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

[Ernie S.]

SCOTUS has already ruled that corporation can donate to campaigns. Writing law prohibiting that is already unconstitutional. Read Citizens United.

Just why do you seem to think Brazilian law should even be considered as relevant in the US?

 

[Ernie S.]

OH and what you believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the decision of the nine in the black robes.

 

[Shikica]

SCOTUS has already ruled that corporation can donate to campaigns. Writing law prohibiting that is already unconstitutional. Read Citizens United.

that is 100% wrong... have you ever looked at the constitution?

 

[Likkmee]

Never happen. Brazil is a democracy. The USA is a fascist Empire

 

[Toro]

Why would Americans care what they do in Brazil?

 

[Ernie S.]

The Supremes already ruled and you are living in a fantasy land if you think the house or Senate would try to pass a law

If there was loud enough public support then yes it is certainly possible. Have you read the U.S. constitution? It was very clearly intended that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution NOT be taken as gospel but instead questioned by the other two branches and for all branches of government to come to their own independent interpretations of the constitution.

It's the other way around, idiot. SCOTUS is the final arbiter. If they say it's unconstitutional, it's settled. Congress cannot override and the President can't veto.

You clearly have never studied the constitution of the united states... The president/congress have no say in the ruling of the supreme court case that is true. But the court's ruling do not dictate how the other two branches have to act. The president and the legislatures can defy the SCOTUS' decisions with full constitutionality so long as their is a constitutional basis for it.

If it can be said that corporate donations in elections jeopardizes the purity of the democracy (and I do believe that it can, but most importantly the Brazilian government believes it to be so) then that is a fine constitutional basis for moving foward with the law I mentioned in the original post.

I have clearly never studied the Constitution????? I carry a copy in my damned pocket, for Christ sake.
SCOTUS has already decided that Congress cannot stop corporate donations, you idiot. It is settled case law
AGAIN Who cares what Brazil does?

 

[Ernie S.]

SCOTUS has already ruled that corporation can donate to campaigns. Writing law prohibiting that is already unconstitutional. Read Citizens United.

that is 100% wrong... have you ever looked at the constitution?

Every day, you idiot.

 

[Shikica]

The Supremes already ruled and you are living in a fantasy land if you think the house or Senate would try to pass a law

If there was loud enough public support then yes it is certainly possible. Have you read the U.S. constitution? It was very clearly intended that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution NOT be taken as gospel but instead questioned by the other two branches and for all branches of government to come to their own independent interpretations of the constitution.

It's the other way around, idiot. SCOTUS is the final arbiter. If they say it's unconstitutional, it's settled. Congress cannot override and the President can't veto.

You clearly have never studied the constitution of the united states... The president/congress have no say in the ruling of the supreme court case that is true. But the court's ruling do not dictate how the other two branches have to act. The president and the legislatures can defy the SCOTUS' decisions with full constitutionality so long as their is a constitutional basis for it.

If it can be said that corporate donations in elections jeopardizes the purity of the democracy (and I do believe that it can, but most importantly the Brazilian government believes it to be so) then that is a fine constitutional basis for moving foward with the law I mentioned in the original post.

I have clearly never studied the Constitution????? I carry a copy in my damned pocket, for Christ sake.
SCOTUS has already decided that Congress cannot stop corporate donations, you idiot. It is settled case law
AGAIN Who cares what Brazil does?

The courts can not stop congress from passing a law and their legal precedents in the cases that they judge do not bind the president or the legislatures from taking action which contradicts the constitutional ruling of the courts.

And Brazil is an economic giant and many economists think it will be the world number 1 economy some day. It's elections, just like ours, were almost entirely funded by corporations. And this was their response.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Supremes already ruled and you are living in a fantasy land if you think the house or Senate would try to pass a law

If there was loud enough public support then yes it is certainly possible. Have you read the U.S. constitution? It was very clearly intended that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution NOT be taken as gospel but instead questioned by the other two branches and for all branches of government to come to their own independent interpretations of the constitution.

It's the other way around, idiot. SCOTUS is the final arbiter. If they say it's unconstitutional, it's settled. Congress cannot override and the President can't veto.

You clearly have never studied the constitution of the united states... The president/congress have no say in the ruling of the supreme court case that is true. But the court's ruling do not dictate how the other two branches have to act. The president and the legislatures can defy the SCOTUS' decisions with full constitutionality so long as their is a constitutional basis for it.

If it can be said that corporate donations in elections jeopardizes the purity of the democracy (and I do believe that it can, but most importantly the Brazilian government believes it to be so) then that is a fine constitutional basis for moving foward with the law I mentioned in the original post.

I have clearly never studied the Constitution????? I carry a copy in my damned pocket, for Christ sake.
SCOTUS has already decided that Congress cannot stop corporate donations, you idiot. It is settled case law
AGAIN Who cares what Brazil does?

The courts can not stop congress from passing a law and their legal precedents in the cases that they judge do not bind the president or the legislatures from taking action which contradicts the constitutional ruling of the courts.

And Brazil is an economic giant and many economists think it will be the world number 1 economy some day. It's elections, just like ours, were almost entirely funded by corporations. And this was their response.

You are absolutely right. The Court can't prevent Congress from passing a law. It can't prevent POTUS from signing a bill.

BUT​

The court CAN prevent them from enforcing such a law.
The court has decided that corporations have the right to donate to political campaigns It is settled law at this point. Should Congress pass a law prohibiting corporate contributions, as soon as one single corporation was prohibited by the new law, SCOTUS would grant an injunction barring enforcement. It is extremely unlikely that the Court would even hear the case unless there is a substantial argument that the Court didn't consider in Citiizens United.

Again. What happens in Brazil is irrelevant in the US

 

[Pogo]

Why would Americans care what they do in Brazil?

For inspiration?
After all when your country is mired in right-wing fascist-leaning free fall you like to see where some other country took the bull by the horns and did something about it.

Take slavery. We banned it in 1865 (after many others had) but Brazil still had it until 1888. Why should Brazilians have cared what they did in the United States?

That's why I made the analogy to the metric system. The whole world uses it; we're still in the 16th century. Why should we care what they do in the whole world?

Because we'd like to get out of the hole we're stagnating in, that's why.

 

[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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Corporations represent thousands or millions of stock holders all with an interest as valid as the interests of the union members the corporation employs.
You vote Democrat, don't you?
Public sector labor unions donating to the politicians that negotiate their salaries doesn't bother you?
That is precisely what has fucked up Detroit, Chicago, Philly and St Louis.
Private sector labor unions are essentially the antithesis of corporations. If one can contribute, shouldn't the other side have the same ability?

 

[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.

Corporations represent thousands or millions of stock holders all with an interest as valid as the interests of the union members the corporation employs.
You vote Democrat, don't you?
Public sector labor unions donating to the politicians that negotiate their salaries doesn't bother you?
That is precisely what has fucked up Detroit, Chicago, Philly and St Louis.
Private sector labor unions are essentially the antithesis of corporations. If one can contribute, shouldn't the other side have the same ability?

I say neither one should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Corporations represent thousands or millions of stock holders all with an interest as valid as the interests of the union members the corporation employs.
You vote Democrat, don't you?
Public sector labor unions donating to the politicians that negotiate their salaries doesn't bother you?
That is precisely what has fucked up Detroit, Chicago, Philly and St Louis.
Private sector labor unions are essentially the antithesis of corporations. If one can contribute, shouldn't the other side have the same ability?

I say neither one should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

I say both but I would outlaw public sector labor unions.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

 

[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?

To answer your question, America would be far better of without Big Money buying the elected officials that are supposed to represent each any every citizen. When I say Big Money, I'm talking corporations unions and fat cats.
The same people who are throwing insane amounts of money in most cases "dark money" are doing it to benefit themselves. Many of these same people are the reason the middle class is an endangered species in America! Big Money isn't concerned about America, they are concerned how much more wealth they can accumulate for themselves. If it weakens this countries economic stability, so what.
The World Bank, the IMF and many economists are saying that income inequality is weakening the economy. Letting our elected officials to be "for sale" is anti-American and is not good for the welfare of the USA.