Ban Political Donations by Corporations Without Shareholder Approval

[Toro]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

 

[Jackson]

I think that's fair.

 

[Ernie S.]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

What you fail to realize is that in most corporations, the board of directors owns or controls the majority of stock. It's not one man one vote in a corporation. It's one share one vote.

 

[editec]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

Won't help much.

We need to completely overhaul of the way we finance politics, folks.

Obviously legal entities (like corporations and corporate unions) ought not to have the right to insinuate themeslves into our politics.

But when the SCOTUS found that corporations have rights?

They basically told us that the idea of DEMCORACY offended the constitution of the USA.

And you know something?

If you read that document, you discover that the Floundering Fathers DID loathe the concept of democracy, folks.

They were, mostly let's face it, ARTISOS.

Hence we live in a REPUBLIC that says all the right things about democracy, but acts on the principle that the people are sheep to be sheared by the masters.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can we ban union donations without member approval as well?

 

[kaz]

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

I'm for banning political contributions from both unions and corporations. I think money should only go to politics from American citizens and voluntary associations of American citizens. But to answer your question, joining a union is far less voluntary then buying stock in a company. You don't like a company's political support, you don't buy it. Saying you have to get a different job to leave a union though is a much higher consequence.

 

[California Girl]

One is forced to become a shareholder in a corporation? No. One makes a decision, usually based on whether that corporation has a good track record of profits. Not the same thing as unions at all.

I don't have any issue with the idea as such, other than a faux analogy between a corporation's shareholders and the members of a union.

 

[Sallow]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

Yep.

And it's funny. Both are basically the same thing.

 

[Sallow]

One is forced to become a shareholder in a corporation? No. One makes a decision, usually based on whether that corporation has a good track record of profits. Not the same thing as unions at all.

I don't have any issue with the idea as such, other than a faux analogy between a corporation's shareholders and the members of a union.

Seriously?

Mutual funds?

 

[Sallow]

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

I'm for banning political contributions from both unions and corporations. I think money should only go to politics from American citizens and voluntary associations of American citizens. But to answer your question, joining a union is far less voluntary then buying stock in a company. You don't like a company's political support, you don't buy it. Saying you have to get a different job to leave a union though is a much higher consequence.

That part I like.

Funding for campaigns should be limited..and funds equally made available to all viable candidates.

 

[kaz]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

Yep.

And it's funny. Both are basically the same thing.

You are forced to join a union to get a job.

You chose one of thousands of stocks to invest in.

Yep, same thing....

 

[Sallow]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

What you fail to realize is that in most corporations, the board of directors owns or controls the majority of stock. It's not one man one vote in a corporation. It's one share one vote.

And many of them get stock as part of a compensation package. And lately..compensation packages have nothing to do with performance.

 

[Sallow]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

Yep.

And it's funny. Both are basically the same thing.

You are forced to join a union to get a job.

You chose one of thousands of stocks to invest in.

Yep, same thing....

I never joined a Union in my life to get a job. And I've bought stock.

 

[Sallow]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

Won't help much.

We need to completely overhaul of the way we finance politics, folks.

Obviously legal entities (like corporations and corporate unions) ought not to have the right to insinuate themeslves into our politics.

But when the SCOTUS found that corporations have rights?

They basically told us that the idea of DEMCORACY offended the constitution of the USA.

And you know something?

If you read that document, you discover that the Floundering Fathers DID loathe the concept of democracy, folks.

They were, mostly let's face it, ARTISOS.

Hence we live in a REPUBLIC that says all the right things about democracy, but acts on the principle that the people are sheep to be sheared by the masters.

 

[kaz]

Yep.

And it's funny. Both are basically the same thing.

You are forced to join a union to get a job.

You chose one of thousands of stocks to invest in.

Yep, same thing....

I never joined a Union in my life to get a job. And I've bought stock.

Hmm...

 

[California Girl]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

 

[Sallow]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

Amway?

 

[The Rabbi]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

WOw are you ignorant.
Corporations are banned from giving money to political candidates, period. Have been since the 1950s.

Unions are not. Ban union contributions and things will be equal.

 

[California Girl]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

Amway?

Hell no.