- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Let's talk about corporate donations to PAC's, campaigns, and any political org.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:35 pm
Please state your political leaning(conservative, liberal, etc.) and position regarding businesses of any size being able to donate to politicians by any currently legal means.
I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative on almost all issues but health insurance. I believe no corporation should be able to contribute a dime to an individual politician, PAC, or anything remotely resembling a political organization. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
Please note: from 1925 until the Federal Election Campaign Act, passed during the Nixon administration, corporate donations to any general federal campaign were strictly illegal.
I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative on almost all issues but health insurance. I believe no corporation should be able to contribute a dime to an individual politician, PAC, or anything remotely resembling a political organization. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
Please note: from 1925 until the Federal Election Campaign Act, passed during the Nixon administration, corporate donations to any general federal campaign were strictly illegal.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 4:53 pm
8
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:36 pm to Masterag
Liberal according to the metrics on this board. In reality more moderate.
I don't even think there should be PACs. Ban them all, and get lobbyists out of DC. They're the root of most of the problems in DC.
I don't even think there should be PACs. Ban them all, and get lobbyists out of DC. They're the root of most of the problems in DC.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:37 pm to Masterag
quote:
Corporations are not taxpayers
Oops.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:39 pm to Masterag
quote:
Corporations are not taxpayers
Well, this is just completely false
quote:
money is not speech
Why not?
All I want out of this issue is consistency. If we decide corporations cannot contribute, then neither should any other organization. It should be limited to individuals only. If other types of organizations can contribute, then corporations should be as well.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:40 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Well that shithead is too stupid to reply to.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:46 pm to Masterag
quote:
Please note: from 1925 until the Federal Election Campaign Act, passed during the Nixon administration, corporate donations to any general federal campaign were strictly illegal.
How is this relevant? From the founding until 1973 the states were able to outlaw abortion under their police powers.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
quote:
Corporations are not taxpayers
Oops.
ok... we can play silly semantics games or talk about real issues.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:53 pm to Masterag
It isn't silly semantics. One of your main points as to why they shouldn't be allowed to contribute is patently false.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:55 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Why not?
try this.... take out a dollar from your wallet and put it on a desk... do you hear anything?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:55 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
money is not speech
Why not?
Because money is money and speech is speech. The ramifications of money=speech is that if you have no money, you have no speech. That is anathema to the Constitution.
quote:
If we decide corporations cannot contribute, then neither should any other organization. It should be limited to individuals only. If other types of organizations can contribute, then corporations should be as well.
The problem comes in with petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The People maintain the right to assemble for this petition.
But seeing as how, under law, the sole responsibility of a corporation is to increase shareholder value - with no consideration for the welfare of the People required, I do believe they should not have full status as persons under the law.
It is rather complicated, however.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:56 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
i meant taxpaying individuals, context clues based on the rest of my post should make that easy to understand. if it makes you feel better, i changed the word.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:58 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I don't even think there should be PACs. Ban them all, and get lobbyists out of DC. They're the root of most of the problems in DC.
yep, I agree... no lobbyists, no PACs. ever.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:58 pm to Masterag
quote:
we can play silly semantics games or talk about real issues
This isn't semantics, there is the issue of taxation without representation. Currently corporations pay taxes.
I would be fine with reducing corporate tax rates to 0.0%.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:00 pm to Masterag
I'm not sure where you get the notion that corporations can directly contribute to a political campaign... because they cannot.
I also find it odd that you are socially liberal on everything but health insurance. I guess you took a kick in the nuts personally and the light bulb went off, but you're holding fast to the rest of that "social liberal" shite. Typical. If it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't happen.
I also find it odd that you are socially liberal on everything but health insurance. I guess you took a kick in the nuts personally and the light bulb went off, but you're holding fast to the rest of that "social liberal" shite. Typical. If it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't happen.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:05 pm to Masterag
quote:
i meant taxpaying individuals, context clues based on the rest of my post should make that easy to understand. if it makes you feel better, i changed the word.
So then, you're arguing that nobody besides an individual citizen should be allowed to donate?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:06 pm to Masterag
I'm conservative if I must wear a label.
Corporate and special interest monies in our election system are the SINGLE largest factor in our government being prostituted out like it has.
It needs to go ASAP.
Corporate and special interest monies in our election system are the SINGLE largest factor in our government being prostituted out like it has.
It needs to go ASAP.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:08 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Because money is money and speech is speech. The ramifications of money=speech is that if you have no money, you have no speech. That is anathema to the Constitution.
Um, no. This would only be true if there are no other types of speech. By this same logic, if speaking is speech and you can't speak, then you have no speech.
Money in and of itself is not speech. It is the use of said money as a form of expressing one's views and opinions that makes it speech. It is a tool for providing speech.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:12 pm to Masterag
Lobbyists are a necessary evil. While they can be the devil, they are also the only way for many small groups to get their voice heard -- by joining together and hiring a lobbyist.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:15 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
But seeing as how, under law, the sole responsibility of a corporation is to increase shareholder value - with no consideration for the welfare of the People required, I do believe they should not have full status as persons under the law.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that there is no welfare consideration required. There are quite a lot of reasons why the welfare of the people is required by corporations when making decisions beyond just shareholder value. Legally speaking, corporations do have more responsibility than just shareholder value. That is indisputable.
Corporations do at this time have the right to assemble to petition for redress of grievances as well. Now, if you want to make an argument that they shouldn't, I'll disagree with you, but I won't stop you from making that argument.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:18 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
So then, you're arguing that nobody besides an individual citizen should be allowed to donate?
correct. only citizens can vote, so only citizens should be able to donate. makes perfect sense to me
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News