Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"All," ...I don't know. "A lot of it,"...most certainly. Power is right up there with money, and there's no denying the two are closely linked.
Non-profits corrupt the system also. For example in Africa, endless charities pocketed billions of dollars for the past 30 years, to improve poverty, and naturally nothing has changed. In fact, non-profits need to be in bed with the government a lot closer than for-profits, to keep operating."All," ...I don't know. "A lot of it,"...most certainly. Power is right up there with money, and there's no denying the two are closely linked.
I have no problem with non-profits incorporating to more effectively advance their cause, but a for profit corporations is only interested in manipulating the political system to increase their profits and that corrupts the system by definition.
"All," ...I don't know. "A lot of it,"...most certainly. Power is right up there with money, and there's no denying the two are closely linked.
I have no problem with non-profits incorporating to more effectively advance their cause, but a for profit corporations is only interested in manipulating the political system to increase their profits and that corrupts the system by definition.
Non-profits corrupt the system also. For example in Africa, endless charities pocketed billions of dollars for the past 30 years, to improve poverty, and naturally nothing has changed. In fact, non-profits need to be in bed with the government a lot closer than for-profits, to keep operating.
But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.
If one is the sole owner of the company/corporation, there is largely little difference. If the corporation is, say, AT&T, or some other one owned jointly by many individuals, a legitimate pair of presumptions of seeing the company name on a contribution check is (1) that all or most of the company's owners concur with one or more of the check recipient's aims or principles, and (2) that most or more of the owners at least so much as give a damn about something the recipient does, stands for, or provides. Yes, the sum of money contributed has the same impact to the recipient, but it may imply intent that not all, or even most owners -- by number, if not by ownership share -- have. Such contributions then can result in misrepresenting the beliefs and convictions of many individuals who have/had no say in making the expenditure.
When one provides a check having one's own name on it, the only legitimate inference is that the person(s) whose name appears as the account owner(s) has any commitment to supporting the ends of the recipient. Even if, for example, I wanted to donate money to XYZ organization, and you, in paying a debt you owe me, were to give them a check on my behalf and drawn from your own account, it stands to reason that you are in some way, however small, "okay" with supporting the organization's efforts. Were you not sufficiently "okay" with their cause, you need only make the check out to me and thereby require me to write a check to them and drawn on my own account.
A reasoned argument but it doesn't quite address the actual issue. If I am the sole stock holder of my small corporation or the CEO or Chairman of the Board of AT&T, that check still communicates expectations from the donor. I for one think it is much more useful to be able to see that a candidate received X dollars from AT&T and thereby know that such a company favors this candidate than it would trying to figure out the motives behind 100 personal checks from AT&T officers and stockholders. And anyway as Donald Trump has explained on the campaign trail, most of these big corporations give to both parties and candidates on both sides because they have to do business with whomever holds power in Washington and therefore hedge their bets.
Again if you do not want money to be able influence those elected to power in government, you have to take away the government's power to pick losers and winners and its ability to choose who will be the beneficiaries of the people's treasury.
IMO the central government was never intended to have that kind of power in the first place and we the people would do ourselves a huge favor if we demand that it not have that power now. Take away that power and it doesn't matter who gives who any amount of money because they won't be able to buy benefits for themselves. Nobody wants to discuss that though. Most think you can change a bad system and/or bad people by implementing more laws, regulations, and restrictions. History should inform us by now that you can't.
Non-profits corrupt the system also. For example in Africa, endless charities pocketed billions of dollars for the past 30 years, to improve poverty, and naturally nothing has changed. In fact, non-profits need to be in bed with the government a lot closer than for-profits, to keep operating.
While I am not sure that the corruption of some nonprofits proves anything about all nonprofits, I do believe that a nonprofit group that organizes to present a cause has first amendment rights as an aggregate group formed specifically to promote those rights. I do think it can and should be regulated, for example to not endorse candidates is very reasonable, IMO.
In the USA, even churches endorse political candidates. They only stop short of mentioning their names directly from the pulpit, because that may cost their tax exempt status. I don't see a fundamental difference between for-profit and non-profit. Those who control the operations are in it for the business. Theoretically, it would be nice if some non-profits were to promote selected rights, but they usually do it for the benefit of those who pay them, for example for the benefits of muslim immigrants, LGBT, feminists, and other political pressure groups. This is how some trading groups carve out a new market for themselves.Non-profits corrupt the system also. For example in Africa, endless charities pocketed billions of dollars for the past 30 years, to improve poverty, and naturally nothing has changed. In fact, non-profits need to be in bed with the government a lot closer than for-profits, to keep operating.
While I am not sure that the corruption of some nonprofits proves anything about all nonprofits, I do believe that a nonprofit group that organizes to present a cause has first amendment rights as an aggregate group formed specifically to promote those rights. I do think it can and should be regulated, for example to not endorse candidates is very reasonable, IMO.
Well, some non-profit organizations, PACs for example, exist for the purpose of endorsing candidates. I don't have a problem with disallowing PACs, or denying them non-profit status, but for now, they exist and have that status. As go corruption and malintent, I think some PACs are worse than a great many for-profit entities, but then given their raison d'etre, I can't say that I expect some of them, most notably the ones named for the candidate they support, to do anything other than toe the line between prevarication and the barest minimum of integrity.
At least with companies, I know why they do what they do: to boost their opportunity for earning ever more money. With some PACs, as with some individuals, determining motive isn't always so easy to do. I think there's no limit to the extent of contrivance some people will undertake just as there is, IMO, no limit to the reasons why they so contrive.
In the USA, even churches endorse political candidates. They only stop short of mentioning their names directly from the pulpit, because that may cost their tax exempt status. I don't see a fundamental difference between for-profit and non-profit. Those who control the operations are in it for the business. Theoretically, it would be nice if some non-profits were to promote selected rights, but they usually do it for the benefit of those who pay them, for example for the benefits of muslim immigrants, LGBT, feminists, and other political pressure groups. This is how some trading groups carve out a new market for themselves.
Is it 400? Interesting. I've never thought of it this way. But also, the US was never meant to be a democratic republic, even the forefathers warned against this. The problem with democratic republics is that they box in people, like the east german know it too.In the USA, even churches endorse political candidates. They only stop short of mentioning their names directly from the pulpit, because that may cost their tax exempt status. I don't see a fundamental difference between for-profit and non-profit. Those who control the operations are in it for the business. Theoretically, it would be nice if some non-profits were to promote selected rights, but they usually do it for the benefit of those who pay them, for example for the benefits of muslim immigrants, LGBT, feminists, and other political pressure groups. This is how some trading groups carve out a new market for themselves.
So you dont have a problem with 400 families owning our political system? That is called an oligarchy, not a democratic-republic.
Maybe you should immigrate to the 18th century?
Is it 400? Interesting. I've never thought of it this way. But also, the US was never meant to be a democratic republic, even the forefathers warned against this. The problem with democratic republics is that they box in people, like the east german know it too.
The FF were wise indeed. Too bad, nothing stands up against the chipping tide of democratic free loaders, not even the checks and balances.Is it 400? Interesting. I've never thought of it this way. But also, the US was never meant to be a democratic republic, even the forefathers warned against this. The problem with democratic republics is that they box in people, like the east german know it too.
I am unfamiliar with the FF's writing on this topic. I know they did not like unfettered democracy and therefore inhibited it with a republican form of government, with checks and balances.
But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.
If one is the sole owner of the company/corporation, there is largely little difference. If the corporation is, say, AT&T, or some other one owned jointly by many individuals, a legitimate pair of presumptions of seeing the company name on a contribution check is (1) that all or most of the company's owners concur with one or more of the check recipient's aims or principles, and (2) that most or more of the owners at least so much as give a damn about something the recipient does, stands for, or provides. Yes, the sum of money contributed has the same impact to the recipient, but it may imply intent that not all, or even most owners -- by number, if not by ownership share -- have. Such contributions then can result in misrepresenting the beliefs and convictions of many individuals who have/had no say in making the expenditure.
When one provides a check having one's own name on it, the only legitimate inference is that the person(s) whose name appears as the account owner(s) has any commitment to supporting the ends of the recipient. Even if, for example, I wanted to donate money to XYZ organization, and you, in paying a debt you owe me, were to give them a check on my behalf and drawn from your own account, it stands to reason that you are in some way, however small, "okay" with supporting the organization's efforts. Were you not sufficiently "okay" with their cause, you need only make the check out to me and thereby require me to write a check to them and drawn on my own account.
A reasoned argument but it doesn't quite address the actual issue. If I am the sole stock holder of my small corporation or the CEO or Chairman of the Board of AT&T, that check still communicates expectations from the donor. I for one think it is much more useful to be able to see that a candidate received X dollars from AT&T and thereby know that such a company favors this candidate than it would be practical trying to figure out the motives behind 100 personal checks from AT&T officers and stockholders. And anyway as Donald Trump has explained on the campaign trail, most of these big corporations give to both parties and candidates on both sides because they have to do business with whomever holds power in Washington and therefore hedge their bets.
Again if you do not want money to be able influence those elected to power in government, you have to take away the government's power to pick losers and winners and its ability to choose who will be the beneficiaries of the people's treasury. IMO the central government was never intended to have that kind of power in the first place and we the people would do ourselves a huge favor if we demand that it not have that power now. Take away that power and it doesn't matter who gives who any amount of money because they won't be able to buy benefits for themselves. Nobody wants to discuss that though. Most think you can change a bad system and/or bad people by implementing more laws, regulations, and restrictions. History should inform us by now that you can't.
Well, some non-profit organizations, PACs for example, exist for the purpose of endorsing candidates. I don't have a problem with disallowing PACs, or denying them non-profit status, but for now, they exist and have that status. As go corruption and malintent, I think some PACs are worse than a great many for-profit entities, but then given their raison d'etre, I can't say that I expect some of them, most notably the ones named for the candidate they support, to do anything other than toe the line between prevarication and the barest minimum of integrity.
At least with companies, I know why they do what they do: to boost their opportunity for earning ever more money. With some PACs, as with some individuals, determining motive isn't always so easy to do. I think there's no limit to the extent of contrivance some people will undertake just as there is, IMO, no limit to the reasons why they so contrive.
I think PACs should be restricted to advocating their cause and then informing voters by telling them how individual candidates have conducted themselves in regard to that issue, without actually giving a formal endorsement.
