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

[320 Years of History]

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.

I don't have any problem with individuals acting in concert with other individuals. I have a problem with them doing so under the auspices of a corporation. If 10 or 10K individuals want to gather their ideas and resources to form a PAC or other lobbying group, and present their position to elected representatives, or use their combined resources to support one or several candidates, fine. By all means, they should, and I encourage them to do so. I'm merely saying that neither the company(s) that employ those individuals, nor any others, can contribute money to that organization (or other political action organizations), the elected officials, or candidates.


(If the corporation wants to offer pay raises to the individuals so they can contribute more to "this or that" political organization, fine, but the company cannot grant that wage with an express or implied expectation that any given political group or individual receive the money. Like all the rest of the employees' wages, how they are spent is at the employees' discretion.)

 

[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.

I don't think it is written that individuals lose their rights by applying them in any form.

Great. Then nothing more need be said on the subject.

What exception have you with individuals being permitted to exert and apply their constitutional rights individually

None whatsoever. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of consequences for exercising them, such as the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" scenario.

and their being prohibited from doing so, as you put it, "corporately?"

They cannot be prohibited in either case.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But the point is, what difference would that make whether I draw the check out of my company profits, which is the source of my income, or I draw it out of my personal bank account that I use for expenses other than business ones? It is still me with the same reasons or motives or agenda or whatever reason I contribute. In a way it is more open and honest and transparent if the check shows my business name than it would if it bears my personal name. The candidate will still know why they are getting that money from me and what expectations are attached to it; and if the corporate name is on the contribution then everybody else might be advised of whatever agenda I might have.

This is why my personal emphasis is not on restricting Mr. and Mrs. America and/or their mom and pop store or partnership or corporation from using their money as they see fit so long as it violates nobody else's rights. But if you want to remove the influence of Mr. and Mrs. America and/or their X Corporation from the process, then let's pass a constitutional amendment or iron clad law that the government can provide no benefits of any kind to anybody that are not provided to everybody. Problem solved because corporate contributions won't buy anybody anything.

 

[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.

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.

Great. Then nothing more need be said on the subject.

What exception have you with individuals being permitted to exert and apply their constitutional rights individually

None whatsoever. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of consequences for exercising them, such as the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" scenario.

and their being prohibited from doing so, as you put it, "corporately?"

They cannot be prohibited in either case.

An individual has individual rights, like voting, for example. Are you going to argue that a corporation has voting rights?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Great. Then nothing more need be said on the subject.

What exception have you with individuals being permitted to exert and apply their constitutional rights individually

None whatsoever. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of consequences for exercising them, such as the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" scenario.

and their being prohibited from doing so, as you put it, "corporately?"

They cannot be prohibited in either case.

An individual has individual rights, like voting, for example. Are you going to argue that a corporation has voting rights?

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Agreed. I'm half of a corporation and last I checked, all human.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Great. Then nothing more need be said on the subject.

What exception have you with individuals being permitted to exert and apply their constitutional rights individually

None whatsoever. That does not, however, preclude the possibility of consequences for exercising them, such as the "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater" scenario.

and their being prohibited from doing so, as you put it, "corporately?"

They cannot be prohibited in either case.

An individual has individual rights, like voting, for example. Are you going to argue that a corporation has voting rights?

No, I'm not. Why would I when they do not?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I'm not. Why would I when they do not?

I was asking Billy

 

[320 Years of History]

No, I'm not. Why would I when they do not?

I was asking Billy

Oh. Sorry to interject.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh. Sorry to interject.

No need to feel sorry, just giving you the context of my comment. You seem to be in favor of banning corporations from our political process as I am also.

Corporate (for-profit) money is the root of all evil in our political system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh. Sorry to interject.

No need to feel sorry, just giving you the context of my comment. You seem to be in favor of banning corporations from our political process as I am also.

Corporate (for-profit) money is the root of all evil in our political system.

"All," ...I don't know. "A lot of it,"...most certainly. Power is right up there with money, and there's no denying the two are closely linked.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

Talking votes, not checks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

Talking votes, not checks.

The person I was responding to was talking checks.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

Talking votes, not checks.

The person I was responding to was talking checks.

That was not reflected in the reference stack.

 

[anotherlife]

There is a rule to campaign contributions. If you are a donor, you maximize your donations on the campaign fundraisers, to keep your operating license after the elections. If you are a politician, you check your highest donors after the election and renew their licenses. Simple. Business competition. There will never be a limit to any.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not, because there are no "voting rights", and voting is limited to one-person one-vote. To permit a corporate vote would be to permit multiple votes by individuals.

And similarly influence in our elections should be restricted to citizens, i.e. individuals not for-profit corporations.

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

Talking votes, not checks.

The person I was responding to was talking checks.

That was not reflected in the reference stack.

It certainly seemed reflected that way to me, and I'm pretty sure to the person who posted it who wasn't you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

Such distinctions have always had a huge impact on what one can do with funding, hence laws against money laundering, structuring deposits and withdrawals, etc.

How does your appeal to ignorance constitute an argument for your claims, whatever they are?

 

[320 Years of History]

But again, what difference does it make whether I draw the check on my personal bank account or draw it on my corporate bank account. The reason for contributing is the same and carries the same weight. At least if my corporate name is on the check, others can judge for themselves possible motives for supporting the candidate.

If one is the sole owner of the company/corporation, there is largely little difference. If the corporation is, say, AT&T, or some other one owned jointly by many individuals, a legitimate pair of presumptions of seeing the company name on a contribution check is (1) that all or most of the company's owners concur with one or more of the check recipient's aims or principles, and (2) that most or more of the owners at least so much as give a damn about something the recipient does, stands for, or provides. Yes, the sum of money contributed has the same impact to the recipient, but it may imply intent that not all, or even most owners -- by number, if not by ownership share -- have. Such contributions then can result in misrepresenting the beliefs and convictions of many individuals who have/had no say in making the expenditure.

When one provides a check having one's own name on it, the only legitimate inference is that the person(s) whose name appears as the account owner(s) has any commitment to supporting the ends of the recipient. Even if, for example, I wanted to donate money to XYZ organization, and you, in paying a debt you owe me, were to give them a check on my behalf and drawn from your own account, it stands to reason that you are in some way, however small, "okay" with supporting the organization's efforts. Were you not sufficiently "okay" with their cause, you need only make the check out to me and thereby require me to write a check to them and drawn on my own account.