Ban Political Donations by Corporations Without Shareholder Approval

[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

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.

Did you read your post where you said, "they deserve no individual rights?"

 

[rdean]

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.

Corporations are not allowed to give unlimited donations to politicians. The Supreme court decision did not make campaign contribution limits illegal. Liberal turds like you keep trying to sell this characterization of the decision. One can only conclude that those who do it are shameless propagandists who care nothing about the truth.

Corporations can spend unlimited money campaigning for politicians they like. They don't need to actually give them money. Even better, they can say pretty much anything they want. Example, the "swift-boaters" insisting John Kerry "gave himself" medals.

 

[kaz]

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?

Sometimes freedom is work, isn't it Toro? Find mutual funds that adhere to your values or start one and get rich off people who share yours.

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.

Government unions should totally be restricted from participating in political objectives. Taxpayers pay money to government, who pays employees, who pay unions, who use the money to lobby to screw taxpayers. It's bad enough I have to pay bureaucrats to screw me, I shouldn't have to pay for unions to coerce bureaucrats to screw me more.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Geez you really are a ******* doofus, aren't you? I thought you might have something on the ball but now I see you are actually Chris' dumber brother.
Citizens' Guide

Corporations and Unions

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation

I await your apology, doo-doo-head.

 

[Toro]

Sometimes freedom is work, isn't it Toro? Find mutual funds that adhere to your values or start one and get rich off people who share yours.

I see no reason why I should be forced to sell my stock because managements use my money to give to political issues on which I disagree. At least I don't see why I should not have the same rights as the union member who has that right. Saying my only choice is to sell the stock is a sub-optimal choice when labour has greater say on the political direction of their funds than the owners of capital.

Government unions should totally be restricted from participating in political objectives. Taxpayers pay money to government, who pays employees, who pay unions, who use the money to lobby to screw taxpayers. It's bad enough I have to pay bureaucrats to screw me, I shouldn't have to pay for unions to coerce bureaucrats to screw me more.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think there are skewed incentives between public unions and politicians. But don't you think the same thing goes with corporations and politicians? Should, for example, the defense industry be allowed to fund lobbying groups which try to influence politicians on defense? They are trying to gain taxpayer monies. What's the difference? The dynamics may be different, but in the end, they are trying to get the best possible deal for their shareholders at taxpayers' expense.

 

[Toro]

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.

Geez you really are a ******* doofus, aren't you? I thought you might have something on the ball but now I see you are actually Chris' dumber brother.
Citizens' Guide

Corporations and Unions

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation

I await your apology, doo-doo-head.

You're right Rabbi. Corporations spend $0 on political activities.

Outstanding.

 

[Trajan]

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.

If you are in a pension fund, you are forced to be a shareholder of a company. If you have a 401k, you are forced to be a shareholder of a company. What if the shares are locked in a trust and you can't sell?

One might argue that you don't need to have a 401k, but you can also argue that you don't need to work at that company either. Go work somewhere else. I mean, that's the argument I keep hearing from the Right if government workers don't like having their benefits slashed or their union de-certified.

Besides, it should be obvious that not everyone can sell their shares. Companies must have shareholders. The principle in law is not to treat shareholders as an amorphous bunch but instead to view shareholders as permanent. If a board member is not acting in a fiduciary duty, the law doesn't say "If you don't like it, sell your stock." The law says that the fiduciary must act in the best interests of all shareholders, no matter who the shareholders are. It's not good enough to tell shareholders to take a hike if they don't like it.

At the risk of looking really pretentious, I'm going to quote myself from elsewhere. But that's just because I'm really lazy and don't want to re-type this.

So why do I have to sell my stock, then? If I really like Apple's products and I think they are going to make a lot of money, why should I be forced to have Apple spend my money that I have contributed to the company in ways I think are politically inappropriate? Why should I have to miss out earning a boatload of money because you think I should sell my stock because I don't like Steve Jobs's politics? How is that any different than the pipe fitter who has to miss out earning money as a pipe fitter and instead has to work at Wal-Mart?

That’s interesting Toro, and I just got done watching an oldy but goodie, a debate in 97 between a Buckley panel and unions adherents at Cooper Union in 1997.

The question of course came up and Buckley answered as to why demands that union members should not have to relinquish control of cash for union leadership sanctioned political activities vis a vis business using moneys to do same.

His answer which I agree with is a) there is no complaint, b) he doesn’t believe they should contribute, their jobs are to make a profit for their shareholders, yet their share holders can sell their shares and/or vote via proxy, no remorse no retribution, now, the Beck decision stands ala Union opt out for political funding via dues reduction, but you try that at your workplace.

I am by the way doing the discussion on this point a grave injustice for brevities sake, if you’re of the mind you can buy the debate from the Hoover inst. at Stanford.

Hoover Institution Archives Firing Line Television Program Collection

(theres 2 parts)

Debate-
Do Unions Have Undue Influence? Part I

Buckley, William F. (William Frank), 1925-2008.

Guest(s)

1) Williams, Walter. - Chairman of the Department of Economics and George Mason University

2) Jasinowski, Jerry J. - President of the National Association of Manufacturers

3) Green, Max. - financial advisor with American Express, author of Epitaph for American Labor

4) Shrum, Robert. - Democratic media and public-relations consultant

5) Kuttner, Robert. - co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect

6) Becker, George. - International President of the United Steelworkers of America, Vice President of the AFL-CIO

7) Green, Mark J. - New York City Public Advocate (the City's second-highest elected official)

Taped onJul 17, 1997 (Cooper Union, New York City, NY) Broadcast DateAug 24, 1997

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

rofl

Outstanding.

Geez you really are a ******* doofus, aren't you? I thought you might have something on the ball but now I see you are actually Chris' dumber brother.
Citizens' Guide

Corporations and Unions

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation

I await your apology, doo-doo-head.

You're right Rabbi. Corporations spend $0 on political activities.

Outstanding.

Change the wording slightly so you can come out ahead.
What a ******* dishonest piece of shit youve turned out to be.
On to iggy with your buds.

 

[Toro]

Change the wording slightly so you can come out ahead.
What a ******* dishonest piece of shit youve turned out to be.
On to iggy with your buds.

Your inability to comprehend is not my problem.

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?

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.

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

And

Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising.
...
A leadership PAC in U.S. politics is a political action committee established by a member of Congress to support other candidates. Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from an individual, business or other PACs. While a leadership PAC cannot spend fund to directly support the campaign of its sponsor (through mail or ads), it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses. It can also contribute to the campaigns of other candidates.

Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right, Rabbi. Lobbying isn't political. Forming and contributing PACs isn't political. The Citizens United case isn't political.

Outstanding

 

[California Girl]

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.

I invest in Real Estate too.

 

[rdean]

According to the right wing, it's OK that Hugo Chavez can spend unlimited money in American Politics. Way to go!

The court's 5-4 ruling swept aside more than five decades of restrictions on corporate political advertising and unleashed a furious debate over free speech, the rights of businesses and the nature of US democracy.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing on behalf of the four-justice minority, said the ruling 'would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.'

But there is a loophole: the US subsidiary of a foreign company, if run by US citizens and using money generated within the United States, is free to spend as much as it wants on elections.

ANALYSIS: Could a foreign government influence US elections? - Monsters and Critics

Clearly, Republicans value foreign corporations OVER the welfare of US Citizens. We've know this for a long, long time.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

Just as soon as you agree to ban Union Contributions with out Union membership approval!

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations can spend unlimited money campaigning for politicians they like. They don't need to actually give them money. Even better, they can say pretty much anything they want. Example, the "swift-boaters" insisting John Kerry "gave himself" medals.

That's called "freedom of speech," knucklehead. Is that what you object to?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Corporations can spend unlimited money campaigning for politicians they like. They don't need to actually give them money. Even better, they can say pretty much anything they want. Example, the "swift-boaters" insisting John Kerry "gave himself" medals.

That's called "freedom of speech," knucklehead. Is that what you object to?

Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. I don't agree that money = speech though, because people don't have "freedom of money". There's no "right to be listened to" in the Constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Unions most certainly are banned from giving money to political candidates directly. They use the same loopholes that corporations use.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. I don't agree that money = speech though, because people don't have "freedom of money". There's no "right to be listened to" in the Constitution.

So making it illegal for me to buy an ad in a newspaper does not restrict my freedom of speech? I know you're duty bound to regurgitate party doctrine, but only congenital imbeciles are willing to swallow that proposition.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Disappearing Corporations =

E$PECIALLY GOOD!!!!

*

 

[Seawytch]

Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House ******* floor!

 

[konradv]

We need a Constitutional amendment seeting up public financing of elections. Our represemtitives aren't listening to us like they should, because we're not the ones paying the freight. That distinction goes to whomever can bundle the highest amount of campaign contributions, resulting in votes being sold before someone even gets elected.

 

[kaz]

Bottom line...the only real fix will be public financing of elections, period. No private donations from ANY organizations or special interests AT ALL. Time to end the days of the Boehner (or anyone else for that matter) handing out lobbyist checks on the House ******* floor!

I'm with you with only one caveat, I would allow donations by free associations of private citizens. If you and I want to join freely and work for a cause we should be able to do that. But there should be no money spent by corporations, unions, or anyone else who's not a free citizen or a free association of free citizens.