2012 Elections

[Grundbegriff]

Also, PACs are funded solely by intentional donations made by American citizens, where corporate political activity can involve repurposing the income they receive from their customers.

The customers aren't buying political advocacy; they're buying a product or service. What the stakeholders (via their boardroom proxies) do with the resources thus accrued isn't primarily a function of the prior commercial transaction.

Why should the deliberately aggregated opinions of a corporation's stockholders be muted? What's the "right amount" of political speech that the owners of a corporation should be permitted to utter?

It is unreasonable to turn every shopping or purchasing decision a customer faces into a political question, and many consumers would have no choice but to purchase goods from corporations whose political actions run counter to their needs or values -- effectively forcing them to financially support political causes they may oppose.

Why is it unreasonable to expect people to take responsibility for how they spend their money? And why should some be silenced or stifled because others prefer not to do research in support of their private scruples?

BTW, if it's wrong to leave people "no choice but to purchase goods from corporations whose political actions run counter to their needs or values", then do you support similar reasoning when it comes to health care providers who object to abortifacient practices and institutions that object to same-sex marriage? If not, why not?

[Carpet_pissr]

Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation?

[Kraken]

After what seems like years of punditry, here comes Iowa. Who is God's chosen one?

Spoiler:

here’s an admirably consistent application of religious logic from Amy Davis of Polk City -- one other members of the flock might want to factor into their own ruminations. Since all that happens occurs according to God’s plan, Davis said, he must have wanted Barack Obama to be president.

“A lot of Christians certainly did not vote for him, but you know what? He was the Lord’s choice,” she said. “God always knows what is going to happen.”

[Isgrimnur]

So I guess voting at all is a fruitless exercise?

[silverjon]

It's God's plan whether you vote or not.

[Isgrimnur]

It's God's plan whether you vote or not.

But of course. Which makes those Rock the Vote campaigns the exercise in futility...? Or is that God working in mysterious ways?

It's amazing what you can rationalize away when proof never has to enter into it.

[silverjon]

Depends if you believe that God precludes free will or not.

I am relatively certain that most religious folks do not actually believe this. God doesn't directly control what we do or do not do right now, or the outcomes of it. He observes, and guides if people ask, but he doesn't interfere.

[noxiousdog]

They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.

That's as ridiculous as saying immigrants are unamerican (and the prejudicial and stereotypes do seem to run in parallels). There isn't a single corporation is is solely interested in profit at the expense of everything else. You really think every board of directors is an evil cabal that sits around trying to screw people for more money? That Bill Gates, for example, who is giving away tens of billions, used to be a guy that cared nothing for society?

And in your theory, what about non-large corporations or very large partnerships?

Regardless, I didn't mean to clutter up the thread. I was just pointing out the Kelo was at least as demonstrably bad and was a liberal court decision. Other than those two, I can't recall any controversial decisions, so while supreme court judge is a great scare tactic, in practice, it hasn't been that important.

[Rip]

Depends if you believe that God precludes free will or not.

I am relatively certain that most religious folks do not actually believe this. God doesn't directly control what we do or do not do right now, or the outcomes of it. He observes, and guides if people ask, but he doesn't interfere.

All that is based on our perception of time. If time doesn't actually flow and we mearly perceive it that way, he would not need to control free will but still know what every free will decision we will make will be.

[noxiousdog]

Do you not care at all about the potential of large corporations to outright purchase elections to prevent government regulation?

I don't believe it is any more possible than the AFL-CIO outright purchasing elections. Or the AARP. Or the AMA.

[RunningMn9]

Bill Gates, citizen at large, certainly tries to do good for his fellow man.

Bill Gates, HNIC at Microsoft, is a certified, grade A asshole that has been willing to do a great deal of dirty, underhanded shit to separate you from your money and put more of it into his pocket so that he could give it away.

They are two different people, with two very different agendas.

[Pyperkub]

They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.

Movie of the Week stereotypes aside, corporations with political interests often come down on different-- even contrary-- sides of any given issue. There is no monolithic "corporate opinion". So why not tolerate diversity rather than pretend that there's a certain amount or distribution of free speech that's "the right amount"?

Actually no. The stereotypes are there because prior to unions and regulations that is how large corporations operated. For how that applies today, please see what Montana's State Supreme Ct ruled regarding Citizens United:

As the majority wrote: "the Montana law at issue in this case cannot be understood outside the context of the time and place it was enacted, during the early twentieth century."

Montana's "Copper Kings" as they were known bought judges, influenced the legislature and nearly monopolized the state's mass media of the day -- its newspapers. The corruption had federal aspects as well as. One U.S. senator from Montana, W. A. Clark, was expelled because the Senate concluded he had won his seat through bribery. The people of Montana chose to protect their democracy from this type of mischief by outlawing corporate spending in Montana's elections...

...Justice Nelson also challenged one of Citizens United's central tenets that independent expenditures cannot corrupt. Justice Nelson framed the issue this way:
I absolutely do not agree that ... "independent expenditures" ... cannot give rise to corruption ... Of course it can. ... Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption ... is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the "quid pro quo" of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty.
As a finally kicker, Justice Nelson concluded, "[a]nd, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely."

One thing is clear: six of seven Montana Justices disagreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that corporations should have the same rights as individuals to spend money in elections.

The other thing to take away from this is that Union spending != Corporate spending. There is a significant difference, and the only reason Unions ever even came about in this country is due to corporate abuses of money and power.

[noxiousdog]

Bill Gates, citizen at large, certainly tries to do good for his fellow man.

Bill Gates, HNIC at Microsoft, is a certified, grade A asshole that has been willing to do a great deal of dirty, underhanded shit to separate you from your money and put more of it into his pocket so that he could give it away.

They are two different people, with two very different agendas.

So, he's schizophrenic?

I don't doubt different agendas or even making some decisions for Microsoft (tm) that he wouldn't make for Bill Gates (tm). I do doubt that he allowed Microsoft to be "solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights."

[noxiousdog]

Actually no. The stereotypes are there because prior to unions and regulations that is how large corporations operated.

Some large corporations.

For how that applies today, please see what Montana's State Supreme Ct ruled regarding Citizens United:

So are you saying that because some corporations have committed fraud and bribery, then we should take away all their free speech rights?

It's equally likely to come from other influences (private organizations). Hell, it's equally (if not more likely) to come from incumbent officials.

The other thing to take away from this is that Union spending != Corporate spending. There is a significant difference, and the only reason Unions ever even came about in this country is due to corporate abuses of money and power.

Why is union spending different than corporate spending?

[silverjon]

So, he's schizophrenic?

Multiple personality disorder.

[Isgrimnur]

Chicken or egg: What breeds corruption? Is it the first company that offers a bribe or the first official that solicits one? Is there an answer, or are both equally likely?

[El Guapo]

It's the powerful chicken / egg lobby.

[Rip]

It's the powerful chicken / egg lobby.

and with lots of broken eggs and chicken shit you are just left with a slippery slope.

[Pyperkub]

Actually no. The stereotypes are there because prior to unions and regulations that is how large corporations operated.

Some large corporations.

Enough - ever hear of Company Towns, Child Labor, etc...

For how that applies today, please see what Montana's State Supreme Ct ruled regarding Citizens United:

So are you saying that because some corporations have committed fraud and bribery, then we should take away all their free speech rights?

I'm saying that Citizens United is a horrible decision and that the free speech rights of corporations and unions have been improperly expanded to the degree to which they actually threaten some of the underpinnings of our democratic republic.

It's equally likely to come from other influences (private organizations). Hell, it's equally (if not more likely) to come from incumbent officials.

The other thing to take away from this is that Union spending != Corporate spending. There is a significant difference, and the only reason Unions ever even came about in this country is due to corporate abuses of money and power.

Why is union spending different than corporate spending?

There would be no unions without corporations, the converse doesn't hold as true. Abuses in corporate spending is what brought about unions and union spending.

Admittedly given both there is a difference only in matter of degree, though my sense is that it is a lot easier to track union spending than corporate spending.

[Grundbegriff]

Depends if you believe that God precludes free will or not.

I am relatively certain that most religious folks do not actually believe this. God doesn't directly control what we do or do not do right now, or the outcomes of it. He observes, and guides if people ask, but he doesn't interfere.

Actually, the field is divided on this issue, both within and without the religious communities. Whether in behalf of libertarian free will, fatalism, or some position between them, genuine intellectual effort has gone into parsing the possibilities.

Compatibilists might say, for example, that God controls our free choices, thereby establishing and actualizing (rather than violating) their genuine freedom. Digging through the semantic muck requires wading farther into ontology than seems appropriate for this sort of thread.

[Grundbegriff]

So, he's schizophrenic?

Multiple personality disorder.

Multitasking with virtual concurrency!

[Rip]

There would be no unions without corporations, the converse doesn't hold as true. Abuses in corporate spending is what brought about unions and union spending.

Admittedly given both there is a difference only in matter of degree, though my sense is that it is a lot easier to track union spending than corporate spending.

So that means they should have a voice the corporations are denied?
What you are suggesting sure sounds an awful lot like socialism.

The real surprise though is that you can suggest union money is easy to track. Yea, that is why organized crime hates them....and casinos.

If you want to limit the amount of money that can be used to brainwash voters, you should start with the lawyers.

Rip

[Pyperkub]

There would be no unions without corporations, the converse doesn't hold as true. Abuses in corporate spending is what brought about unions and union spending.

Admittedly given both there is a difference only in matter of degree, though my sense is that it is a lot easier to track union spending than corporate spending.

So that means they should have a voice the corporations are denied?
What you are suggesting sure sounds an awful lot like socialism.

The real surprise though is that you can suggest union money is easy to track. Yea, that is why organized crime hates them....and casinos.

If you want to limit the amount of money that can be used to brainwash voters, you should start with the lawyers.

Rip

Nonsense - I didn't say that Corporate Spending should be restricted and Union Spending shouldn't, I said that they aren't the same thing, and that one has been used more historically to influence elections in enough of an improper fashion so as to actually engender these rules. Unions can be as nefarious (see CA Prison Guards), but the instances aren't as pervasive. Ultimately I believe neither should be allowed to unduly influence elections through money.

[noxiousdog]

Enough - ever hear of Company Towns, Child Labor, etc...

Ever hear of coups? Organized crime? Corrupt officials?

Social misfunction isn't limited to corporations.

I'm saying that Citizens United is a horrible decision and that the free speech rights of corporations and unions have been improperly expanded to the degree to which they actually threaten some of the underpinnings of our democratic republic.

You keep alleging that, but continue to neglect to explain what exactly it is about corporations that makes them different.

You, and others, keep alleging about the size, but CALPERS is as large as any public corporation. You, and others, allege that it's profit, but there are plenty of for profit companies that are organized as partnerships (Enterprise Product Partners for example).

There would be no unions without corporations, the converse doesn't hold as true. Abuses in corporate spending is what brought about unions and union spending.

Really? So the AARP is some backlash against the corporate anti-old people lobby? Teacher's unions are about rampant corporate misbehavior in public schools?

Admittedly given both there is a difference only in matter of degree, though my sense is that it is a lot easier to track union spending than corporate spending.

No more and no less than you can track individual donations.

[RunningMn9]

So, he's schizophrenic?

In effect, yes. And it's not specific to him. There's a reason why modern culture has coined the phrase "it's just business" to absolve itself of the pathological behavior regular people engage in all the time in the name of corporate profit. And no, it's not all corporations. We've been through that before. The local shop keeper that happens to be organized as a corporation typically doesn't engage in that sort of "it's just business" shenanigans. But if you sufficiently abstract and shield ownership from management, and you sufficiently abstract customers and communities from management, you get shenanigans of one form or another (in the form of the single-minded pursuit of profit above all else) more often than not.

It won't always take the form of dumping toxic waste into your ground water to save a buck, though.

[Pyperkub]

Enough - ever hear of Company Towns, Child Labor, etc...

Ever hear of coups? Organized crime? Corrupt officials?

Social misfunction isn't limited to corporations.

I'm saying that Citizens United is a horrible decision and that the free speech rights of corporations and unions have been improperly expanded to the degree to which they actually threaten some of the underpinnings of our democratic republic.

You keep alleging that, but continue to neglect to explain what exactly it is about corporations that makes them different.

You, and others, keep alleging about the size, but CALPERS is as large as any public corporation. You, and others, allege that it's profit, but there are plenty of for profit companies that are organized as partnerships (Enterprise Product Partners for example).

There would be no unions without corporations, the converse doesn't hold as true. Abuses in corporate spending is what brought about unions and union spending.

Really? So the AARP is some backlash against the corporate anti-old people lobby? Teacher's unions are about rampant corporate misbehavior in public schools?

Admittedly given both there is a difference only in matter of degree, though my sense is that it is a lot easier to track union spending than corporate spending.

No more and no less than you can track individual donations.

Corporations are not Citizens. Neither are Unions, nor is the AARP, however, the latter two are more likely to be made up completely of citizens, than a corporations' shareholders.

Were there teachers' unions prior to trade unions? Or were there merely similar abuses of power over employees? I'll admit I'm light on the history of the rise of public service unions, but I'll wager that they only arose as a reaction to an abuse of power.

[Combustible Lemur]

I have little opinion on this as a whole, but the gilded age is remembered as a blight on our history for a reason. We remember the robber barons with a mixture of awe and disgust. In fact our kids at work are beginning work on a project involving the triangle factory fire. A Story that highlights many of the dangers and ugly aspects of big business mixing with government entities. I don't see much difference between union and corp money, and but I don't see much upside to either being in elections. Unions should be about collective rights to walk out for leverage not massive lobbying. Corps should keep their official money out of gubment elections just like religion should keep out of policy.
Our democracy should be as much about protecting the voting rights and powers of minority individuals as it is about making it more efficient for the majority to speak.

sent from incredible'

[silverjon]

So, he's schizophrenic?

In effect, yes.

No. Get your psychological disorder terminology correct if you want to make that analogy. Schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personalities. Zip zero zilch.

[Zarathud]

I disagree with the position that money is speech, so we must accept unlimited money. Or that corporations are people with natural rights to speech.

And I especially disagree with the idea that Presidential appointments don't matter. Republicans blocked Obama's appointees to the new Consumer Department because it matters, and lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court matter more. It could even be argued that the President has *more* influence through his or her appoinments than any actual (but not perceived) influence over the economy.

[Zarathud]

Unions and associations like the AARP are more deserving of protection since their express purpose is to inform and advocate on behalf of the interests of a group of citizens, while corporations are typically formed to make a profit for a group of shareholders (who may not be citizens). Any "speech" conducted by a business is incidental to the purpose of profit, not an end in itself.

[GreenGoo]

So, he's schizophrenic?

Multiple personality disorder.

To me it seems fairly clear that Bill likes to think he is a good guy, and is, when acting on his behalf. But for some reason he doesn't feel his decisions made on behalf of MS reflect on him as a person. I think this is fairly normal in a "it's not personal, it's business" aspect, and I think you can find examples of it going back to the stone age, which is also why it's fairly easy for people such as Jag to know corporate execs who are "great guys", until you find out what they've been up to behind boardroom doors.

I'm actually getting a little tired of the defense of corporate America. No one wants to burn capitalism to the ground, and no one wants to punish those conducting ethical business. So finding examples of companies behaving themselves is not a surprise, nor does it mitigate the point Rmn9 and others are constantly making.

As a person, I am concerned about how I am treated. Corporations exist for the benefit of people, not the other way around, and I want my culture, society, laws and political system to realize and reflect that. That consumer advocacy seems to be on the way out again after enjoying a few decades of popularity concerns me, as the scale never really tipped in the consumer's favour, it only hindered rampant corporate abuse rather than stopped it. We are now entering a period where corporate america is lobbying to literally be the sole guardians of American culture, doling it out to the public in small, drm'd portions in exchange for payment, filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to terrorize people into obedience, even when the law is not behind them.

Why anyone would want a system that put more power into corporate america's hands over the society they live in is beyond me. Either people are America's citizens, or corporations are. Attempting to have both is just a way to have a facade of equality when what you're really doing is simply handing over the reins to corporations and no longer even pretending that government is "for the people".

[GreenGoo]

So, he's schizophrenic?

In effect, yes. And it's not specific to him. There's a reason why modern culture has coined the phrase "it's just business" to absolve itself of the pathological behavior regular people engage in all the time in the name of corporate profit. And no, it's not all corporations. We've been through that before. The local shop keeper that happens to be organized as a corporation typically doesn't engage in that sort of "it's just business" shenanigans. But if you sufficiently abstract and shield ownership from management, and you sufficiently abstract customers and communities from management, you get shenanigans of one form or another (in the form of the single-minded pursuit of profit above all else) more often than not.

It won't always take the form of dumping toxic waste into your ground water to save a buck, though.

Good lord. I just want to say that I wrote my post above before I read yours Rmn9. It amuses me that not only are the posts parallel in meaning, we both agreed that Bill is acting as 2 separate persons, hiding behind the phrase "it's business" to cover and rationalize their destructive and unethical behaviour.

Get out of my head.

[noxiousdog]

Why anyone would want a system that put more power into corporate america's hands over the society they live in is beyond me. Either people are America's citizens, or corporations are. Attempting to have both is just a way to have a facade of equality when what you're really doing is simply handing over the reins to corporations and no longer even pretending that government is "for the people".

Because that's not how freedom works. We don't get to decide to curtail it when it doesn't benefit us. Just like we protect the rights one group of people (organized however they like) to hang around Wall Street, we should be protecting the other group of people (organized however they like) to call them ass hats.

Zarathud at least asks a fundmental question of whether money=speech. I think it's a valid question, but I suspect current campaign law forces it to be so.

[GreenGoo]

Why anyone would want a system that put more power into corporate america's hands over the society they live in is beyond me. Either people are America's citizens, or corporations are. Attempting to have both is just a way to have a facade of equality when what you're really doing is simply handing over the reins to corporations and no longer even pretending that government is "for the people".

Because that's not how freedom works. We don't get to decide to curtail it when it doesn't benefit us.

Agreed. What has that got to do with what we're talking about?

[noxiousdog]

Why anyone would want a system that put more power into corporate america's hands over the society they live in is beyond me. Either people are America's citizens, or corporations are. Attempting to have both is just a way to have a facade of equality when what you're really doing is simply handing over the reins to corporations and no longer even pretending that government is "for the people".

Because that's not how freedom works. We don't get to decide to curtail it when it doesn't benefit us.

Agreed. What has that got to do with what we're talking about?

So, you'd be ok with the government having the ability to control Amnesty International's speech? I wouldn't, and since I can't make a solid legal argument on how to exclude them, but include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, I must include them both.

[GreenGoo]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Austin]

Depends if you believe that God precludes free will or not.

I am relatively certain that most religious folks do not actually believe this. God doesn't directly control what we do or do not do right now, or the outcomes of it. He observes, and guides if people ask, but he doesn't interfere.

Actually, the field is divided on this issue, both within and without the religious communities. Whether in behalf of libertarian free will, fatalism, or some position between them, genuine intellectual effort has gone into parsing the possibilities.

Compatibilists might say, for example, that God controls our free choices, thereby establishing and actualizing (rather than violating) their genuine freedom. Digging through the semantic muck requires wading farther into ontology than seems appropriate for this sort of thread.

Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

There is a story in Acts that, I think, shows the paradox of God's sovereignty and free will. Paul is headed to Rome on a ship with a bunch of soldiers, guards, and prisoners. A bad storm hits and after many days they begin to lose hope. Paul receives a message from an angel, "Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you." (Acts 27:24)

So God has spoken and told Paul in no uncertain terms that everyone will make it. But as we move on in the story we find a curious occurrence.

And fearing that we might run on the rocks, they let down four anchors from the stern and prayed for day to come. 30 And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship's boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.” 32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go. (Acts 27:29-32)

Paul places a condition upon the salvation of the men. If they leave the boat, they die. So, did these men have free will? What if one prisoner jumped over board? What if the centurion decided not to listen to Paul? God said that all would survive, so could not Paul have just sat back and let them do whatever they want?

Just because we cannot comprehend how God could be completely sovereign, in control of everything, and yet allow free will to humans, does not mean it is beyond the grasp of an infinite God. There is a comfort in knowing that Someone greater is in control, and yet we cannot be complacent because our choices do matter. The Bible is full of paradoxical type ideas, and impossibilities (the Word becomes flesh - (or God becoming man and yet remaining God) but I for one and quite happy that God is not fully knowable by me, else He wouldn't be very big after all.

1 The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.
2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
but the LORD weighs the spirit.
3 Commit your work to the LORD,
and your plans will be established.
9 The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps.

[Jaymann]

They are just about as obnoxious, but I think the difference is large corporations are solely interested in profit, at the expense of nearly everything else, including the environment and human rights.

That's as ridiculous as saying immigrants are unamerican...

Technically they are unamerican, at least at some point.

[Rip]

Unions and associations like the AARP are more deserving of protection since their express purpose is to inform and advocate on behalf of the interests of a group of citizens, while corporations are typically formed to make a profit for a group of shareholders (who may not be citizens). Any "speech" conducted by a business is incidental to the purpose of profit, not an end in itself.

So when the unions were out there lobbying and fighting for illegal immigrants?

[Rip]

Perfect time for this to happen.

America has closed the books on 2011 with debt at an all time record $15,222,940,045,451.09. And, as was observed here first in all of the press, US debt to GDP is now officially over 100%, or 100.3% to be specific, a fact which the US government decided to delay exposing until the very end of the calendar year. We wonder, rhetorically, just how prominent of a talking point this historic event will be in any upcoming GOP primary debates. And yes, technically this number is greater than the debt ceiling but it excludes various accounting gimmicks. When accounting for those, the US has a debt ceiling buffer of... $14 billion, or one third the size of a typical bond auction.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-closes ... 03-debtgdp