I don't think Corporations are inherently "evil"

[Truthmatters]

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.

Why did they feel the need to say "or of the press"?

Because they were speaking of people and NOT organizations.

Freedom of the press is the exception to individuals only.

 

[Truthmatters]

no answers to that question?

 

[Revere]

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.

Why did they feel the need to say "or of the press"?

Because they were speaking of people and NOT organizations.

Freedom of the press is the exception to individuals only.

No it's not. Free speech is not taken away from individuals who affiliate with any organization, especially one which is out of favor with the current bureaucracy.

The US attorneys arguing this case said they would ban political books if they could.

They deserved what they got.

 

[slackjawed]

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

that's about groups, a petition of 1 is not what that meant. The constitution has plenty about individual AND 'group' rights, groups of all kinds.
It's still a fairly free country in that if you so choose you can work hard and build your own massive company, and then donate what you want to whom you want.
I used to work at a company that donated to the dems and the rep parties, how much was up to the employees. A ballot went around, want to donate? how much? to which party?
The employees in the company thought that if they pooled their money to make donations, it would be more so it would mean more. When the law was changed, that this ruling overturns, that stopped.
In that case the money was coming not from the company, but from groups of employees to the respective parties.
The company donated money along with the employees to the party they backed.
The only ones that are against this ruling, and were against the law being changed in the first place are those that support policies that are bad for businesses. They wanted to, and still want to, limit the ability of a business to make and keep money in what is supposed to be a capitalist society.
That was the purpose of the law, and the 'fairness doctrine';
To force businesses (and the press, which is a business) to make decisions that are bad for business or be penalized.

 

[Vast LWC]

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

that's about groups, a petition of 1 is not what that meant. The constitution has plenty about individual AND 'group' rights, groups of all kinds.
It's still a fairly free country in that if you so choose you can work hard and build your own massive company, and then donate what you want to whom you want.
I used to work at a company that donated to the dems and the rep parties, how much was up to the employees. A ballot went around, want to donate? how much? to which party?
The employees in the company thought that if they pooled their money to make donations, it would be more so it would mean more. When the law was changed, that this ruling overturns, that stopped.
In that case the money was coming not from the company, but from groups of employees to the respective parties.
The company donated money along with the employees to the party they backed.
The only ones that are against this ruling, and were against the law being changed in the first place are those that support policies that are bad for businesses. They wanted to, and still want to, limit the ability of a business to make and keep money in what is supposed to be a capitalist society.
That was the purpose of the law, and the 'fairness doctrine';
To force businesses (and the press, which is a business) to make decisions that are bad for business or be penalized.

So, people in your business pooled money and were asked which party they wanted to donate to, and you don't see a problem with that scenario?

What if the person in question wanted to donate to a Republican, but their boss, or the owner of the company was a staunch Democrat?

You don't think that would cause their boss to then look upon them less favorably, and, in more extreme cases, cost the person their job when it was time to lay people off?

Now, let's think about how a corporation is set up.

Let's say we have a corporation with 1 million stockholders.

Among those stockholders, let's say that about a dozen people own 51% of the stock.

Now, let's say these 12 people decided the corporation should use corporate funds to help a political candidate, but the 999,988 individuals that own the other 49% of the shares didn't want them to contribute said funds.

Well they'd be pretty screwed.

Sure they could then sell their shares after the fact, that is assuming the media happened to get word to them about the contribution, but their money would still have been used to fund a campaign that they did not agree with.

 

[Douger]

They're evil . Pure evil.
Look at duh bahhhhhwdz of diwektahhhhz and tell me what you see ?
The greediest assholes ever to steal oxygen.
The Federal reserve is a private corporation. You don't think they are trying to destroy the country ?
Do you honestly think this scenario is an accident ?
Monsanto and the GM, we own the world, crops ? A coincidence ?
The shit in vaccines? That's only an "oops' right ?
Fluoride in your water ?
Depleted uranium ammunition ? "We had to do something with it"

 

[slackjawed]

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

that's about groups, a petition of 1 is not what that meant. The constitution has plenty about individual AND 'group' rights, groups of all kinds.
It's still a fairly free country in that if you so choose you can work hard and build your own massive company, and then donate what you want to whom you want.
I used to work at a company that donated to the dems and the rep parties, how much was up to the employees. A ballot went around, want to donate? how much? to which party?
The employees in the company thought that if they pooled their money to make donations, it would be more so it would mean more. When the law was changed, that this ruling overturns, that stopped.
In that case the money was coming not from the company, but from groups of employees to the respective parties.
The company donated money along with the employees to the party they backed.
The only ones that are against this ruling, and were against the law being changed in the first place are those that support policies that are bad for businesses. They wanted to, and still want to, limit the ability of a business to make and keep money in what is supposed to be a capitalist society.
That was the purpose of the law, and the 'fairness doctrine';
To force businesses (and the press, which is a business) to make decisions that are bad for business or be penalized.

So, people in your business pooled money and were asked which party they wanted to donate to, and you don't see a problem with that scenario?

What if the person in question wanted to donate to a Republican, but their boss, or the owner of the company was a staunch Democrat?

You don't think that would cause their boss to then look upon them less favorably, and, in more extreme cases, cost the person their job when it was time to lay people off?

Now, let's think about how a corporation is set up.

Let's say we have a corporation with 1 million stockholders.

Among those stockholders, let's say that about a dozen people own 51% of the stock.

Now, let's say these 12 people decided the corporation should use corporate funds to help a political candidate, but the 999,988 individuals that own the other 49% of the shares didn't want them to contribute said funds.

Well they'd be pretty screwed.

Sure they could then sell their shares after the fact, that is assuming the media happened to get word to them about the contribution, but their money would still have been used to fund a campaign that they did not agree with.

This was about donating to political parties, not anything less, and they donated to both.
If 50 employess donated 10 bucks to the rep and 50 donated 10 bucks to the rep, each party got the donations.
The ceo of the comapny pooled his donation with the employees, based on his decision.

Your overreacting, yes this was a good thing. Employees were still free to donate or work for candidates of their choce, as was the comapny.
These were party donations that went to both parties in a pooled fashion.
Tell me again why you see fit to limit freedom in this way?

 

[Vast LWC]

This was about donating to political parties, not anything less, and they donated to both.
If 50 employess donated 10 bucks to the rep and 50 donated 10 bucks to the rep, each party got the donations.
The ceo of the comapny pooled his donation with the employees, based on his decision.

Your overreacting, yes this was a good thing. Employees were still free to donate or work for candidates of their choce, as was the comapny.
These were party donations that went to both parties in a pooled fashion.
Tell me again why you see fit to limit freedom in this way?

Let's say you're a "tea party" member.

You're boss is a staunch liberal, who has an entrenched hatred for everything the "tea party" stands for. There are 10 employees in your company.

Now, the other 9 employees in the company donate to the liberal candidate, and you donate to the "tea party" candidate.

The boss pools the donations and sends them out.

Now, the next month, it's promotion time, and the choice is between you and 2 other employees who donated to the same candidate as your boss.

Who do you think will get the promotion?

 

[slackjawed]

This was about donating to political parties, not anything less, and they donated to both.
If 50 employess donated 10 bucks to the rep and 50 donated 10 bucks to the rep, each party got the donations.
The ceo of the comapny pooled his donation with the employees, based on his decision.

Your overreacting, yes this was a good thing. Employees were still free to donate or work for candidates of their choce, as was the comapny.
These were party donations that went to both parties in a pooled fashion.
Tell me again why you see fit to limit freedom in this way?

Let's say you're a "tea party" member.

You're boss is a staunch liberal, who has an entrenched hatred for everything the "tea party" stands for. There are 10 employees in your company.

Now, the other 9 employees in the company donate to the liberal candidate, and you donate to the "tea party" candidate.

The boss pools the donations and sends them out.

Now, the next month, it's promotion time, and the choice is between you and 2 other employees who donated to the same candidate as your boss.

Who do you think will get the promotion?

I never saw that kind of action, although I won't say it didn't happen. I did see a kind of discrimination towards those that donated to nobody.
They(that company) seemed more concerned about being active than in what the actions were.

The old saying that those who have the gold make the rules apply in a capalistic society. You have every opportunity to get more gold, it is still the land of opportunity.
I did it, sold out and accidently make as much money now as I did before I retired.
If someone can't make it on their own in this society they aren't really trying.
Even today, in this economy, even today.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Some are and some aren't. The problem with most Leftists is that they like to paint all Corporations with the same broad brush. That's just intellectually lazy and a bit immature in my opinion. In the end,some Corporations are Evil but most are not. For example,i believe that GE is an Evil Corporation. They took Billions in Tax Dollars by way of Bailouts and Stimulus. GE also owns NBC which of course is now the biggest White House Boot-Licker in the Media. I find this to be very disturbing. I still don't know how GE and the Democrats have gotten away with this. They definitely need to begin investigating this corrupt relationship. How many Leftists do you see screeching about how awful that relationship is? I haven't seen any Leftists standing up to criticize GE and this White House. So GE is a good example of the ultimate "Evil Corporation" in my opinion. Hey just my take anyway.

 

[cbi0090]

There is big distinction that needs to be made here. First there are corporations and then there are corporate holding companies. I own a corporation, anyone can. I'm a small business but I have to incorporate to protect myself and my employees, among many other things. For someone today to operate a business dealing with the public in any way without separating their personal lives from their business is downright stupid and irresponsible. By the way, me and others like me, make up the vast majority of corporations/ business owners in the U.S. and employ far more people than all of the big corporations put together. So, when you talk about evil corporations, remember your talking about nearly every business owner around you.
Now there are corporate holding companies whose stockholders are looking to maximise investment by avoiding the usual ups and downs that accompany nearly every business. The way you do it is own a holding company that owns a number of corporations whose cycles do not synchronize but rather compliment each other. In theory it sounds great, but it often means the holding company is only looking at the numbers and not the business. This disconnect is where we see the origins of many types of the complaints creating views that corporations are evil (i.e. uncaring, disconnected, etc) The US is not the only place who have these types of corporations and they've become critical in our ability to maintain competitiveness in the world.
If you think some US corporation is evil, try taking on Gazprom, or the China Construction Corp.

 

[Rinata]

I think I need to explain something.

I'm a liberal. I don't think corporations are some sort of evil entities that are specifically trying to harm the country.

I know this may surprise some of you. But it's the honest truth.

Here's what scares me about unbridled corporate access to the political process:

The purpose of a corporation is to make money for it's shareholders. That's the simple truth. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Let's say a corporation has a politician in their pocket and gets them elected to office.

That gives that corporation an edge over it's competitors. With the power that politician gives them, they can affect laws to allow them to out produce and outsell other corporations.

That forces the competitors of that corporation to also buy out politicians to do their bidding, to "keep up with the Joneses".

Eventually, this leads to a large portion of the government being beholden to various corporations.

And the politicians are part of the problem. It's much easier for a politician to raise money by going to a few corporations than it is to raise money from the public at large.

Which means that average people, like you and I, have less and less of a say in the political process. Eventually, we will have virtually no say at all.

Since the purpose of a corporation is to make money, not to protect the public, competition with foreign corporations, which don't have any regulation on their industry, will lead to a dangerous situation.

Think of China. The air, water and land in China are dangerously polluted, due to the fact that China allows it's corporations to do whatever they want in order to produce products more cheaply. In addition, they have no safety regulations or worker safety nets; leading to child labor, no compensation for worker maiming or serious injury, and unbelievably low wages.

If US corporations become unregulated, and are forced to compete with these foreign corporations, we may face a similar situation here.

Compounding this issue is the fact that multinational corporations will also be able to buy politicians, including corporations with a large foreign components.

Personally, I don't want my children to have to drink polluted water, or breathe polluted air.

I don't want my children to work in a factory for peanuts, and then be completely screwed when they lose an arm in some manufacturing accident.

Now do you see what I'm saying here? I don't think corporations are evil, I just think that it's not their job to care about the welfare of the public, and if they are in charge, the consequences could be quite dramatic.

Yes, your son is good looking and downright adorable!!

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes, your son is good looking and downright adorable!!

Why thanks!

 

[ihopehefails]

I consider myself a liberal-republican (or libertarian) but I agree with you that corps are not inherently evil. They should be held accountable to laws broken by them just like anyone else. They are not immune from prosecution but the fact that they have lots of money does not mean they should be prosecuted for the crime of having lots of money.

 

[Vast LWC]

I consider myself a liberal-republican (or libertarian) but I agree with you that corps are not inherently evil. They should be held accountable to laws broken by them just like anyone else. They are not immune from prosecution but the fact that they have lots of money does not mean they should be prosecuted for the crime of having lots of money.

The shareholders of a corporation are in fact immune to prosecution. Oh sure, they might take a bit of a monetary loss when their company is responsible for killing a bunch of people, but they don't go to jail for it.

 

[blastoff]

And this is why I have personally been advocating a method to provide disincentives to corporations to become involved in the political process, rather than legislating bans on corporate free speech...

A method to provide disincentives to corporations to become involved in the political process would in fact be legislating bans on corporate free speech.

 

[Vast LWC]

And this is why I have personally been advocating a method to provide disincentives to corporations to become involved in the political process, rather than legislating bans on corporate free speech...

A method to provide disincentives to corporations to become involved in the political process would in fact be legislating bans on corporate free speech.

Untrue.

A "Ban" would be to not allow corporate free speech at all, through legislation.

My proposal was to provide tax disincentives for corporations that get involved in the political process. And the tax level I proposed was just the same as any other individual citizen, rather than the special tax rates filled with breaks and loopholes that corporations currently enjoy.

 

[RodISHI]

Some things do not change although they should. Political payback is a scourge on this nation's democratic process. Years ago I donated a thousand dollars to candidate I supported because I did not like the other candidate and did not want him to win. During a phone conversation with the candidate that I was sending the thousand dollars to he asked me what I wanted. I told him if he had the opportunity I would like to see protection for families against judicial corruption so that what happened to us would not happen to another and if the same type matter ever came before him please do what he could to help them. (My son had been charged with false charges from a false accusation that a former employees daughter had made. When the matter finally got to trial the girl told the judge that she was mad at his mom for firing her mom and dad. At that same time I had a book keeper that was embezzling a large sum of money from the company, her husband golfed with the judge that was initially over my son's case. I was also politically involved and this same judge had me arrested on a night warrant on bogus charges. The book keepers husband was feeding the fire as to keep shit stirred while she was working this embezzlement scam. It was over a year of hell getting through the whole court process and it cost a small fortune for the attorneys to represent both my son and myself. Later the community voted that judge off the bench as his abuse of power was revealed to the public not only in our case but many others.) The candidate asked but what do you want. I told him again. What I asked for was something that affected all people in the state equally. It did not sink in for him at first during the initial portion of the conversation that I personally did not want anything and he repeatedly asked but what can I do for you?

Contributions of large sums into a political campaign buys favors. It should not but it does.

The thing that needs to be done at this point is education of the public at large about the entire process. Get everyone as involved as possible and keep them informed with accurate information on which large corporations are working to influence the election process.

 

[Claudette]

I don't think corps are evil either.

They are no more evil than the Unions or the Lawyers are. Well Lawyers, mayby. I also think the shareholders or owners of smaller companies should have as much right to okay them back a candidate as the Union bosses and Lawyers do. Seems only fair to me.

 

[ihopehefails]

I consider myself a liberal-republican (or libertarian) but I agree with you that corps are not inherently evil. They should be held accountable to laws broken by them just like anyone else. They are not immune from prosecution but the fact that they have lots of money does not mean they should be prosecuted for the crime of having lots of money.

The shareholders of a corporation are in fact immune to prosecution. Oh sure, they might take a bit of a monetary loss when their company is responsible for killing a bunch of people, but they don't go to jail for it.

Are you telling me that if a corp CEO spent money to have someone knocked off but happen to use a company check to do it then the CEO wouldn't be prosecuted for that?