Einstein on Corporations

[georgephillip]

Our specie is a component of the societies in which we as individuals live. An individual trekking across the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago and a Housewife shopping for food in the frozen food aisle of the local mega mart today are as similar in activity and world view as a fish and a meteor.

Profits mean nothing to Lucy of Africa and without them, Lucy Ricardo dies. The modern world is based on profits earned and reinvested by corporations of every stripe. Corporations build the vehicles that use the fuel that move the vehicles to grow, transport and retrieve the food that we live on. Most of us work for corporations, if we are lucky enough to still have a job, and we use the incomes generated by the profits to contibute to the society, raise our children and build our homes, communities and lives.

Without profits, and this is absolutely literal, we are all dead. Period. Our society today is a symbiotic web of interrelationships of all people organized in a cooperative and interdependent confederation of corporations.

Today corporations bribe governments to get things done. Does this more about corporations or more about governments? One group is trying to accomplish something and the other is actively and arbitrarily standing in the way. Bribes clear the way.

Serve the rich? What does this mean? How does this differ between the two major parties? It seems to me that there is plenty of corruption to be found. Corporations donate plenty to all political powers.

A Conservative approach to government leans more toward a lessening of government control while a Liberal approach leans more toward increasing government control. Some control is needed and the amount is dictated by the times and the conditions.

The current strangulation of the economy may produce a tsunami of Conservative wins in 2012 and it may produce the panicked fear that makes otherwise able folks deny the possibility of success and trade it for government control of their lives.

If the collective spirit of the national voter is sufficiently shattered, there will be no hope and the Liberals with the promise of excessive control will win.

If there is an inner belief in enough left that hard work is what will win the day and we only need to be given the opportunity to make things better, the Conservatives will win.

We'll see what we see.

What is it you think conservatives will win by lessening government control over Goldman Sachs?

Do you think government should be investigating Goldman Sachs's current manipulation of oil and food prices?

Are conservatives even capable of understanding how the richest 5% of Americans working with Wall Street and Republicans AND Democrats in Congress have just affected the largest transfer of private debt into public debt in all history?

Unbridled debt is what is strangling our economy, and conservatives are among the least likely politicians to turn on the creditor class.

Should government investigate why the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of total US income?

If not government, who should?

 

[georgephillip]

When Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid came into existence the US class war looked much different than it does today. The richest 1% of Americans controlled about one-third as much of our national wealth as they currently do, and the crimes of the rich that lead to the Great Depression were still vividly in place in most voters' minds.

Since the passage of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with the demise of organized labor's political influence, Democrats have joined the Republican stampede to make the world safe for capital at the expense of labor.

Thanks for the libtard propaganda, but we've all heard it 10,000 times already.

The Great '08 bail-out being the most glaring and recent example.

Can you site a few examples of Democracy's implosion "within a few generations?"

Here's a partial list of democracies that collapsed into despotism in a few generations, or in some cases, in a matter of a few months:

Athens, Sparta, all the other Greek democracies, Rome, Venice, Florence, Poland, France,Corsican Republic, Hatia, Russia in 1917, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Austria, Italy, the Wiemar Republic, every country in Latin America, Rhodesia, South Africa, every other former colony in Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh

"It is the year 431 BC. Athens and Sparta are very different city-states with different governments and cultures. Athens is a Democracy, in which the citizens make all the important decisions.

"Sparta is an Oligarchy, in which a few rich men make all the decisions."

Issue Intro: War Against Sparta | Democracy in Ancient Greece

 

[code1211]

What is it you think conservatives will win by lessening government control over Goldman Sachs?

Do you think government should be investigating Goldman Sachs's current manipulation of oil and food prices?

Are conservatives even capable of understanding how the richest 5% of Americans working with Wall Street and Republicans AND Democrats in Congress have just affected the largest transfer of private debt into public debt in all history?

Unbridled debt is what is strangling our economy, and conservatives are among the least likely politicians to turn on the creditor class.

Should government investigate why the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of total US income?

If not government, who should?

I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing corporations and whether or not they are a needed part of the world today.

 

[code1211]

]

What is it you think conservatives will win by lessening government control over Goldman Sachs?

Do you think government should be investigating Goldman Sachs's current manipulation of oil and food prices?

Are conservatives even capable of understanding how the richest 5% of Americans working with Wall Street and Republicans AND Democrats in Congress have just affected the largest transfer of private debt into public debt in all history?

Unbridled debt is what is strangling our economy, and conservatives are among the least likely politicians to turn on the creditor class.

Should government investigate why the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of total US income?

If not government, who should?

Regulation is a perilous thing. i lived in a twon where one of the major employers was informed that it would hav e its taxes increased by a factor of 3. It did not like this and moved away. It pretty much closed the book on that town and it has taken about 40 years to remake itself into an entirely different economy.

People who know how to create wealth will do so. It might be in the USA and it might be in Dubai or it might be in Hong Kong. There is no law that defines where the creative shall go to create. Taking from the rich may only insure that the rich create for a different population.

If the government starts throwing investigations around, you probably want to stay clear of it, because you might be next.

If a rich guy starts throwing his money around, you prabably want to stand closer because some of it might stick to you.

The government is never the solution when it comes to creating wealth. The government is liket the drunken inheritor who will spend until it's gone.

 

[georgephillip]

The people who know how to create wealth can move wherever they want. If they don't pay their workers a living wage, there will be very few to buy whatever it is they produce.

Much of today's FIRE sector incomes doesn't involve creating anything of productive value. Wall Street functions like a casino with the taxpayers waiting to bail out the "too big to lose" losers. Big government, Wall Street and the richest 5% of Americans have recently proven government's ability to create wealth for a fortunate few while taxing the homes and pensions of millions of productive Americans into extinction.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing corporations and whether or not they are a needed part of the world today.

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

"The results of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by democratically organized political society."

The oligarchs certainly need corporations in their world.

I'm not sure humanity does.

 

[rdean]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".[40] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".[41] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[42] to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Democratic senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."[43] Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.[44] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.[45] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.[46] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.[47]

Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[48] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."[43] He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none."[48] (In fact, Rehnquist had joined Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in dissenting in McConnell v. FEC). Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."[49]

Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." (In fact, 2 U.S.C. 441i, which was not altered by the decision in Citizens United, prohibits all parties from accepting corporate contributions). Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech."

Ralph Nader, a lawyer who placed third in the popular vote in the last three presidential elections, condemned the ruling,[50] saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates.[51] Pat Choate, Reform Party candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics."[52]

Love that picture.

 

[rdean]

Speaking of Einstein:

(PhysOrg.com) -- Stanford and NASA researchers have confirmed two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, concluding one of the space agency's longest-running projects.

Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories

Gotta love those scientists. Was Einstein a "conservative"? Just kidding.

 

[Steelplate]

I don't think that there's one person here who doesn't want our business community to succeed. That is a falsehood that the Conservative spin masters love to throw out there, but very far from the truth.

The truth is, what Progressives want is for Corporations to realize that all of their antics are hurting the very people they depend upon to buy their shit. But either they don't realize it... or because of globalization and all the cheap labor readily available... they don't care. Because while they can gouge the US citizen to the breaking point(in other words..."ride the horse till she bucks you"), they can also sell their wares to lesser countries at a much cheaper price and still make a profit(cheap labor).

The problem I see is that there are no solutions other than for these big entities to grow a sense of conscience or for the American worker to work for virtually nothing(factoring the cost of living).

So yeah, we want our Businesses to be successful, but they have to remember that it's our wages that are making them successful, our country that allows them to be successful, and that in this country there is such a thing as "one person/one vote". That's their biggest fear. We can topple the profiteers if we so choose. We can, on one November day, wipe the floor with them and demand a better way of doing things.

It's time to stop asking these entities NICELY to please, PLEASE trickle down like you are supposed to and not hoard it all for yourselves.... and start DEMANDING them to. Why in THE HELL do you think they are going after organized labor so hard? Sure, it's easy to start a propaganda war against unions... and I will freely admit, SOME of their accusations have some merit. But that's not the motivation... the motivation is to get more control and give less to the people.

So many of you on here think that this whole thing is Capitalism vs. Socialism. That's the Propaganda machine. The truth is, it's more like a hybrid of the two. We want our Corporations to succeed and at the same time have a sense of responsibility when it comes down to the people of the country.

They are smart people.... they know what to do, but they are so drunk on money and power that they refuse to do it.

 

[Gadawg73]

When Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid came into existence the US class war looked much different than it does today. The richest 1% of Americans controlled about one-third as much of our national wealth as they currently do, and the crimes of the rich that lead to the Great Depression were still vividly in place in most voters' minds.

Since the passage of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with the demise of organized labor's political influence, Democrats have joined the Republican stampede to make the world safe for capital at the expense of labor.

The Great '08 bail-out being the most glaring and recent example.

Can you site a few examples of Democracy's implosion "within a few generations?"

Without capital how does one start a business?

You already appreciate the answer to your question far more than I.

How do you start a business without labor.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

Labor is prior to, and... at BrainyQuote

I started every one of my corporations without labor. I WAS THE DAMN LABOR.
Then I grew.
If someone wants a job with me they shut the **** up, go to work and then I will determine if they are worthy of another weeks work.
If they do not like it, **** THEM.
Let them go find another job.
Most of my few employees are long time employees, well paid with profit sharing and love the environment.
NO CRY BABIES.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't think that there's one person here who doesn't want our business community to succeed. That is a falsehood that the Conservative spin masters love to throw out there, but very far from the truth.

The truth is, what Progressives want is for Corporations to realize that all of their antics are hurting the very people they depend upon to buy their shit. But either they don't realize it... or because of globalization and all the cheap labor readily available... they don't care. Because while they can gouge the US citizen to the breaking point(in other words..."ride the horse till she bucks you"), they can also sell their wares to lesser countries at a much cheaper price and still make a profit(cheap labor).

The problem I see is that there are no solutions other than for these big entities to grow a sense of conscience or for the American worker to work for virtually nothing(factoring the cost of living).

So yeah, we want our Businesses to be successful, but they have to remember that it's our wages that are making them successful, our country that allows them to be successful, and that in this country there is such a thing as "one person/one vote". That's their biggest fear. We can topple the profiteers if we so choose. We can, on one November day, wipe the floor with them and demand a better way of doing things.

It's time to stop asking these entities NICELY to please, PLEASE trickle down like you are supposed to and not hoard it all for yourselves.... and start DEMANDING them to. Why in THE HELL do you think they are going after organized labor so hard? Sure, it's easy to start a propaganda war against unions... and I will freely admit, SOME of their accusations have some merit. But that's not the motivation... the motivation is to get more control and give less to the people.

So many of you on here think that this whole thing is Capitalism vs. Socialism. That's the Propaganda machine. The truth is, it's more like a hybrid of the two. We want our Corporations to succeed and at the same time have a sense of responsibility when it comes down to the people of the country.

They are smart people.... they know what to do, but they are so drunk on money and power that they refuse to do it.

EASTERN AIRLINES.
The unions purposefully wanted them to fail.
And they did.

 

[Gadawg73]

The people who know how to create wealth can move wherever they want. If they don't pay their workers a living wage, there will be very few to buy whatever it is they produce.

Much of today's FIRE sector incomes doesn't involve creating anything of productive value. Wall Street functions like a casino with the taxpayers waiting to bail out the "too big to lose" losers. Big government, Wall Street and the richest 5% of Americans have recently proven government's ability to create wealth for a fortunate few while taxing the homes and pensions of millions of productive Americans into extinction.

Brother, you have it ass backwards.
It is up to the EMPLOYEE to educate themselves to find work where the market is for their skills.
If they do not have those skills that the market demands then they need to train and educate themselves for what the market demands.

 

[Steelplate]

The people who know how to create wealth can move wherever they want. If they don't pay their workers a living wage, there will be very few to buy whatever it is they produce.

Much of today's FIRE sector incomes doesn't involve creating anything of productive value. Wall Street functions like a casino with the taxpayers waiting to bail out the "too big to lose" losers. Big government, Wall Street and the richest 5% of Americans have recently proven government's ability to create wealth for a fortunate few while taxing the homes and pensions of millions of productive Americans into extinction.

Brother, you have it ass backwards.
It is up to the EMPLOYEE to educate themselves to find work where the market is for their skills.
If they do not have those skills that the market demands then they need to train and educate themselves for what the market demands.

Really? You do realize that On the job training was the mainstay of the majority of our workforce at one time right? Nowadays you need at least an Associate's degree to work in a Walmart auto center... a Bachelor's if you hope to run it one day.

You see the idea is to get our children $100K in debt before they start their lives... nothing like a good motivated employee that you can push around, right? There is a collusion going on in this country. The Corporate spoke out against Health Care, not because of "Socialism", but because it reduces their power. They Love the "employer based" health care system... much like they love graduates in debt.

Follow the money, think critically...even in your own direction.

I mean, I've been on this Earth 46 years, and in that time I've seen what pure Communism and Socialism can do. But over the past 20 years or so, I'm seeing how ugly Capitalism can become too.

 

[georgephillip]

Speaking of Einstein:

(PhysOrg.com) -- Stanford and NASA researchers have confirmed two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, concluding one of the space agency's longest-running projects.

Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories

Gotta love those scientists. Was Einstein a "conservative"? Just kidding.

"Known as Gravity Probe B, the experiment used four ultra-precise gyroscopes housed in a satellite to measure two aspects of Einstein's theory about gravity. The first is the geodetic effect, or the warping of space and time around a gravitational body. The second is frame-dragging, which is the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.

"After 52 years of conceiving, building, testing and waiting, the science satellite has determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, Gravity Probe B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit. But in confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin as they were pulled by Earth's gravity."

Some mathematical markers are being applied to the study of violence in today's society.

Perhaps our next Einstein will explain why human values warp around "spinning" corporate bodies in pursuit of maximum profit?

Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories

 

[peach174]

I still say that we the people need to elect house and senate Representatives who will change the laws in how congress does business. We have to get the money out of the hands of lobbyists.
The Campaign laws need to be changed. Unions should not be able to give to campaigns just like corporations can't. They can run ads for who they would like to be elected but not be able to give.
We also need to change our tax laws.
These three things are what is causing the corruption in Washington.
What is it you want ? To get rid of corporations? Then what, have a barter and trade system? Some are already starting to do that.
But It would not change the corruption in our government until we change the way congress does it's business.

 

[Steelplate]

Peach... Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of... Corporations can and do give to campaigns. They do it in the form of Political Action Committies(PAC'S)... same with Unions. Neither group is allowed to donate money out of their general funds. But they can create as many PAC's as they want.

Furthermore, I thought that there was a SCOTUS decision that now allow for unlimited and anonymous donations. Which opens the door for a lot of bullshit... like ohhh... Donations from foreign countries that want a certain candidate in, more back door deals and the like.

In short, unless I missed something since the mid-terms... I think you are way off.

 

[georgephillip]

I agree.

Until congress changes the corruption will only increase as the money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

Republicans AND Democrats are currently wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street.

I don't believe it's possible change the way congress does business by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

If 100 incumbents (or more) are FLUSHED from DC in November 2012 and replaced by Greens and Libertarians, Wall Street and the richest 5% of Americans and the Pentagon will face the same nightmare they've been inflicting upon the rest of us for the last 30 years.

IMHO, Republicans AND Democrats have outlived their usefulness to this Republic, and that Republic will vanish from the page of time unless Dems AND Reps disappear first.

 

[editec]

So the State owns my 3 corporations and all others?

"A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members."

Without the state, corporations would not exist.
Corporate ownership is a separate issue.

Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most importantly, without PRIVATE CAPITAL AND PEOPLE, corporations would not exist.
The state is seperate issue.

No, the state is NOT a separate issue.

Corporations exist by charters issued by the STATE.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't think that there's one person here who doesn't want our business community to succeed. That is a falsehood that the Conservative spin masters love to throw out there, but very far from the truth.

The truth is, what Progressives want is for Corporations to realize that all of their antics are hurting the very people they depend upon to buy their shit. But either they don't realize it... or because of globalization and all the cheap labor readily available... they don't care. Because while they can gouge the US citizen to the breaking point(in other words..."ride the horse till she bucks you"), they can also sell their wares to lesser countries at a much cheaper price and still make a profit(cheap labor).

The problem I see is that there are no solutions other than for these big entities to grow a sense of conscience or for the American worker to work for virtually nothing(factoring the cost of living).

So yeah, we want our Businesses to be successful, but they have to remember that it's our wages that are making them successful, our country that allows them to be successful, and that in this country there is such a thing as "one person/one vote". That's their biggest fear. We can topple the profiteers if we so choose. We can, on one November day, wipe the floor with them and demand a better way of doing things.

It's time to stop asking these entities NICELY to please, PLEASE trickle down like you are supposed to and not hoard it all for yourselves.... and start DEMANDING them to. Why in THE HELL do you think they are going after organized labor so hard? Sure, it's easy to start a propaganda war against unions... and I will freely admit, SOME of their accusations have some merit. But that's not the motivation... the motivation is to get more control and give less to the people.

So many of you on here think that this whole thing is Capitalism vs. Socialism. That's the Propaganda machine. The truth is, it's more like a hybrid of the two. We want our Corporations to succeed and at the same time have a sense of responsibility when it comes down to the people of the country.

They are smart people.... they know what to do, but they are so drunk on money and power that they refuse to do it.

The device were communicating with at this moment makes it entirely doable to wipe the floor in November of 2012.

Republicans AND Democrats can be FLUSHED by the hundreds from DC within the span of a single news cycle. In many parts of this Republic there are already viable third-party candidates appearing on ballots.

Possibly, the hard part will involve convincing the 30% to 40% of eligible voters who usually see nothing worth voting FOR to register and vote AGAINST the status quo.

For at least the last generation, many of the smartest people in the classroom have been drawn to work in the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). Recently taxpayers have bailed out the best and the brightest to the tune of $13 trillion after their new "post production" economy blew up and threatened the planet with another Great Depression.

For starters we should all begin distinguishing between businesses that produce value for society as opposed to those who make money from money by creating toxic mortgage backed securities, for example.

From CounterPunch last November:

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s 'bottom 98 per cent' – this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

"The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising."

Michael Hudson: Obama's Greatest Betrayal

You won't change this dynamic by voting Democrat OR Republican.

FLUSH the DC toilet in 2012!

 

[peach174]

Peach... Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of... Corporations can and do give to campaigns. They do it in the form of Political Action Committies(PAC'S)... same with Unions. Neither group is allowed to donate money out of their general funds. But they can create as many PAC's as they want.

Furthermore, I thought that there was a SCOTUS decision that now allow for unlimited and anonymous donations. Which opens the door for a lot of bullshit... like ohhh... Donations from foreign countries that want a certain candidate in, more back door deals and the like.

In short, unless I missed something since the mid-terms... I think you are way off.

No the SCOTUS decision was about freedom of speech, Corporations still can not give donations. Read the court doc. from the SCOTUS own website.
This is a lie that has been spread through the internet and main stream media.
Yes they can still use PAC'S

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

This is what unions and corporations can do and can't do with PAC's

When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or parties, it must do so through a PAC. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation, and members in the case of abute funds to candidates for federal office. Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fund raising. Overall, PACs account for less than thirty percent of total contributions in U.S. Congressional races, and considerably less in presidential races.

Contributions by individuals to federal PACs are limited to $5,000 per year. It is important to note, however, that as a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, PACs which make only "independent expenditures" (that is, advertisements or other spending that calls for the election or defeat of a federal candidate but which is not coordinated with a federal candidate or political party) are not bound by this contribution limit.

Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, though they may pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union. Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families, while union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members. "Independent" PACs not affiliated with a corporation, union, or trade or membership association may solicit contributions from the general public but must pay their operating costs from these regulated contributions.

Federal multi-candidate PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to candidate campaigns or other organizations:

* at most $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.
* at most $15,000 per political party per year.
* at most $5,000 per PAC per year.

Under federal law, PACs are not limited in their ability to spend money independently of a candidate campaign. This may include expenditures on activities in support of (or against) a candidate, as long as they are not coordinated with the candidate.

If two or more PACs share the same sponsoring organization, they are considered to be "affiliated" and their total donations are counted under aggregate limits, i.e. the total donations from all may not exceed $5,000 for a specific candidate in a given election.

PACs must report all of the financial activities, including direct donations and other expenses, to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which makes the reports available to the public.

Like it says PAC"S contribute to about 30% for congress and even less for a Presidential Candidate.

It is the left who are spreading the lies of how evil corporations are when in fact it is the way government is set up that is causing the problem.
Like I said before we have to change the way congress does business in order to get rid of the corruption. Which is mainly the lobbying and taxes, but also campaign rules.