Government Motors Resumes Political Donations

[Ursa Majoris]

The same can be said for unions wouldn't you agree?

Yes. This is why I believe in publicly funded elections. Anything else is bribery and corruption, not free speech.

[Perchoutofwater]

Yes. This is why I believe in publicly funded elections. Anything else is bribery and corruption, not free speech.

 

I could go along with that, provided that the media outlets are only allowed to report the candidates records and what they have said, and not editorialize.

[Caveman_Nick]

Hats off to you for being so coherent in trying so hard to defend the utterly indefensible.

 

 

The biggest problem with calling it indefensible is that corporations are both required to pay taxes and bound by law that is made by the government. I think it is also fair to say that the vast majority of voters are clueless when it comes to what it takes to run a business. If businesses have no say in the laws they are subject to then that could create a very negative economic environment.

 

I think that eliminating the ability for business to influence politics could (and probably would) invoke the law of unintended consequences.

 

The only way I could support this is if (and bear in mind, this is a system that I advocate) all taxes levied on businesses were eliminated. Those dollars are always found through corporate sales, and are always paid by the final end purchaser of goods and/or services anyways.

 

If businesses pay no tax then IMO they have no standing to have a say in government. Products would be much cheaper to sell/buy, which would also make us more competitive on the global market. Individuals would pay all of the taxes, and no free rides or deductions for anyone. First $xx,000 of your income is tax free. Fixed tax rate for everyone after that.

 

Done.

[Deathpig]

Limiting campaign contributions to individuals (and not collections of citizens) can only happen with *really strict* guidelines on contribution caps (else this swings influence in favor of affluent individuals), and has to correspond with MUCH better diligence on tracking all the ways politicians get their money (to prevent said affluent individuals from easily going 'under the table' anyway).

[Azazello1313]

I guess I just have a hard time figuring out how you lose your first amendment rights the moment you associate with others. if I want to advocate by casting my lot with a "corporation" like the sierra club or the NRA (or the ACLU), I don't believe I check my first amendment rights at the door.

 

the ban on "corporate" electioneering ads didn't seem all that unreasonable to me in a practical sense, but if the court wants to lay down a broad reading of a clear constitutionally granted right, I'm not usually going to be the one to complain.

[Ursa Majoris]

I could go along with that, provided that the media outlets are only allowed to report the candidates records and what they have said, and not editorialize.

Let's not confuse money with real speech. It's that artificial conflation that has brought us to where we're at. I have no problem with Rush, Beck, Fox, the WSJ, NY Post and all the rest saying whatever they want (even if it is IMO risible drivel), so I would never try to curtail anything they say.

 

Where I have a problem is with interests (and let's face it, every group / person is an interest of some kind) buying their legislators. The whole thing revolves around the notion of money = free speech and I happen to think that's an artificial crock of poo.

[Clubfoothead]

Your company is not a citizen it is an entity. It should have no rights under any circumstance. My dog pays taxes too. So now he's a citizen like your company or your union?

 

Saying a group of citizen's can't make contributions as a corporation or union in no way limits the individuals to do whatever they want individually or as a collective outside a corporate or union setting. Why would the individuals that make up a corporation want to make contributions beyond what they can do as an individual? The obvious answer is why it is so revolting. This should not be a partisian issue - it's not like the Rebublicans will benefit from this to the demise of Democrats, it just means both sides will be even worse.

 

If a Supreme Court ruling wants to so broadly define citizenry to include Ronald McDonald as a citizen because he pays taxes, then any illegal who accidentially pays sales tax for a 6 pack of Modelo cans at the Quick Mart in Electra should be granted citizenship on the spot as well.

 

This isn't an expansion of individual freedoms. I've never heard anything crazier. It's the opposite and we all kow it.

[SEC=UGA]

Let's not confuse money with real speech. It's that artificial conflation that has brought us to where we're at. I have no problem with Rush, Beck, Fox, the WSJ, NY Post and all the rest saying whatever they want (even if it is IMO risible drivel), so I would never try to curtail anything they say.

 

Where I have a problem is with interests (and let's face it, every group / person is an interest of some kind) buying their legislators. The whole thing revolves around the notion of money = free speech and I happen to think that's an artificial crock of poo.

 

IMO, both sides on this are chasing windmills on this one. The reason I feel you guys are off the mark is mainly due to the fact that thre least of the damage is done by a group putting advertisements with regard to political issues on the airwaves. This has a limited impact on legislation as whole when comapred to where the rubber "actually" hits the road... Special interests/corporations spending money to directly lobby our representatives is a the disease that needs to be remedied and this money, as well as the activity, runs largely unchecked through the halls of the legislature. You want reform, tilt your lance at that ogre.

[SEC=UGA]

Ohyeah, and any company that is almost 50% owned by the fed gove shouldn't be handing out ANY money to either side. That and any company that received as much bail out money as GM shouldn't be spending any of that on campaign contributions when they shuld be spending it her eto employ more union members, especially with unemployment running as high as it is.

[SEC=UGA]

yes, my spelling sucks today... Penny Lane off.

[yo mama]

I guess I just have a hard time figuring out how you lose your first amendment rights the moment you associate with others. if I want to advocate by casting my lot with a "corporation" like the sierra club or the NRA (or the ACLU), I don't believe I check my first amendment rights at the door.

 

the ban on "corporate" electioneering ads didn't seem all that unreasonable to me in a practical sense, but if the court wants to lay down a broad reading of a clear constitutionally granted right, I'm not usually going to be the one to complain.

You don't. We'd just be asking individuals to write their own checks.

 

Red herring, my ass.

[Azazello1313]

This isn't an expansion of individual freedoms. I've never heard anything crazier. It's the opposite and we all kow it.

 

so why do you think the ACLU feels otherwise?

[yo mama]

so why do you think the ACLU feels otherwise?

Self interest. An adverse decision would have threatened the way the ACLU conveys its opinions. They said so in their amicus brief.

Edited September 24, 2010 by yo mama

[Deathpig]

Your company is not a citizen it is an entity. It should have no rights under any circumstance.

 

We routinely give 'entities', as you call them, and non-citizens constitutionally declared rights-- first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment rights off the top of my head.

 

Unless you feel that illegals, corporations, unions and the like should be subjected to government censorship, have no due process, no right to a fair and speedy public trial, and no cruel and unusual punishment I'm not sure where you are going with 'they should have no rights'. I certainly don't think they should have suffrage or sit on a jury, so we can agree they shouldn't have *all* rights.

 

So where in the grey area between absolutely no rights under any circumstances and all rights as any other citizen should it lie, as it's clearly not one or the other?

 

At the end of the day, the ruling is a much bigger the kick in the nuts regarding campaign finance law than it is to the continuing 'corporation as a person' battle.

[Azazello1313]

An adverse decision would have threatened the way the ACLU conveys its opinions.

 

"threatening the conveyance of opinions" seems a little like restricting the freedom of speech.

[yo mama]

"threatening the conveyance of opinions" seems a little like restricting the freedom of speech.

People can say whatever they want, whenever, and however regardless of any restriction that is placed on how GE, GM, or the ACLU to convey their self-interest. But when you equate money to speech, then give legal entities the same rights as me, you dilute the impact of MY freedom of speech as single person. And that's why I see this as a far greater threat to individual liberties. Frankly, you seem more interested in protecting the influence of money.

Edited September 24, 2010 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

so, we protect individual liberties by making sure people CAN'T organize to express their views effectively, gotcha. by making sure everyone's individual voice stays isolated and diffuse, the government is really just giving us MORE power. and me and the ACLU only think otherwise because we're corporate shills who don't give a manure about real liberty. great argument you've got there

[yo mama]

so, we protect individual liberties by making sure people CAN'T organize to express their views effectively, gotcha. by making sure everyone's individual voice stays isolated and diffuse, the government is really just giving us MORE power. and me and the ACLU only think otherwise because we're corporate shills who don't give a manure about real liberty. great argument you've got there

Who said you can't organize? No one. Who said you can't express your views? No one. You might be attacking someone's arguments, just not mine.

[Azazello1313]

Who said you can't organize? No one. Who said you can't express your views? No one. You might be attacking someone's arguments, just not mine.

 

so it's ok to express your views, just not air them publicly? and that restriction increases your personal freedom of expression?

[yo mama]

so it's ok to express your views, just not air them publicly? and that restriction increases your personal freedom of expression?

YOU can express YOUR views publicly. Just like you're doing now. I would never restrict that personal freedom of any individual. I just don't think GM should be treated like an individual.

 

Now, the difference between GM and organizations like a union or the ACLU is that (arguably) the money funding the advertising comes more directly from individuals. That at least has a closer nexus to the individual freedom of speech than GM using corporate earnings.

 

Since we've reached the point where I'm articulating your counter-argument better than you are, I think we're done here.

[Azazello1313]

YOU can express YOUR views publicly. Just like you're doing now. I would never restrict that personal freedom of any individual. I just don't think GM should be treated like an individual.

 

Now, the difference between GM and organizations like a union or the ACLU is that (arguably) the money funding the advertising comes more directly from individuals. That at least has a closer nexus to the individual freedom of speech than GM using corporate earnings.

 

GM, or any other corporation involved in selling stuff, is not going to start airing political ads now. just like they never did before mccain-feingold became law. it's just plain bad business for them. they much prefer the avenue of currying favor through lobbyists, private campaign donations, and campaign donations through PACs -- none of which are affected in any way by the decision you are griping about.

 

organizations like the ACLU, greenpeace, club for growth, NRA, etc. may start airing ads. unions probably will. and they should all have the right, to me that goes to the heart of the first amendment.

 

Since we've reached the point where I'm articulating your counter-argument better than you are, I think we're done here.

 

right

[wiegie]

Whether it's legal or not, I am strongly opposed to government owned entities making campaign donations to anybody.

 

(Also, concerning Deathpig's mention of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they were privately held firms until at least September, 2008 (and they might actually still be privately held, I'm not 100% certain).

[Deathpig]

I was under the impression (and this could be totally wrong) that Fanny/Freddie were technically private companies, but with special perks-- exemption from SEC oversight (as well as being the only Fortune 500 companies exempt from reporting any financial difficulties), exemption from state and local income tax, a line of credit direct from the U.S. Treasury, and both are protected financially by the Federal Government. I thought Congress had a lot of control over them as well, analagous to a second board of directors.

 

Hence why I called them 'pseudo-government companies'.

[Ursa Majoris]

Hmmmm. A post is missing. Could it be that the poster was completely wrong as on so many other things?

[Big John]

Hmmmm. A post is missing. Could it be that the poster was completely wrong as on so many other things?

Or an admin gunned it because there was a strong personal attack involved?