Ban Political Donations by Corporations Without Shareholder Approval

[Mr Liberty]

Hell no.

hard money lender?

I am a Real Estate Investor. I use hard money lenders a lot. Without them I couldn't have bought this many properties.

 

[Toro]

First, it is not entirely voluntary. For example, some pension funds are required by law to invest in stocks. But working someplace is also voluntary, is it not? Nobody forces
you to choose a livelihood. Most jobs are non-union. You can find a job that is non-union.

"Required" by whom? If I sign a contract to have a house built and I require it to have three bedrooms, does that mean the contractor isn't building it voluntarily? According to your definition of the term, no contractual arrangement is voluntary.

Sorry, not the same.

The law defines the operation of pension funds to be run in prudent manner, which requires diversification, which means that almost every pension fund in America is invested in stocks by law. Many pension funds run by states are required by law either directly or indirectly to invest in stocks.

Working for someone is voluntary. Joining a union normally isn't. No one forces a business owner to locate in Guido's "territory" either. Does that mean paying him protection money is "voluntary?" You continue failing to explain the distinction between a union and an extortion racket. That's because you can't. There is no distinction other than the fact that one is legalized and the other isn't.

De-certify the union then.

I'm not making a pro- or anti-union argument. I am saying that shareholders and union members should have the same rights regarding how their funds are used for political purposes. If you give union members the right to have a say over how their funds are used, you should give those same rights to shareholders. Full stop.

Second, whenever you buy stock, you are buying a piece of the company. That is a "donation" to a company which confers the owner of the stock certain rights. When companies issue equity, money is given to the company by the shareholder. If one then buys stock in the stock market, all that is doing is transferring share ownership. Shareholder A gave money to the company for stock. Shareholder B then bought that stock from Shareholder A. That now becomes Shareholder B's money that was originally given to the company by Shareholder A.

Wrong. Your mortgage payment isn't a "donation" to the bank. It's the price of buying your house. You purchase stock. You don't "donate" money to a corporation.

You keep trying to claim an equivalence between things that aren't equivalent. You're posting propaganda. Anyone with a brain can see what an obvious con it is.

Yeah, good argument. "Propaganda." This coming from someone who is arguing that there is no difference between a union and an extortion racket. No extreme ideological bias there!

I put "donation" in quotation marks because it wasn't meant to be literal. "Anyone with a brain" should have been able to figure that out. When I buy stock in a company, I have a claim on the funds of the corporation. That is my money in the company.

 

[Mr Liberty]

How about we ban all campaign donations to any one. Not one penny, no vacations (fact finding missions), no free Lear jet rides--nothing at all. Then they can do what they are supposed to: represent the people!

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, good argument. "Propaganda." This coming from someone who is arguing that there is no difference between a union and an extortion racket. No extreme ideological bias there!

You have failed repeatedly to explain the difference.

I put "donation" in quotation marks because it wasn't meant to be literal. "Anyone with a brain" should have been able to figure that out.

It's not a "donation" in any sense of the word, any more than your mortgage payment is a donation to a bank.

When I buy stock in a company, I have a claim on the funds of the corporation. That is my money in the company.

Nope, you have no claim whatsoever on corporate funds. You have the rights specified by your stock certificate, and nothing more.

 

[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



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

I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can

That would pretty much make this whole thread irrelevant. Which it is.
Corporations cannot make political donations. Period. The whole discussion is moot.

 

[Trajan]

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?

fine by me.

the dems will never buy it though. watch.

 

[boedicca]

This is utter nonsense.

Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.

 

[bripat9643]

The law defines the operation of pension funds to be run in prudent manner, which requires diversification, which means that almost every pension fund in America is invested in stocks by law. Many pension funds run by states are required by law either directly or indirectly to invest in stocks.

Then the arrangement is not totally voluntary. The government is interfering. How does that support your case?

Furthermore, the rules on state pension fund are set by the state. That's the same as complaining that the terms of your mortgage are set by your bank. Who else should determine them?

De-certify the union then.

I'm not making a pro- or anti-union argument. I am saying that shareholders and union members should have the same rights regarding how their funds are used for political purposes. If you give union members the right to have a say over how their funds are used, you should give those same rights to shareholders. Full stop.

Shareholders do not make "contributions" to an uninvited third party. There are no "funds" involved. The purchase price of a share of stock is not a "contribution" to the corporation any more than your mortgage or car payment is a "contribution" to a bank. The terms of your house purchase are spelled out in your mortgage agreement, and the terms of your stock purchase are spelled out on your stock certificate.

Unions are thugs. A union is a third party that uses force to insert itself into the middle of a contractual arrangement and compel the participants to give it a piece of the action. That's the definition of extortion, pure and simple.

 

[Toro]

Then the arrangement is not totally voluntary. The government is interfering. How does that support your case?

Furthermore, the rules on state pension fund are set by the state. That's the same as complaining that the terms of your mortgage are set by your bank. Who else should determine them?

It's not the same thing as a mortgage with my bank. Some companies and some governments offer defined benefit pension plans. I have no choice if I want to participate if I want to work there. I have to participate. I have to be a shareholder, just like you have to join a union in some cases.

Shareholders do not make "contributions" to an uninvited third party. There are no "funds" involved. The purchase price of a share of stock is not a "contribution" to the corporation any more than your mortgage or car payment is a "contribution" to a bank. The terms of your house purchase are spelled out in your mortgage agreement, and the terms of your stock purchase are spelled out on your stock certificate.

If Sergei Bryn comes to me and says "I am starting a new company but I need capital. We're going to call it 'Google,'" I am contributing my money to his new company because I have written him a cheque and transferred my money to this new company. The next day, somebody comes along and says "Toro, I'll give you double what you gave to Sergei for your share in the company you bought yesterday," and I agree, then I transfer my ownership in Google to the buyer. But the money I have in Google has not disappeared. It is still there. The guy who has given me money for my shares has not literally "contributed" money to Google, but I have, and he now owns the money I gave to Google because he owns my shares. Somebody has to have contributed money to the company. Every transaction to buy shares is a de facto recognition that the buyer would contribute money to the company at that price, whether or not they actually do so. Whether it goes to the shareholder or the company itself is irrelevant. Of course, companies do sell shares to shareholders directly in the secondary market, and do take the money directly from shareholders and use the capital for a variety of purposes.

You're confusing car loans and mortgages with ownership. When I buy a house or a car, it is my car or my house, and I can do whatever I want with it within the indentures of the lending arrangement. If I buy stock on margin, then I have to abide by the margin agreement, but I still own the stock. I do not need to buy a house or a car or a stock with borrowing.

Unions are thugs. A union is a third party that uses force to insert itself into the middle of a contractual arrangement and compel the participants to give it a piece of the action. That's the definition of extortion, pure and simple.

A union is not an "uninvited third party." A union has been voted into existence by its members. It represents the interests of its workers. It can be voted out of existence as well.

 

[Toro]

This is utter nonsense.

Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.

Union members can do the same with union leaders.

 

[kaz]

This is utter nonsense.

Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.

Union members can do the same with union leaders.

True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.

 

[Toro]

This is utter nonsense.

Shareholders vote on Boards of Directors to whom the CEO reports. If they don't trust them to make decisions regarding the company's various expenditures and initiatives, then they should vote out the board members and replace them with people that they do trust.

Union members can do the same with union leaders.

True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.

If I have the opportunity to invest with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn early but I sell my stock, who loses more, me or the guy who has to look for another job?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

And union wages are based on performance?

Not sure what you are getting at here. It probably depends on the job. I've never been in a Union..so I am not really sure how that goes. Where I work you are given performance reviews.

Performance reviews mean shit in a union shop. At an IAMAW shop in the 70's, I was told I was working too hard and threatened, BY THE FOREMAN with a beat-down if I didn't slow down. Unions exist so the lowest performing workers are protected and high performance is discouraged.

 

[uscitizen]

A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.

 

[kaz]

Union members can do the same with union leaders.

True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.

If I have the opportunity to invest with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn early but I sell my stock, who loses more, me or the guy who has to look for another job?

Investments are made ex-ante, not ex-post. So you could have in that case sold another stock and bought a stock with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn.

And you don't understand "choice" do you? I didn't say shareholders have to sell it, I said they have the....wait for it....choice. Choice means they can but they don't have to. It's up to them. But with Unions, they aren't just choosing to leave the union, they have to change jobs and likely careers. You seriously don't see the difference?

 

[kaz]

A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.

And they shouldn't pay taxes either

 

[Toro]

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

I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can

That would pretty much make this whole thread irrelevant. Which it is.
Corporations cannot make political donations. Period. The whole discussion is moot.

You're dumber than a sack of hammers, aren't you?

That's right, Rabbi, "Corporations cannot make political donations."

rofl

Outstanding.

 

[uscitizen]

A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.

And they shouldn't pay taxes either

If they have legal benefits of being an individual they also have the responsibilities of being an individual.

That is the current problem they have most of the benefits but few of the downsides.

 

[Toro]

True, but shareholders can sell their share and buy another stock if they don't win the election and union members have to actually find a new job probably in a different field.

If I have the opportunity to invest with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn early but I sell my stock, who loses more, me or the guy who has to look for another job?

Investments are made ex-ante, not ex-post. So you could have in that case sold another stock and bought a stock with Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergei Bryn.

And you don't understand "choice" do you? I didn't say shareholders have to sell it, I said they have the....wait for it....choice.

I own an index fund, how can I sell my stock? I am part of a defined contribution pension plan, how can I sell my stock? I own a mutual fund, how can I sell my stock? I'm locked in a trust fund, how can I sell my stock?

Choice means they can but they don't have to. It's up to them. But with Unions, they aren't just choosing to leave the union, they have to change jobs and likely careers. You seriously don't see the difference?

Of course there is a difference. But it's a choice nonetheless. Besides, this started out in response to what government unions are doing. Most jobs in government are not unionized in the private sector. So the choice for the government worker is often a union job with the government and a non-union job with a company, but its the same job, and they don't have to go far nor change careers to do so.

 

[Ernie S.]

A corporation cannot vote nor be inicarcerated for crimes so they deserve no individual rights.
and many do not even qualify for citizenship, ie born in the USA.

And they shouldn't pay taxes either

We have a winner!