CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[320 Years of History]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

 

[dblack]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

 

[dblack]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

Yep. They did. The question of the thread is whether that decision was right or not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

Yep. They did. The question of the thread is whether that decision was right or not.

Since a corporation is comprised of individuals possessing Constitutional rights who choose to apply those rights in concert - yes, the ruling is correct.

 

[Ernie S.]

A corporation have every bit as much right to contribute to a campaign as a union.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

Neither. I don't have a problem with individuals -- be they humans who own corporations or humans who work for them, or both -- participating fully in the political process. Indeed, I believe individuals should engage in the process, and do so heartily.

It is the corporations (and unions) themselves that, IMO, should be denied the ability to influence the political process. "Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees." Were I to have my way, corporations and unions would also not be permitted to engage or finance lobbyists, they would not be permitted to make contributions to PACS, or any other organization or individual that/who runs for elected office or attempts to aid or influence individuals who have been elected to office.

To understand why I feel this way, consider the following hypothetical situation....

Let's say that I am among the owners of Corporation XO, which is an investment bank, and I am an executive vice president/general partner at Corporation XE, which is a consulting firm. Let's also say I intend to vote for John "My Guy" Smith for president. We'll also say that I have the following set of principles:

• Everyone should have unrestrained access to firearms.
• The poor and homeless should be given economic and material assistance.
• The U.S. should take a neutral stance re: Israel.
• I favor strong regulation and oversight of banks and insurance companies.
• I believe men and women should be restricted only by their own conscience in deciding whether to have an abortion.

Corp XO donates money to the following PACs

• NRA
• AICPA (that's not a typo)
• American Bankers Association
• HRC
• National Right to Life PAC
• Marco Rubio Super PAC

Corp. XE donates money to the following PACs:

• AIPAC
• WEA PAC
• National Right to Life PAC
• National Committee for Effective Congress
• John "My Guy" Smith Super PAC

It's not hard to see that Corp XO is using revenue that, instead of using it to boost the value of my investment, goes to support some causes of which I approve, some that I don't care too much about one way or another, and some that I expressly oppose and do not want to support. The same thing happens with regard to my employer.

Though I am a stockholder in a bank, I believe too that what's good for banks as businesses is not good for me as an individual. Also, I do not want to do anything to facilitate Marco Rubio's election efforts. Yet in both cases, since I'm not a controlling or majority shareholder, I have no say in the matter, even though I may own 100K shares of the company's voting stock. On the other hand, I am fine with Corp XO contributing to the NRA.

So from where I stand, I would prefer that corporations just not contribute any money to any PACs or lobbying organizations. I prefer that all such organizations exist and operation on the funds they generate from private individuals. Does that mean less money will be available to those organizations -- both the ones I'm keen on and the ones I'm not? Yes. I'm okay with that because it means that individuals, the people whom all laws ultimately affect, will have a much greater degree of power, a louder and more poignant voice, in the political process.

• It means that elected officials will need to pay attention to Joe and Betty Average, even though they only donated $2K or $200 or $20 to a campaign or campaign effort.
• It means that federal representatives will have little (hopefully no) economic incentive to pass "pork" that supports a corporation or industry. If they choose to fund a tunnel through a mountain, or a huge transportation bill, it'll be because the tunnel is needed by the people, not because the mining or construction company (industry) wants a boost and donates heavily to the Senator's/Representative's super PAC in order to get it.

Removing corporate funding from the political process produces so-called downsides. The biggest one that I can identify is that the sums candidates have available to communicate their message would probably be significantly less. To deal with that I suggest several mitigating approaches:

• The Internet: The Internet makes it possible for any "nobody" to share their message with the whole world and do so effectively for free.
• Television and Radio Networks: Quite simply, I would require them all to make available, free of charge, equal quantities of air time for the candidates. If that's 30 minutes each plus one debate each for national parties/candidates, or if it's different quantity, can be worked out.
• CSPAN or something like it: Convert CSPAN to an over-the-air network (or create a state and federally funded "politics" network) that exists solely to air the proceedings of Congress and state legislatures, along with ensuring a venue whereby candidates can publicize whatever they have to say to voters.

The short of it is that it's perfectly acceptable to me to use some of my tax dollars to hear what candidates for political office have to say about their aims. I like being fully informed about the candidates' positions, and if my tax dollars can make that happen, so be it. I also would sooner have candidates that take stances because they are good for individuals, not because they are good for corporations.

 

[320 Years of History]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

Yes, they did. That decision is not the first thing the SCOTUS got wrong, and it won't be the last. That the SCOTUS did so decide merely means that you and I must live with the effects of that determination. That is what it is.

Be that as it may, I do not agree with that decision at all. It's not that I think there is no legal support for it; I'm not an attorney, so I don't really know if there is or is not. It's that I think the principle of imbuing an entity with any of the rights appertaining to a human is just wrong. It's all the more wrong when such entities have the means and will to influence the political process well beyond yours, my and other individuals' ability to do so, is not fair to you, me and other voters.

I might feel differently were those entities to have the same concerns that an individual does, but they don't. Corporations have one defining concern: profit. In contrast, humans have interests and act in ways that don't necessarily and always place profit (cost minimization) at the forefront of their decision making process, and rightly so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

 

[dblack]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

Companies don't actually have will. The concept of corporations having "rights" is merely shorthand for the rights of the owners and employees of the corporation.

 

[anotherlife]

The limit on corporate spending on campaigns have just been eliminated in a law that Bush signed in. So it is not coming back any time soon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

Yes, they did. That decision is not the first thing the SCOTUS got wrong

Where is it mandated that individuals lose their constitutional rights when applying such rights corporately?

Supply the text, please.

 

[Foxfyre]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

Companies don't actually have will. The concept of corporations having "rights" is merely shorthand for the rights of the owners and employees of the corporation.

So for what purposes do humans petition their government for what they want or need, to correct injustices, to protect their home, their lives, their family/loved ones, and their livelihood, i.e. their job or business whether it be sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation. A corporation is not necessarily different from any other business other than it provides legal protection against certain kinds of loss/liability. To assume corporations are somehow more evil and removed from human involvement than are other kinds of human activities is just wrong thinking.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporations absolutely should be prohibited from participating in or influencing the political process.

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

Companies don't actually have will. The concept of corporations having "rights" is merely shorthand for the rights of the owners and employees of the corporation.

Yes, in some ways that is so. One way in which it is not so is that ownership of a corporation, as contrasted with that of oneself, is shared among many owners. Moreover, many of those owners have no ability to influence the political activities their corporation undertakes, and often enough may not even be, in advance, made aware that the company's executives and/or board members intend to provide economic support to political causes and endeavors.

The acts of a corporation, for some owners of it, can be likened to one's cutting off one's nose and then seeking plastic surgery to restore it. The dilemma such as that which a corporation owner faces, on the other hand, would not exist if the corporation were prevented from having surgical procedures, or in the case of this discussion played no role in the political process.

 

[320 Years of History]

The owners of corporations? Or those who work for a corporation? Both?

In the Citizens United case, SCOTUS ruled that a corporation, as a corporation, can donate money and has free speech rights to do so.

Yes, they did. That decision is not the first thing the SCOTUS got wrong

Where is it mandated that individuals lose their constitutional rights when applying such rights corporately?

Supply the text, please.

I don't think it is written that individuals lose their rights by applying them in any form. The point I've been making isn't that individual rights are lost by dint of corporate sponsorship of political cause. The point is that individual rights are minimized as a result of corporations' being able to have equal eligibility of participation in the political process. That might not be the case were the political process not so heavily influenced by financial wherewithal, but it is.

Having answered your question, I ask you one. What exception have you with individuals being permitted to exert and apply their constitutional rights individually and their being prohibited from doing so, as you put it, "corporately?"

 

[dblack]

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

Companies don't actually have will. The concept of corporations having "rights" is merely shorthand for the rights of the owners and employees of the corporation.

So for what purposes do humans petition their government for what they want or need, to correct injustices, to protect their home, their lives, their family/loved ones, and their livelihood, i.e. their job or business whether it be sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation. A corporation is not necessarily different from any other business other than it provides legal protection against certain kinds of loss/liability. To assume corporations are somehow more evil and removed from human involvement than are other kinds of human activities is just wrong thinking.

Agreed. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm merely clarifying that those saying corporations "aren't people" and there don't have rights are missing the point. The people who make up corporations have rights, whether they are acting individually, or in concert with others.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well then, they should also be exempt from paying taxes or any other responsibilities forced on them by a process they are not allowed to participate in.

Were corporations humans, I would say they should they should also be exempt from paying taxes were they denied the ability to participate and have a say in the political process. They are not humans, however. Since they are not humans, they can and should be made to pay taxes because they benefit from the infrastructure, institutions and security elements that must be put in place to provide for the humans they must have as employees and customers.

Having been personally incorporated in the past, I am pretty darn sure I am human.

You are, but your company is not.

Companies don't actually have will. The concept of corporations having "rights" is merely shorthand for the rights of the owners and employees of the corporation.

So for what purposes do humans petition their government for what they want or need, to correct injustices, to protect their home, their lives, their family/loved ones, and their livelihood, i.e. their job or business whether it be sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation. A corporation is not necessarily different from any other business other than it provides legal protection against certain kinds of loss/liability. To assume corporations are somehow more evil and removed from human involvement than are other kinds of human activities is just wrong thinking.

Certainly sole proprietorships are essentially synonymous with an individual; thus such owners should face no impediment on their use of resources to support political aims. I would merely require they do so using a check drawn on their personal account rather than their company account, but as the two are substantively, if not legally/literally, the same. For them, it's just a matter of taking a distribution from the company funds, which is something they already are free to do at any time.

Partnerships, if they are small enough, can operate in much the same way as a sole proprietorship. That said, if a large partnership feels its important to use its funds to participate in the political process, its partners would, under my vision, authorize a distribution of partnership funds to the partners, whereafter they can personally make contributions as they see fit. The distribution can be apportioned in direct proportion to each partner's ownership interest.

With large and small corporations, I think using the same approach as I suggested for large partnerships would be acceptable.

I don't have an assumption that corporations/businesses are evil. I have a recognition that they have one prime motive: profit. I also understand that that objective, and the acts that best accomplish maximizing the profit earned, can often run contrary to the best interests of humans. I recognize that at times a business' profit motive and an individual's personal desires are congruent. The paramount principle that drives my views on corporate participation in the political process is the one that says the aims and needs of a business must be subordinated, in all cases where they are not congruent with, those of individuals. The best way to make that happen is to ensure that all the economic support for political action come from individuals not from businesses/corporations.