I don't think Corporations are inherently "evil"

[Vast LWC]

I think I need to explain something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Revere]

Free speech is not availed merely on the basis of one's affiliation with a particular political party, or favor with the political party in power at a particular time.

 

[Vast LWC]

Free speech is not availed merely on the basis of one's affiliation with a particular political party, or favor with the political party in power at a particular time.

That is very true.

Personally I think that in the long run, unbridled corporate power will be bad for members of all parties, or people who belong to no party.

I think that supporting the giving corporations unbridled access to politics is a very nearsighted tactic that will eventually backfire and work against libertarian and right-wing viewpoints in the long run, in return for a short term political advantage.

 

[Revere]

The limits of corporate campaign contributions to candidates was not overturned.

This applies to indepdenent political expenditures alone, or free political speech.

 

[Vast LWC]

The limits of corporate campaign contributions to candidates was not overturned.

This applies to indepdenent political expenditures alone, or free political speech.

And that is true.

However, in the modern world, you cannot deny that blanketing the media with your particular point of view has an unbelievably large effect on which politicians are chosen in the first place.

This will allow corporations, with their massive amount of wealth, to choose the people who are elected.

 

[Vast LWC]

Now, if you ask most corporations, even they will tell you that they don't like the fact that they have to spend so much money in order to make sure other corporations don't gain a political advantage over them.

Like I said, corporations aren't evil. They're just forced to do what they need to do to make sure they provide a profit for their shareholders.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

If it becomes unprofitable for corporations to get involved in the political process, they will no longer need to be involved at all, because their competitors will not be involved, and there will be no "Keeping up with the Joneses" effect.

I'm not sure that my approach of taxing corporations that get involved in the political process as individuals (in the highest tax bracket) if they get involved in the political process is the right one, it's just the first thing I came up with...

But something should be done to stop the endless cycle of political power-grabbing, before it has a adverse effect on our Democracy, possibly leading to a de facto Corporate Oligarchy, not because of some giant conspiracy, but just by default.

 

[Revere]

The limits of corporate campaign contributions to candidates was not overturned.

This applies to indepdenent political expenditures alone, or free political speech.

And that is true.

However, in the modern world, you cannot deny that blanketing the media with your particular point of view has an unbelievably large effect on which politicians are chosen in the first place.

This will allow corporations, with their massive amount of wealth, to choose the people who are elected.

Wrong. Scott Brown closed a 30 point lead by Martha Coakley while she was burying him with fundraising. His fundraising did not catch up to hers until the last few days of the campaign.

She had the support of all the health care lobbies.

 

[Truthmatters]

And they may very well be desided by foreigners who own a controling share of the corp.


The reading I did today shows that the corporate personhood assumptions in the law are not settled Scotus law.

That the language was a prestatement by a scotus judge BEFORE aregument took place in a case.

 

[Revere]

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

If it becomes unprofitable for corporations to get involved in the political process, they will no longer need to be involved at all, because their competitors will not be involved, and there will be no "Keeping up with the Joneses" effect.

Government has no business limiting free speech and money is private property, another "inconvenient" protection of the Constitution.

 

[Revere]

And they may very well be desided by foreigners who own a controling share of the corp.


The reading I did today shows that the corporate personhood assumptions in the law are not settled Scotus law.

That the language was a prestatement by a scotus judge BEFORE aregument took place in a case.

No personhood here. Free speech is Constitutionally protected. That DOES predate arguments in a case.

 

[Truthmatters]

when did the corporation get deemed a person?

 

[Vast LWC]

Wrong. Scott Brown closed a 30 point lead by Martha Coakley while she was burying him with fundraising. His fundraising did not catch up to hers until the last few days of the campaign.

She had the support of all the health care lobbies.

And he had the support of FoxNews, a subsidiary of the NewsCorp Corporation, which gave him massive, free, support.

While pretty no-one on the left-hand side was paying attention, fools that they were.

 

[Annie]

Wrong. Scott Brown closed a 30 point lead by Martha Coakley while she was burying him with fundraising. His fundraising did not catch up to hers until the last few days of the campaign.

She had the support of all the health care lobbies.

And he had the support of FoxNews, a subsidiary of the NewsCorp Corporation, which gave him massive, free, support.

While pretty no-one on the left-hand side was paying attention, fools that they were.

I hadn't heard anything about Brown on FOX until after watching the polls going up for nearly a week on the net links. The new media was way ahead of MSM, including FOX.

I think you're probably correct about the left missing the trends, saw nothing on Coakley until the momentum had really become the tsunami. That's not the fault of anyone but the campaigns.

For the record, Brown's traction caught during the Christmas week shenanigans over health care, might contain warnings for both parties?

 

[Vast LWC]

Government has no business limiting free speech and money is private property, another "inconvenient" protection of the Constitution.

Yes, but in the long run, Free Speech, which I personally generally hold to be sacrosanct, will suffer tremendously due to the blanketing of media by specific corporations.

This is not a partisan issue, this is a future of the country issue.

What if at some point down the line, Republicans or "Tea Partiers" or whomever happen to get in the way of corporate interests? Then they'll be trampled also.

For instance, it is in corporate interests to allow unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants to come to America and work in their factories, giving them American jobs at a fraction of the pay.

What happens when the corporations have de facto control the government, and the "Tea Partiers" try to run an Anti-illegal Immigrant campaign?

 

[Revere]

Wrong. Scott Brown closed a 30 point lead by Martha Coakley while she was burying him with fundraising. His fundraising did not catch up to hers until the last few days of the campaign.

She had the support of all the health care lobbies.

And he had the support of FoxNews, a subsidiary of the NewsCorp Corporation, which gave him massive, free, support.

While pretty no-one on the left-hand side was paying attention, fools that they were.

Oh, you would remove the free speech exemption for media outlets, too?

 

[Revere]

Government has no business limiting free speech and money is private property, another "inconvenient" protection of the Constitution.

Yes, but in the long run, Free Speech, which I personally generally hold to be sacrosanct, will suffer tremendously due to the blanketing of media by specific corporations.

This is not a partisan issue, this is a future of the country issue.

What if at some point down the line, Republicans or "Tea Partiers" or whomever happen to get in the way of corporate interests? Then they'll be trampled also.

For instance, it is in corporate interests to allow unlimited numbers of illegal immigrants to come to America and work in their factories, giving them American jobs at a fraction of the pay.

What happens when the corporations control the government, and the "Tea Partiers" try to run an Anti-illegal Immigrant campaign?

Oh, you would ban free speech based on one's affiliation with the Tea Party movement, too?

 

[Revere]

when did the corporation get deemed a person?

It's not. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional rights, in this case, free speech, any more than it does your ability to walk into an Apple store and snag an iPod for free because the 5th Amendment governing private property does not apply here, too.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, you would ban free speech based on one's affiliation with the Tea Party movement, too?

What?

I was saying that popular people's movements such as the Tea Party would also be adversely affected by increases in corporate power, at some point down the road.

Not that they should have anything "banned" or limited.

You're assuming that I'm some sort of monster, just because I have a different viewpoint than you.

What I'm advocating here is an attempt to save free speech for the little guy, not an attempt to limit free speech.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional rights, in this case, free speech, any more than it does your ability to walk into an Apple store and snag an iPod for free because the 5th Amendment governing private property does not apply here, too.

Individual shareholders in a corporation have every right to practice free speech, just like every other citizen.

What the court did was to essentially confer the rights of person-hood to a legal entity.

A corporation, when it comes down to it, is simply a big pile of paper.