Reversing a 20-year old precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that corporations and unions can use money from their general treasuries to make campaign contributions.
Anyone think this is a good thing?
I can’t see how this is any difference than a guy who works for a corporation or union giving money they get from said organization to a politician.
In other words, I don’t think this will change much.
…is it wise to have your president be indebted to his/hers chief corporate contributor? Would you really want big business even more involved in politics as it is now?
I think it is what is wrong with American politics, after I donate $100,000 dollars to your campaign, you owe me
This effectively not only gives the rights of personhood to corporations, but counts money as “speech” Way over the line. This is legislating from the bench. Big time. Welcome to full on fascism kids.
Well said raybbaby. Anybody watched Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Addendum or Endgame. Highly suggest.
[quote]raybbaby wrote:
This effectively not only gives the rights of personhood to corporations, but counts money as “speech” Way over the line. This is legislating from the bench. Big time. Welcome to full on fascism kids.[/quote]
Ok, first of all, money most definitely IS speech. Supporting someone with cash is hardly different from supporting them with words. That’s why the government can’t legally stop you from giving your hard earned money to anyone for any reason. As corporations are just amalgamations of individuals, being able to give money to whoever the fuck they want is part of their rights.
Again, how is Corp X giving money to Poli Z ANY different from Dude Y who WORKS for Corp X giving money to Poli Z?
You want to reduce the power of rent-seeking? Reduce the power of GOVERNMENT. Corporations and big businesses will ALWAYS find a way to rent-seek. This new decision simply lets them do it more outright. Rent-seeking will NOT go away just because you remove “corporate person-hood” (which is now quite officially the new liberal boogie man come to scare us all into giving the government MORE power).
I’m going to say it again because it can’t be said enough:
You want to reduce the power of rent-seeking? Reduce the power of GOVERNMENT.
EDIT:Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission - YouTube
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]raybbaby wrote:
This effectively not only gives the rights of personhood to corporations, but counts money as “speech” Way over the line. This is legislating from the bench. Big time. Welcome to full on fascism kids.[/quote]
Ok, first of all, money most definitely IS speech. Supporting someone with cash is hardly different from supporting them with words. That’s why the government can’t legally stop you from giving your hard earned money to anyone for any reason. As corporations are just amalgamations of individuals, being able to give money to whoever the fuck they want is part of their rights.
Again, how is Corp X giving money to Poli Z ANY different from Dude Y who WORKS for Corp X giving money to Poli Z?
You want to reduce the power of rent-seeking? Reduce the power of GOVERNMENT. Corporations and big businesses will ALWAYS find a way to rent-seek. This new decision simply lets them do it more outright. Rent-seeking will NOT go away just because you remove “corporate person-hood” (which is now quite officially the new liberal boogie man come to scare us all into giving the government MORE power).
I’m going to say it again because it can’t be said enough:
You want to reduce the power of rent-seeking? Reduce the power of GOVERNMENT.
EDIT: Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission - YouTube
They can tax the money, though. That’s also why charities have to set up as not-for-profits. So the money comes in tax free.