Brazil bans corporate campaign donations - U.S. to follow?

[David_42]

Good for brazil.

 

[Nyvin]

When the Supremes ruled that corporations are people, then why weren't financial corporation's executives thrown in jail for all of their fraudulent practices involved with the financial failure?
They were convicted in court. They paid fines (that didn't equal their profits they made while committing fraud). Yet not one executive served time for fraud!
Why? Because corporations were treated not as a person but as an entity by the courts and laws!
And people are cool with this contradiction of laws and justice.

Corporations are large groups of people with a common purpose, kind of like labor unions. I'm going to bet you're just fine with unions contributing to campaigns, aren't you?

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Yeah, because corporations would run the country.

No. States would run the states the federal government would do what the Constitution empowers it to do and not one iota more.

Then we have no national highway system, we have no FEMA, we have no Center for Disease control, no Medicare, no Social Security (elderly people wouldn't be happy about those), no more national parks.

Corporations could pollute all they want, they can sell products that break a week after you buy it, they can create national monopolies and dominate entire markets charging whatever they want to (think Comcast x1,000). There would be no Fair Labor Act so people could be forced to work 70 hour work weeks and 8 year olds could be employed to dangerous working conditions.

The modern world does not function without a strong national government, all the sensible people realize this. If you want to live in a country with no national government you can go move to Somalia.

 

[Ernie S.]

Corporations are large groups of people with a common purpose, kind of like labor unions. I'm going to bet you're just fine with unions contributing to campaigns, aren't you?

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Yeah, because corporations would run the country.

No. States would run the states the federal government would do what the Constitution empowers it to do and not one iota more.

Then we have no national highway system, we have no FEMA, we have no Center for Disease control, no Medicare, no Social Security (elderly people wouldn't be happy about those), no more national parks.

Corporations could pollute all they want, they can sell products that break a week after you buy it, they can create national monopolies and dominate entire markets charging whatever they want to (think Comcast x1,000). There would be no Fair Labor Act so people could be forced to work 70 hour work weeks and 8 year olds could be employed to dangerous working conditions.

The modern world does not function without a strong national government, all the sensible people realize this. If you want to live in a country with no national government you can go move to Somalia.

States can legislate against pollution. Citizens can sue manufacturers of shoddy products or shop elsewhere. States maintain their own highways now. What would getting the feds out of the road business change?
What extra-constitutional services does the federal government provide that the states couldn't?
Do you really think that if the Fair Labor Act went away that 8 year olds in Arkansas would be putting in 70 hour work weeks?

 

[Nyvin]

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Yeah, because corporations would run the country.

No. States would run the states the federal government would do what the Constitution empowers it to do and not one iota more.

Then we have no national highway system, we have no FEMA, we have no Center for Disease control, no Medicare, no Social Security (elderly people wouldn't be happy about those), no more national parks.

Corporations could pollute all they want, they can sell products that break a week after you buy it, they can create national monopolies and dominate entire markets charging whatever they want to (think Comcast x1,000). There would be no Fair Labor Act so people could be forced to work 70 hour work weeks and 8 year olds could be employed to dangerous working conditions.

The modern world does not function without a strong national government, all the sensible people realize this. If you want to live in a country with no national government you can go move to Somalia.

States can legislate against pollution. Citizens can sue manufacturers of shoddy products or shop elsewhere. States maintain their own highways now. What would getting the feds out of the road business change?
What extra-constitutional services does the federal government provide that the states couldn't?
Do you really think that if the Fair Labor Act went away that 8 year olds in Arkansas would be putting in 70 hour work weeks?

You put way too much credit into how much a state government is capable of.

Sure a nation-state like California or Texas could handle the challenges, but Wyoming? Or Mississippi? You think tiny little governments like that can stand up to Exxon or the Koch Brothers? They would roll over them extremely fast just like Standard Oil did in the 19th century. You seriously think Wyoming would be able to pay for and maintain I-80?

You could not sue the manufacturers because there would be no federal mandates on products. It'd all be on the consumer, and that includes all kinds of crap brought in from Asia.....remember no federal oversight?

FDIC insurance? Handling Nuclear waste? Managing Satellites? What happens when the next financial crisis occurs and the big banks need bailouts? Do we just let them go under and crash the entire economic system? Entire countries rely on the USA's FDA for their food standards and what is allowed to be put into food.

There is a plethora of responsibilities the country needs a national government for in the modern age....we aren't living in the 18th century with oxen wagons, muskets, and straw rooftops anymore.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nuke waste would fall under DOD so it would remain under federal control. Other than that, State governments could handle everything the feds do now or do without.

 

[danielpalos]

American voters will have to get rid of more of their embarrassingly compromised politicians and judges before this will happen. They (corrupt politicians and judges) think they can ride it out. It appears thus far many are willing to take the country down before facing the truth.

I believe this has more to do with less efficacious public policy decisions.

Our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

it could be considered "counter-productive" to make our elected representatives feel guilty about their cushy, part time jobs.

 

[danielpalos]

When the Supremes ruled that corporations are people, then why weren't financial corporation's executives thrown in jail for all of their fraudulent practices involved with the financial failure?
They were convicted in court. They paid fines (that didn't equal their profits they made while committing fraud). Yet not one executive served time for fraud!
Why? Because corporations were treated not as a person but as an entity by the courts and laws!
And people are cool with this contradiction of laws and justice.

Corporations are large groups of people with a common purpose, kind of like labor unions. I'm going to bet you're just fine with unions contributing to campaigns, aren't you?

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Is money buying politicians or merely funding well reasoned Statesmen to offices, Public. There is a difference.

 

[danielpalos]

i believe only infidels, protestants, and renegades to Capitalism have a problem with Capital in politics under Any form of Capitalism.

 

[kiwiman127]

When the Supremes ruled that corporations are people, then why weren't financial corporation's executives thrown in jail for all of their fraudulent practices involved with the financial failure?
They were convicted in court. They paid fines (that didn't equal their profits they made while committing fraud). Yet not one executive served time for fraud!
Why? Because corporations were treated not as a person but as an entity by the courts and laws!
And people are cool with this contradiction of laws and justice.

Corporations are large groups of people with a common purpose, kind of like labor unions. I'm going to bet you're just fine with unions contributing to campaigns, aren't you?

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Is money buying politicians or merely funding well reasoned Statesmen to offices, Public. There is a difference.

Considering the state of our do nothing congress who spends more time raising "campaign funds" than they do legislating answers your question

 

[danielpalos]

When the Supremes ruled that corporations are people, then why weren't financial corporation's executives thrown in jail for all of their fraudulent practices involved with the financial failure?
They were convicted in court. They paid fines (that didn't equal their profits they made while committing fraud). Yet not one executive served time for fraud!
Why? Because corporations were treated not as a person but as an entity by the courts and laws!
And people are cool with this contradiction of laws and justice.

Corporations are large groups of people with a common purpose, kind of like labor unions. I'm going to bet you're just fine with unions contributing to campaigns, aren't you?

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians. He even names the coke brothers, whose rings all republican candidates have to kiss. Unions? I have no problem with organizations who represent millions of people. It's we the people, not them the ultra rich. I have a problem with a handful of billionaires calling the shots and selecting who will get in the white house. Back to Sanders speeches. They may take hold, if many of the millions of young people get involved in politics via using their cell phones for networking. Beware all republicans and also quite a few corporate democrats.

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Is money buying politicians or merely funding well reasoned Statesmen to offices, Public. There is a difference.

Considering the state of our do nothing congress who spends more time raising "campaign funds" than they do legislating answers your question

It is a problem with our form of democracy. I believe our politicians should not be made to feel guilty about their cushy, part-time jobs.

 

[Shikica]

Bernie Sanders is addressing the issue of big money buying politicians.

Shrink government to its proper size, no one would bother buying a politician.

Yeah, because corporations would run the country.

No. States would run the states the federal government would do what the Constitution empowers it to do and not one iota more.

Then we have no national highway system, we have no FEMA, we have no Center for Disease control, no Medicare, no Social Security (elderly people wouldn't be happy about those), no more national parks.

Corporations could pollute all they want, they can sell products that break a week after you buy it, they can create national monopolies and dominate entire markets charging whatever they want to (think Comcast x1,000). There would be no Fair Labor Act so people could be forced to work 70 hour work weeks and 8 year olds could be employed to dangerous working conditions.

The modern world does not function without a strong national government, all the sensible people realize this. If you want to live in a country with no national government you can go move to Somalia.

States can legislate against pollution. Citizens can sue manufacturers of shoddy products or shop elsewhere. States maintain their own highways now. What would getting the feds out of the road business change?
What extra-constitutional services does the federal government provide that the states couldn't?
Do you really think that if the Fair Labor Act went away that 8 year olds in Arkansas would be putting in 70 hour work weeks?

You put way too much credit into how much a state government is capable of.

Sure a nation-state like California or Texas could handle the challenges, but Wyoming? Or Mississippi? You think tiny little governments like that can stand up to Exxon or the Koch Brothers? They would roll over them extremely fast just like Standard Oil did in the 19th century. You seriously think Wyoming would be able to pay for and maintain I-80?

You could not sue the manufacturers because there would be no federal mandates on products. It'd all be on the consumer, and that includes all kinds of crap brought in from Asia.....remember no federal oversight?

FDIC insurance? Handling Nuclear waste? Managing Satellites? What happens when the next financial crisis occurs and the big banks need bailouts? Do we just let them go under and crash the entire economic system? Entire countries rely on the USA's FDA for their food standards and what is allowed to be put into food.

There is a plethora of responsibilities the country needs a national government for in the modern age....we aren't living in the 18th century with oxen wagons, muskets, and straw rooftops anymore.

You are completely delusional if you think that our economic can not handle the liquidation of a big corporation

 

[Nyvin]

Yeah, because corporations would run the country.

No. States would run the states the federal government would do what the Constitution empowers it to do and not one iota more.

Then we have no national highway system, we have no FEMA, we have no Center for Disease control, no Medicare, no Social Security (elderly people wouldn't be happy about those), no more national parks.

Corporations could pollute all they want, they can sell products that break a week after you buy it, they can create national monopolies and dominate entire markets charging whatever they want to (think Comcast x1,000). There would be no Fair Labor Act so people could be forced to work 70 hour work weeks and 8 year olds could be employed to dangerous working conditions.

The modern world does not function without a strong national government, all the sensible people realize this. If you want to live in a country with no national government you can go move to Somalia.

States can legislate against pollution. Citizens can sue manufacturers of shoddy products or shop elsewhere. States maintain their own highways now. What would getting the feds out of the road business change?
What extra-constitutional services does the federal government provide that the states couldn't?
Do you really think that if the Fair Labor Act went away that 8 year olds in Arkansas would be putting in 70 hour work weeks?

You put way too much credit into how much a state government is capable of.

Sure a nation-state like California or Texas could handle the challenges, but Wyoming? Or Mississippi? You think tiny little governments like that can stand up to Exxon or the Koch Brothers? They would roll over them extremely fast just like Standard Oil did in the 19th century. You seriously think Wyoming would be able to pay for and maintain I-80?

You could not sue the manufacturers because there would be no federal mandates on products. It'd all be on the consumer, and that includes all kinds of crap brought in from Asia.....remember no federal oversight?

FDIC insurance? Handling Nuclear waste? Managing Satellites? What happens when the next financial crisis occurs and the big banks need bailouts? Do we just let them go under and crash the entire economic system? Entire countries rely on the USA's FDA for their food standards and what is allowed to be put into food.

There is a plethora of responsibilities the country needs a national government for in the modern age....we aren't living in the 18th century with oxen wagons, muskets, and straw rooftops anymore.

You are completely delusional if you think that our economic can not handle the liquidation of a big corporation

A big corporation? Sure, happens all the time, see Enron. When the entire financial sector freezes and starts collapsing? Probably not. The phrase "Too big to fail" as evil and wrong as it is, has some truth to it.

Unfortunately almost nothing has been done to get the larger banks under control and to a more manageable size.