.

 

[GoIrish41]

Tell me what you think a corporation is.

Not sure if you are trying to insult my intelligence, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt play along.

Corporations are owned by stockholders who share in profits and losses generated through business operaitons. They all share some unique characteristics. 1. They can buy and sell good and services and enter into contracts, that are legally binding to the business. 2. They enjoy limited liability, that is to say that they cannot be forced to pay creditors more than the value of the firm. (which is just a safeguard for the primary owners of the company that allows them, at times, to be reckless without any personal consequence) and 3. Ownership can be transferred through the sale of shares, which allows them to exist beyond the lifespan of their owners.

I understand what a corporation is, but these entities are run by individuals -- persons who have a vested stake in the success or failure of the business. As such, they make decisions soley based on the corporations bottom line with no sense of value in or loyalty to their employees. I think that a look at the income distribution of the United States will give a clear focus on those who makes the decisions for these companies. Do you think the average American with a 401k and a paycheck-to-paycheck job has any influence over what a corporation does? Corporations are "individuals" in a legal sense, but who is calling all the shot?. To suggest that these organizations are individuals would be to suggest that because I own stock through a retirement account in one of these etities (and therefore partially own the company) that I have any influence over their actions is to ignore reality. That the leadership of these entities pays huge sums of money to influence politics against my will or the will of more than half of the country for their own benefit is the problem.

 

[wizards8507]

Not sure if you are trying to insult my intelligence, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt play along.

Corporations are owned by stockholders who share in profits and losses generated through business operaitons. They all share some unique characteristics. 1. They can buy and sell good and services and enter into contracts, that are legally binding to the business. 2. They enjoy limited liability, that is to say that they cannot be forced to pay creditors more than the value of the firm. (which is just a safeguard for the primary owners of the company that allows them, at times, to be reckless without any personal consequence) and 3. Ownership can be transferred through the sale of shares, which allows them to exist beyond the lifespan of their owners.

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. A lot of people who complain about Citizens United would be unable to articulate your second paragraph.

I understand what a corporation is, but these entities are run by individuals -- persons who have a vested stake in the success or failure of the business. As such, they make decisions soley based on the corporations bottom line with no sense of value in or loyalty to their employees. I think that a look at the income distribution of the United States will give a clear focus on those who makes the decisions for these companies. Do you think the average American with a 401k and a paycheck-to-paycheck job has any influence over what a corporation does? Corporations are "individuals" in a legal sense, but who is calling all the shot?. To suggest that these organizations are individuals would be to suggest that because I own stock through a retirement account in one of these etities (and therefore partially own the company) that I have any influence over their actions is to ignore reality. That the leadership of these entities pays huge sums of money to influence politics against my will or the will of more than half of the country for their own benefit is the problem.

As a shareholder, actions used to benefit the bottom line ARE what's in your best interest. "Shareholder wealth maximization" is the basic principle underlying the corporate organizational structure. If your personal political views are contrary to the actions that would be in the best interest of the firm's profitability, one would question why you're invested with them in the first place.

Also, actions taken at the firm-level benefit the shareholders because the shareholders are unable to scale like the entity can. I work for Disney and it's no secret that management has actively fought to keep casinos out of the Central Florida market. Keeping casinos out of Central Florida is in the best interest of DIS shareholders. However, individual shareholders are unable to exert the amount of influence at the individual level that the entire company can exert at the firm level. Without the ability for the firm to act on behalf of the shareholders, the shareholder voice in the matter would not be heard whatsoever. There's nothing a 0.007% owner in DIS can do to make a difference on that issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. A lot of people who complain about Citizens United would be unable to articulate your second paragraph.


As a shareholder, actions used to benefit the bottom line ARE what's in your best interest. "Shareholder wealth maximization" is the basic principle underlying the corporate organizational structure. If your personal political views are contrary to the actions that would be in the best interest of the firm's profitability, one would question why you're invested with them in the first place.

Also, actions taken at the firm-level benefit the shareholders because the shareholders are unable to scale like the entity can. I work for Disney and it's no secret that management has actively fought to keep casinos out of the Central Florida market. Keeping casinos out of Central Florida is in the best interest of DIS shareholders. However, individual shareholders are unable to exert the amount of influence at the individual level that the entire company can exert at the firm level. Without the ability for the firm to act on behalf of the shareholders, the shareholder voice in the matter would not be heard whatsoever. There's nothing a 0.007% owner in DIS can do to make a difference on that issue.

First bolded: When one has a 401K through work, there is not a lot one can do to control the investments that are made (through private investment companies) on our behalf ... yet another example of what I was pointing out. The only choice is not to participate at all, which is probably not the best course of action for me or my family.

Second bolded: I would argue that is a big part of the problem and a corruption of what the corporation is intended to accomplish. They have become so big and so influential that their sway over the government at all levels is obscene. I don't know any details in the example you used, so I'm not going to debate that issue. I think it is clear though, that the firm is only acting on behalf of the stakeholders (politically) under the guise of corporate affiliation. Disney leadership does not want competition for DisneyWorld because competition is bad for business (something that the right tends to look down upon, but that is another story). I would guess that many individuals who own stock in Disney, whether directly or through their retirement accounts may want the additional jobs and economic impact that the casino industry would bring. Their voices don't get heard either because more times than not, the question isn't asked of the stakeholders. It is decided for them. If that is how decisions are made by corporations, it is hard for me to understand how you think that (King Kong) would be superior to government rule (Godzilla). I think King Kong is worse because you don't even get to pretend you have a say through voting.

 

[wizards8507]

When one has a 401K through work, there is not a lot one can do to control the investments that are made (through private investment companies) on our behalf ... yet another example of what I was pointing out. The only choice is not to participate at all, which is probably not the best course of action for me or my family.

That's kind of exactly my point. Our system isn't perfect, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I would argue that is a big part of the problem and a corruption of what the corporation is intended to accomplish. They have become so big and so influential that their sway over the government at all levels is obscene. I don't know any details in the example you used, so I'm not going to debate that issue. I think it is clear though, that the firm is only acting on behalf of the stakeholders (politically) under the guise of corporate affiliation. Disney leadership does not want competition for DisneyWorld because competition is bad for business (something that the right tends to look down upon, but that is another story). I would guess that many individuals who own stock in Disney, whether directly or through their retirement accounts may want the additional jobs and economic impact that the casino industry would bring. Their voices don't get heard either because more times than not, the question isn't asked of the stakeholders. It is decided for them. If that is how decisions are made by corporations, it is hard for me to understand how you think that (King Kong) would be superior to government rule (Godzilla). I think King Kong is worse because you don't even get to pretend you have a say through voting.

The firm only acts on behalf of the shareholder as it relates to their capacity AS shareholders. If you invest in Disney, they can only act on your behalf as it relates to your investment, i.e. profit maximization. They can't make decisions based on your career prospects if they were to open a theme park in your home town, for example, because your career isn't within the scope of the agency relationship. It's like if you were suing your insurance company. Your lawyer only acts on your behalf as it relates to that case. The lawyer is under no obligation to benefit you in his personal life or with other cases he takes on.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's kind of exactly my point. Our system isn't perfect, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.


The firm only acts on behalf of the shareholder as it relates to their capacity AS shareholders. If you invest in Disney, they can only act on your behalf as it relates to your investment, i.e. profit maximization. They can't make decisions based on your career prospects if they were to open a theme park in your home town, for example, because your career isn't within the scope of the agency relationship. It's like if you were suing your insurance company. Your lawyer only acts on your behalf as it relates to that case. The lawyer is under no obligation to benefit you in his personal life or with other cases he takes on.

OK let me use a blantant example. Sheldon Adleson the primary stockholder in a casino company donated $150 million to Republican candidates during the last presidential election -- first to Gingrich and then to Romney. From everything I read, the primary issue he was concerned with influencing US/Israel relations ... something that had zero to do with his casinos. This is the kind of influence with which I am most concerned. When it stops being about setting the stage for your company to succeed over another company (which I think is bad in and of itself and am amazed the republicans don't agree) but influencing policy that has nothing to do with the corporation for whom he is making politically motivated decisions.

 

[wizards8507]

OK let me use a blantant example. Sheldon Adleson the primary stockholder in a casino company donated $150 million to Republican candidates during the last presidential election -- first to Gingrich and then to Romney. From everything I read, the primary issue he was concerned with influencing US/Israel relations ... something that had zero to do with his casinos. This is the kind of influence with which I am most concerned. When it stops being about setting the stage for your company to succeed over another company (which I think is bad in and of itself and am amazed the republicans don't agree) but influencing policy that has nothing to do with the corporation for whom he is making politically motivated decisions.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those were personal donations, not corporate donations.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's kind of exactly my point. Our system isn't perfect, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Clearly I'm not willing to just pull my money out of my 401k and stuff it in my matress, but lets say for the sake of argument, that I have money in an oil company who is lobbying Congress to invade Saudi Arabia because it would be, somehow, in the best interest of that company. Because of the ungodly amount of influence of him and his friends, that war gains approval and we go to war. My neighbor's son just joined the Army last month, and as a result of this oil company generated war, he is sent off to war, only to be killed in the initial ground invasion. I would say that for my neighbor and his family, he would not agree that the benefits outweigh the costs. I would say the same for his son, and my son who was friends with him. It is a slippery slope when we give too few people too much power to influence our lives.

 

[Cackalacky]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those were personal donations, not corporate donations.

2014 Congress | OpenSecrets
You can track all reportable donations to any congressman, committee, PAC, Presidential candidate etc. here.

There are numerous corporations donating through PACs to congressman and the president. Regardless, GOIrish' point is well supported if Mr. Addleston used his own money or not.

 

[GoIrish41]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those were personal donations, not corporate donations.

according to the federal election commission website, personal contributions are capped at $123,200 bi-annually. He gave $15 million.

edit: apparently I grossly understated the amount of his contributions. How Much Did Sheldon Adelson Really Spend on Campaign 2012? - ProPublica

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Clearly I'm not willing to just pull my money out of my 401k and stuff it in my matress, but lets say for the sake of argument, that I have money in an oil company who is lobbying Congress to invade Saudi Arabia because it would be, somehow, in the best interest of that company. Because of the ungodly amount of influence of him and his friends, that war gains approval and we go to war. My neighbor's son just joined the Army last month, and as a result of this oil company generated war, he is sent off to war, only to be killed in the initial ground invasion. I would say that for my neighbor and his family, he would not agree that the benefits outweigh the costs. I would say the same for his son, and my son who was friends with him. It is a slippery slope when we give too few people too much power to influence our lives.

Maybe we shouldn't vote for candidates who would compromise their ideals so quickly. That's on the voter.

2014 Congress | OpenSecrets
You can track all reportable donations to any congressman, committee, PAC, Presidential candidate etc. here.

There are numerous corporations donating through PACs to congressman and the president. Regardless, GOIrish' point is well supported if Mr. Addleston used his own money or not.

You can't donate to candidates "through" PACs. It's not allowed. If it happens, then this is a problem with the enforcement of the rules, not the rules themselves.

according to the federal election commission website, personal contributions are capped at $123,200 bi-annually. He gave $15 million.

See above.

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe we shouldn't vote for candidates who would compromise their ideals so quickly. That's on the voter.


You can't donate to candidates "through" PACs. It's not allowed. If it happens, then this is a problem with the enforcement of the rules, not the rules themselves.


See above.

I'm not suggesting it was illegal, but that it should be. He absolutely donated money to candidates through PACs. Each PAC had its favorite candidates and all the money from those PACs went to fund adversisements for said candidates. What is the difference? Will the candidate not be beholden to him if elected either way if Adelson personally financed the all the ads that helped the campaign? This is a terrible law.

 

[Cackalacky]

Maybe we shouldn't vote for candidates who would compromise their ideals so quickly. That's on the voter.


You can't donate to candidates "through" PACs. It's not allowed. If it happens, then this is a problem with the enforcement of the rules, not the rules themselves.


See above.

Here is one entry for the Goldman Sachs PAC

Official PAC Name:
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Location: WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Industry: Securities & Investment; Investment banking
Treasurer: O'CONNOR, ROBERT
FEC Committee ID: C00350744
(Look up actual documents filed at the FEC)

Here is a list of Goldman Sachs Employees donating to the GS PAC for the PAC to support candidates:
Goldman Sachs Contributors | OpenSecrets

Here are the recipients of money from the GS PAC:
Goldman Sachs Contributions to Federal Candidates | OpenSecrets

 

[chicago51]

I thought some PACs like these 501c4 group's that are supposedly social welfare groups like Americans for Prosperity, or lefty versions like Democracy for America don't have to disclose there donors.

My understanding is that foreign governments like say China could donate thanks to the Citizens United.

Corporations hardly represent the interest of their employees when they donate. Employees do freely associate with them in a way but it is not like the labor market is so great that people can be picky about where they work.

The result of money in politics we don't have a representative democracy. Some would argue that is a good. The whole Thomas Hobbs vs John Locke debate. Hobbs view that a significant number of people are evil and that government should be done by the chosen few. Today we call Hobbes evil people the takers or Romney's 47 percent. Locke had the view that people are mostly good are capable of governing themselves. Which led to Jefferson view that an informed educated electorate was ultimately check on the abuse of government power because it relates to the concept of people being able to govern themselves.

Edit: BTW based on Romney's moderate governing record I'm not he necessarily believed the 47 percent comment as much as he was pandering to donors that do since fundraising is the name of the game.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not suggesting it was illegal, but that it should be. He absolutely donated money to candidates through PACs. Each PAC had its favorite candidates and all the money from those PACs went to fund adversisements for said candidates. What is the difference? Will the candidate not be beholden to him if elected either way if Adelson personally financed the all the ads that helped the campaign? This is a terrible law.

Not if he or she is a person of character. If I ran for office, Restore Our Future and American Crossroads could run all the pro-me advertisements they want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give a damn what they say if I'm elected.

 

[wizards8507]

I thought some PACs like these 501c4 group's that are supposedly social welfare groups like Americans for Prosperity, or lefty versions like Democracy for America don't have to disclose there donors.

My understanding is that foreign governments like say China could donate thanks to the Citizens United.

Corporations hardly represent the interest of their employees when they donate. Employees do freely associate with them in a way but it is not like the labor market is so great that people can be picky about where they work.

The result of money in politics we don't have a representative democracy. Some would argue that is a good. The whole Thomas Hobbs vs John Locke debate. Hobbs view that a significant number of people are evil and that government should be done by the chosen few. Today we call Hobbes evil people the takers or Romney's 47 percent. Locke had the view that people are mostly good are capable of governing themselves.

Money buys advertising. You don't get weighted voting based on wealth. One man, one vote is still the law of the land.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not if he or she is a person of character. If I ran for office, Restore Our Future and American Crossroads could run all the pro-me advertisements they want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give a damn what they say if I'm elected.

Apparently you have a lot more character than almost every politician who has ever served in my lifetime.

Oh, and they wouldn't run pro-you ads if there wasn't a backroom deal in place in the first place. No deal, no ads, no win. That's the way it works.

 

[wizards8507]

Apparently you have a lot more character than almost every politician who has ever served in my lifetime.

Probably. That's no comment on me, but on "almost every politician who has ever served in your lifetime."

Oh, and they wouldn't run pro-you ads if there wasn't a backroom deal in place in the first place. No deal, no ads, no win. That's the way it works.

Like I said, a quid pro quo arrangement like that is already illegal. It's an issue of enforcement, not a need for new laws. Do you really think backroom deals would stop just because they pass campaign finance reform? If they don't enforce what exists already, what's the incentive to start?

 

[Irish Houstonian]