Citizens United

[Nickman]

In the late 2000's, large corporations, and unions were granted the right to personhood. Essentially, they were allowed to be considered as voters. These entities have damn near unlimited funds. They now have the right to funnel millions each year to campaigns for political positions.

The way our Democracy is supposed to work is that elected politicians are paid by the citizens, via taxpayer dollars. They are supposed to listen to the people who pay them. The problem is that these corporations have been granted the ability to lobby. They can pay more than all the American Citizens combined. Who will politicians listen too? The taxpayers who pay a better than livable wage? Or the Corporations who can pay unlimited amounts of money?

By the time you get to vote for your Presidential candidate, they have already been selected for you. This also applies to Congress, Senate, Mayoral, Governor, you name it.

You get to select between a couple of chumps who are receiving corporate donations and who answer to those corporations. Unless corporations are not even interested.

We feel that our vote counts, but do they? When the candidates were given huge campaign donations?

In the old days, anyone could run for President. It may have costed, but donations came from everday citizens, not corporations. This made politicians for the very citizens who are rooting for them, and paying for them. The person with the most support wins! Yay for Democracy. Today, however, everyday citizens cannot compete with Walmart, Big Oil companies, Import companies, Banks, and the like.

What say you?

[Nickman]

Corporations, and other organizations in general, should be allowed to express unlimited political speech. By limiting the amount of advertisements a corporation can run and by putting a cap on soft money contributions the government is limiting free speech. The constitutional question behind the Citizens United case was whether or not free speech rights were extended to corporations, and the court correctly decided that corporations had every single free speech right that individual persons have.

To me this is not a matter of free speech. Allowing corporations to funnel millions into political campaigns is not free speech. Corporations are not people, therefore they should not have free speech rights when it comes to political campaigns.

Uh, this isn't relevant to the thread. Like I said, the liberal community seems to be hopelessly confused about this issue. Citizens United did not establish the concept of corporate personhood. Corporations have been considered persons since the 1800's and Citizens United has nothing to do with this legal precedent.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

The whole argument is whether or not corporations share the same rights as persons. If they are persons then they can have the same rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. If they are not persons then they can't. I say they are not persons, which is obviously proven. They are Corporations.

But since you asked, I'll be more than happy to explain why corporations are considered people. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, meaning that corporations are only considered people for purposes of the law. If corporations were not considered people, it would be impossible to tax them or to sue them or to enter into binding contracts with them. Corporate personhood makes all these legal proceedings possible.

It would not be impossible to tax Corporations if they were not considered people. We simply tax them because they are Corporations.

Lets look at the Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Corporations are not born or naturalized. They are also not citizens. They are not people. They are Corporations.

How is it false? You and I apparently agree that corporations need to stop 'meddling' in politics. Well, I am simply asking an obvious question, why do corporations meddle in politics to begin with? In my opinion, the only reason why corporations try buying politicians and elections is because they want to buy the influence and power that the government possesses. The government has direct control over corporate taxation, corporate regulations and corporate subsidies. If you implement a static corporate flat tax, if you drastically shrink the amount of corporate regulations and if you make it so that the government can't dish out subsidies (if you make the economy more free market oriented) then corporations would have no interest in pouring money into elections because they would get nothing out of it.

Exactly, if you make it so the Corporations cannot get anything out of lobbying, then we have made some progress. It would also help if we prohibit Corporate lobbying. You call it advertisement, I call it lobbying. If Corporations are allowed to funnel millions into campaigning, they are lobbying. They find a candidate who will do their bidding, they pay millions to get them elected, then their puppet enact bills that favor their Corporation.

The free market has self imposing regulations that work far more efficiently than government regulations. Besides, government intervention tends to skew market processes and make the economy behave more inefficiently.

Can you provide examples please?

I've debated this issue in depth in a head to head debate.

No, the potential harm that a product or substance may pose will be evaluated and tested by the entity responsible for manufacturing it. Do you really believe that an industry will manufacture a product without first checking it for safety, or that an industry would manufacture a product they know would harm the public?

Yes, companies make products all the time that are faulty. Prescription drugs have billions in lawsuits every year. Kitec made deficient plastic piping that costed them millions. If there wasn't a govenment, there could be no retribution for these. There are recalls on vehicles every year. If there was a free market with no government influence, these corporations would never have to make retribution. Consumers would just have to deal with medicinal side effects, water and mold damage, and cars that are defective. This isn't even scratching the surface. What about the BP oil spill?

If you want to talk about what the interests of corporations are, which you seem inclined to, then you should also mention that the primary interest of any corporation is to ensure the overall reliability of their product. Producing a flawed or harmful product is not in their interest as it will damage their long term growth.

So asbestos companies cared about reliability and how harmful their product would be?

As for the tobacco industry, it is not as if the effects of tobacco are unknown and this product is being pushed upon an ignorant population. Consumers buy tobacco products with the knowledge of what the effects could be and will be on their body, so this example doesn't support your thesis.

Sue it does. You have a company that used to say that smoking is good for you, now they have been forced by the Surgeon General to tell the truth. That is government intervention. You are making no sense now.

You also cite the existence of the tobacco industry as support for the work that government institutions like the CDC do. You claim the CDC has informed the public and raised public awareness on what the effects of tobacco are and use this as an example of how government intervention is necessity. Well, when it comes to public awareness on things such as drunk driving or teenage drug use it has been private enterprise informing the public on what the consequences are, not government run research institutions (known for waste). So public run institutions are not required, the private sector is just as capable in raising public awareness on harmful substances.

The public sector is effective. But the public sector does not put corporations in check when they make a product that is defective, like the government agencies do.

The Food and Drug Administration: As Abraxas seems to be in favor of information, I would expect him to oppose the FDA as I do as it has engaged in restrictive information regulations when it comes to foods and drugs. Essentially, a truthful claim about a drug (such as "Tylenol will reduce the amount of pain you fell")[sic] is prohibited from being labeled on the drug package as it does not meet specific FDA regulation standards. It is censorship. Also, the drug approval process of the FDA is inherently biased, as the FDA will weigh the potential harm of a drug as more significant than its potential good in order to maintain its public reputation.

Tylenol has "pain reliever" on the package. It also tells you that tylenol can cause liver damage. Doctors prescribe tylenol and ibuprofen together and their use is tylenol then ibuprofen in succession because ibuprofen doesn't hurt the liver. Doctors prescribe ibuprofen more than tylenol because tylenol is bad for your liver. Especially if you drink.

I want to draw some distinctions in what you're writing. You are wading between two types of harm that corporations can possibly commit:

1) The harmful nature of the product itself. You focus on this type in the beginning of your post, speaking about chemical substances and tobacco and claim that government is needed to test and check these substances for safety reasons. I've already explained why a corporation has a vested interest in doing this itself, but I'll give you one more reason. It's based in tort law. A corporation will vigorously test and ensure the safety of whatever product or chemical substance it produces out of fear that if it is indeed harmful, and consumed by the public, that they will be sued. The existence of tort laws ensures this and eliminates the need for proactive, redundant and wasteful government studies.

And where does tort law come from? Government intervention!

2) The harmful nature of the means by which the corporation obtains and produces the product. You focus on this type of harm in this section of your and basically imply that corporations will trample over the environment and are apathetic about the environments well being. Here's my premise: resources are meant to be used and all resources are scarce. Corporations understand this, they understand the fact that resources are scarce and that their operations are reliant upon these resources, thus it is within their interest to preserve and find ways to renew these resources. So it simply isn't true that corporations don't care a care about the environment, as any environmental harm a corporation commits will have adverse effects on the resources and materials they need to manufacture goods.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95&start=0

Explain Styrofoam then. Explain palstic bags. Explain nuclear waste. Explain deforestation. Explain R-12, R-134a.

You're wrong. Please, go look at the actual case. The main issue in Citizens United had to do with political advertisements.

I already showed that CU had a debate about the Fourteenth Amendment. This has nothing to do with advertisments.

And this pretty much tells me you don't really understand the case. The case had NOTHING to do with corporate personhood. Abolishing corporate personhood will do nothing to limit big money in politics. Also, if you oppose Citizens United then you are a de facto supporter of McCain Feingold.

The case had everthing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment which has everything to do with personhood.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 20 by Wootah]

Or it could be because the Republican Party nominated a guy that flip flopped with the wind based on what he though at the moment would get him votes. Who can get excited about going out and voting for that guy?

[Goat]

Actually, I'm quite doubtful about the influence advertisements have on voters. Tell me, when you see a political ad on TV does it do anything to change your ideas and views? At the end of the day, the purpose of running a political ad is to change the way you will vote. Campaigns and PAC's could bombard you with hundreds of ads per day, but if it doesn't change your vote then the ads are literally useless.

There are a lot of very smart and successful people who disagree with you. They spend bucket loads of money on political ads and they get elected. They probably do not intend to get anyone to change their viewpoint. But what the ads can do is to motivate the voters. With the voter turnout at about 57% in 2012, they see that it would probably be more effective to try to get those who agree with you convinced that they need to get out and vote than to try to convince those who disagree with you to change their views. Every candidate knows that the key to winning (aside from avoiding scandal and gross stupidity) is to get the vote out.

The analysis of the US elections I favor is that Obama won by negatively scaring Romney's voters into not bothering to vote.

As far as I can see, Obama won because Romney scared conservative voters into not bothering to vote.

[Darias]

1)

[T]here will likely be an equal amount of democratic and republican ads that will effectively neutralize each other. Apparently you agree with this, so what's the problem?

Ads for corporatist Democrats and Republicans IS the problem. They create bad candidates in both major parties.

It's certainly true that corporate money doesn't just help Republicans, I mean, look at Obama or Al Gore. However, this is no comfort for people who understand that Republicans and Democrats have very similar policies in reality, despite their respective rhetoric. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to extend NSA spying because whether you're part of team red or team blue, more money is always great. So whether or not corporate funding results in equal amounts of ads for Republicans and Democrats, it ultimately does not mean the problem solves itself.

Furthermore, to put the word "corporatist" before politician, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, is redundant. They're all interested in campaign donations and they don't care where that money comes from; that even goes for former Congressman Ron Paul. They will all return the favor, whether it's in the form of pork barrel projects, endorsements, bailouts, or support of certain legislation.

Ads just help candidates win -- all of whom are "bad" in the sense they don't have your interests at heart, with or without corporate help. If they're good at being politicians (because "career politicians" is also redundant), they will say anything to get elected, and then sit back and enjoy their careers, and all the benefits that come with them.



2)

Actually, I'm quite doubtful about the influence advertisements have on voters. Tell me, when you see a political ad on TV does it do anything to change your ideas and views? At the end of the day, the purpose of running a political ad is to change the way you will vote. Campaigns and PAC's could bombard you with hundreds of ads per day, but if it doesn't change your vote then the ads are literally useless.

Advertisements have very little effect on the decided voters, but elections (for the most part) are decided by the undecided voters, and ads have a profound effect on them.

Thirty second soundbites are not meant for informed voters. They do one of two things. First, through repetition, they re-enforce confirmation bias with devoted followers of either party. Secondly, as olavisjo pointed out, they target the undecided (who, let's face it, are undecided because they are uninformed by and large). These ads are meant for our relatives who don't usually pay attention to politics. I don't say that to slander people. The problem of rational ignorance is perfectly explained by the fact that people have lives and spending hours trying to research candidates has very little return due to the fact that your vote has no statistical chance of affecting the outcome of an election; this reality typically hits home for people whose candidates of choice never win. However, some people never get it and continue to vote.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

In any case ads are not useless; if they served no purpose and had no effect whatsoever, do you honestly think any rational person as a member of a union, corporation or other organization would decide to devote large sums of money towards their creation and broadcast? Ads are either an investment for future profits, or the funds that are allocated for campaign financing save the companies from future loss later down the road. Would those companies be better off if they could invest more money towards charity, business expansion, or employee benefits or whatever? Sure, but they can't do that because state law is something they have to worry about. And state favoritism in the form of contracts and subsidies and bailouts is just too stupid to ignore. If they stay out of politics, they put themselves at a disadvantage to their corporate competition who certainly won't abstain. And no amount of laws will keep these bodies from seeking state favors; they'll just find loopholes. And no amount of laws will keep the state from granting favoritism, as they rely on the market to get anything accomplished and they still have to grant contracts.

This is a symbiotic relationship, and the only thing that will stop it from happening is if the state becomes obsolete. As long as there is a gun in the room, everyone will clamor for it, out of self defense or for their own gain. Once the gun is gone, people can't hold each other hostage anymore with the power of the state. The problem is, the state is the only gun that the progressives don't want to ban.



-

[Darias]

1)

I never said big corporations needed subsidizes. Honestly, I feel like you're just caricaturing my arguments and you don't even seem to be making an effort to address the point.

[. . . .]

The only reason why corporations try buying government officials is because they know that the government has influence over the economy.

You are assuming that government intervention in economics actually has something to do with corporate meddling in politics. This is absurdly false. Also unsupported.

[. . . .]

What government influence has forced or caused corporations to meddle in politics?

[. . . .]

Corporations get involved in politics because it is beneficial to their profit. Not because of government involvement.

Nickman, what are you talking about? Is this how you think it works?

• Step 1. Become CEO of a corporation.
  Step 2. Finance political campaigns.
  Step 3. ????
  Step 4. PROFIT!!!!

Corporations contribute money to campaigns because it helps get politicians elected who then go on to vote for or support legislation that either helps them grow their business, or keeps them from losing business. They also get involved in politics in the hopes that they will secure future bail outs and favoritism in terms of subsidies, or contracts whenever the government begins a project (The government often makes contracts with the private sector to get things done, particularly roads). In short, corporations get involved in politics precisely because governments make laws (government intervention) that affect them in beneficial or negative ways whether it's profit or media attention or whatever. Winepusher is right. I mean seriously Nickman, this is common knowledge.

Since you dispute this reality, do you have an alternative theory? Think about it for a minute, Nickman, why would corporations be motivated to control the government which is supposed to control them?

[center][/center]

It's important to keep in mind that both parties want money. Don't fool yourself into thinking the government isn't interested in profits either. Nothing is more absurd than the idea that the state doesn't care about your money (taxes, fines, and profits from student loan debt should be enough to prove otherwise). Is the carbon tax evidence that the US cares about the environment, especially in light of its use of depleted uranium in wartime? Really? Does the state really care about people or does it care about money? This isn't a hard question.



2)

There is no such economy ever on the planet that has not had government intervention. It is needed and a must. Otherwise, economies fail.

If by "had" you mean require, then you are wrong; I trust you've heard of the black market.

If by "had" you mean experienced, then you are correct, because all economies will experience state control of varying degrees or at least experience the attempt thereof. A laissez-faire economy is a hypothetical one which is doomed to have a short life. Because a laissez-faire economy requires a state, it cannot be sustained. States grow like cancers in the sense that they do not stop with laws that "protect" property (in fact they regularly violate property rights through taxation and eminent domain). Even small minarchies, as the US once was, never saw a laissez-faire economy, let alone a free market (completely free from all government control and manipulation). I know the GOP uses terms like "capitalism," "free market," and "laissez-faire" interchangeably (typically when describing the current socialistic state-capitalism we have today) but this is a mistake.

Government intervention is not a necessary prerequisite to a functioning economy. If your claim was true, the Soviet Union should have done better than the west, but the reality is that the USSR fell. More recently, Detroit failed, despite having more government intervention in the market place (high taxes, regulations etc.).

But of course, progressives will be sure to label government failures and the wastelands they create as libertarian utopias. This is, of course, akin to hearing about the collapse of a neighborhood church, and then proclaiming the community "atheistic."



3)

Corporations are loosely restricted. The main restrictions are from FDA, USDA, and EPA, all of which serve the citizens. If these were not in place, there is no telling what corporations would sell us.

Winepusher makes a good point about self-regulation, but that's only one form of market regulation. While companies could practice safety for the sake of a good reputation which ultimately increases their profits, companies could also cut corners to cut costs and hope no one notices. Obviously self regulation isn't enough.

However, the idea that if government doesn't do something it won't get done is simply absurd. You could also have several third party organizations whose job it is to be the best safety inspection company. If companies wanted to sell anything they'd have to allow third parties to come in and inspect their practices. Because insurance would take the place of limited liability laws, the insurance companies would have the incentive to require that any business owner they had a contract with would subject their business to one or more inspection companies/non-profits. Because limited liability would not be an option, business owners would have a huge incentive to get insurance so that they or their employees would not be sued for damages.

The fact is, you'd have more regulation in a free market than you do now, just based on the current demand and religious-like support for what the government supposedly does "well" already.

Right now, all we have is the state monopolizing this industry with a few agencies. To say that those serve the people is just propaganda. There are plenty of things the FDA does that doesn't serve the interests of the people. More often than not, these bodies serve the interests of the state, and by that I mean that which profits the state.

It might be useful for you to think of the state as a corporation. Like a corporation the state is a legal fiction. However, unlike most corporations, the state has a violent monopoly on many sectors that others aren't allowed to participate in. The state has interests just like a corporation does. The state seeks profit and influence just like corporations do.

If the state were in fact a company, it would make Walmart look angelic. But because the state is considered legitimate when it monopolizes the market and behaves like a violent gang, people just don't care.

You can easily understand my view of the state if you imagine a universe where Walmart forces people to buy their products, hires an army and polices the world, and if most people in that society loved it, and couldn't imagine how they would ever get their stuff without it. It would be idiotic....

Well.... that's the idiotic world we live in now. In a free market and a stateless society, no company could ever have the false legitimacy that nation states enjoy today, thanks to patriotism and other such nonsense taught to children from an early age.



4)

Second of all, I would rather get my information from the mainstream media than the young turks.

Suit yourself. All you will get is corporate biased BS.

I really don't care exactly where the information comes from, so long as they have evidence, but that's beside the point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Just remember that The Young Turks benefited immensely from Current TV, founded by Al Gore. TYT exists today all thanks to big money and politicians. Current TV is now owned by Al-Jazeera -- a state run organization, a state whose wealth comes from oil. It's ironic and amusing that you would side with TYT and condemn others for watching networks with the same sort of funding and connections as your own.



5)

[I)f you take away government influence and intervention then corporations will have no incentive to pour money into elections. If you want big business out of the government then you must first start by taking the government out of the economy.

[. . . .]

If you take away this influence then corporations will have no incentive to use their money to finance campaigns.

[. . . .]

I've outlined how we can effectively remove big money and big business our of the political system, by stripping the government of it's control and influence over the economy. As a result, corporations will have no incentive to donate to politicians.

You have "outlined" how we can effectively remove big money fro politics? You did this how? Is your idea of an outline a single statement with no evidence attached? "Get government outta economics, this is my outline. Topic refuted." I have challenged this idea above.

I don't know which idea is more asinine, getting government out of the economy, or getting corporations out of politics. Both overlook the reality that so long as the government exists, it will always want to control the economy for its own profit; and corporations will, in turn, always seek to control government for their own profit. Expecting most politicians to vote against their own interests by reducing the amount of money they can receive during campaigns or from voting on certain legislation is as absurd as believing that most CEOs should just abandon all interest in the state that creates regulatory law, makes the contracts, and issues the bailouts which affect their businesses. Saying that the state will just want to divorce itself from the economy and "let it be" (which it has proclaimed legal authority over) is as naive as thinking that corporations won't take advantage of politics when they are legally allowed to do so. Both have insurmountable monetary interests to control each other. This will be true until corporate fictions vanish with the obsolescence of the state.



-

[Nickman]

Nickman, what are you talking about? Is this how you think it works?

• Step 1. Become CEO of a corporation.
  Step 2. Finance political campaigns.
  Step 3. ????
  Step 4. PROFIT!!!!

Corporations contribute money to campaigns because it helps get politicians elected who then go on to vote for or support legislation that either helps them grow their business, or keeps them from losing business. They also get involved in politics in the hopes that they will secure future bail outs and favoritism in terms of subsidies, or contracts whenever the government begins a project (The government often makes contracts with the private sector to get things done, particularly roads). In short, corporations get involved in politics precisely because governments make laws (government intervention) that affect them in beneficial or negative ways whether it's profit or media attention or whatever. Winepusher is right. I mean seriously Nickman, this is common knowledge.

Since you dispute this reality, do you have an alternative theory? Think about it for a minute, Nickman, why would corporations be motivated to control the government which is supposed to control them?

It is apparent that you have not read what I have said in this thread at all, except specific things which you have taken out of context. You read part of my last post but not all. In this exact post I said this

Corporations get involved in politics because it is beneficial to their profit. Not because of government involvement. Corporations are loosely restricted. The main restrictions are from FDA, USDA, and EPA, all of which serve the citizens. If these were not in place, there is no telling what corporations would sell us.

Care to post all that I said? The part you posted is what I call "quote mining" or "taking out of context."

You seem to be either misquoting me or saying that it is government fault that corporations meddle in politics. Which is it?

[center][/center]

It's important to keep in mind that both parties want money. Don't fool yourself into thinking the government isn't interested in profits either. Nothing is more absurd than the idea that the state doesn't care about your money (taxes, fines, and profits from student loan debt should be enough to prove otherwise). Is the carbon tax evidence that the US cares about the environment, especially in light of its use of depleted uranium in wartime? Really? Does the state really care about people or does it care about money? This isn't a hard question.

You have changed the subject from corporate involvement into government involvement. So lets discuss that as well. The Federal Government makes money off of taxes, fines, student loans, and wars. You have created an Aunt Sally argument here. The OP is about corporate involvement in politics. You have changed it to government involvement. No bueno.

If by "had" you mean require, then you are wrong; I trust you've heard of the black market.

The black market is only there because of taxes. That of which corporations do not pay. At least very little thanks to corporate bought politicians.

If by "had" you mean experienced, then you are correct, because all economies will experience state control of varying degrees or at least experience the attempt thereof. A laissez-faire economy is a hypothetical one which is doomed to have a short life. Because a laissez-faire economy requires a state, it cannot be sustained. States grow like cancers in the sense that they do not stop with laws that "protect" property (in fact they regularly violate property rights through taxation and eminent domain). Even small minarchies, as the US once was, never saw a laissez-faire economy, let alone a free market (completely free from all government control and manipulation). I know the GOP uses terms like "capitalism," "free market," and "laissez-faire" interchangeably (typically when describing the current socialistic state-capitalism we have today) but this is a mistake.

Yes, I mean economics require government intervention. A truely free market would result in monopoly. Vanderbilt, Morgan, and Rothschild are examples of such.

Government intervention is not a necessary prerequisite to a functioning economy. If your claim was true, the Soviet Union should have done better than the west, but the reality is that the USSR fell. More recently, Detroit failed, despite having more government intervention in the market place (high taxes, regulations etc.).

It is when corporations have the ability to control the government at the expense of the consumers. Detroit automotive industry was already going to fail earlier if the government didn't intervene. They were on decline since the 60's. If you blame that on government intervention in the 2000's, you are misinformed. You are blaming the government for trying to help a sinking ship.

Winepusher makes a good point about self-regulation, but that's only one form of market regulation. While companies could practice safety for the sake of a good reputation which ultimately increases their profits, companies could also cut corners to cut costs and hope no one notices. Obviously self regulation isn't enough.

So, you are ok with unregulated food? You think that a corporation will sell you something that is good to eat? You think that corporations care about integrity? Let us take away devious behavior. Companies have and will sell products that are harmful even if they don't know. Asbestos was supposed to be great. Not so much. Lead paint, many medicinal products have recalls and lawsuits every year, vehicles are sold every year with a stamp of company approval yet they have recalls thanks to government intervention. The Chamber of Commerce has united to legislate law that makes them immune from "frivilous lawsuits" calling it tort reform. If you don't watch the following video we have nothing to discuss further. This video shows in detail how corporate money is used to help themselves. Yes the government is part of the problem, but mainly because corporations make more than the government annually. So they get paid. The government is not the problem. It is the corporations who influence the government.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Darias]

1)

It is apparent that you have not read what I have said in this thread at all, except specific things which you have taken out of context. You read part of my last post but not all. In this exact post I said this

• "Corporations get involved in politics because it is beneficial to their profit. Not because of government involvement. Corporations are loosely restricted. The main restrictions are from FDA, USDA, and EPA, all of which serve the citizens. If these were not in place, there is no telling what corporations would sell us."

To the contrary, I read your post (post 11) very carefully.

I quoted and addressed your first claim in point 1. I also quoted the rest of this paragraph and addressed it in point 3. I did this because I wanted to address each topic separately. I probably should have kept it together to demonstrate the glaring contradiction between "Not because of government involvement" and listing government involvement like the "FDA, USDA, and EPA." You then attempt to justify the need for those agencies rather than acknowledge the reality that corporations may very well indeed contribute to political campaigns for the purposes of helping their candidate of choice win, who will then go on to vote on laws regarding government regulation. I illustrated this point with the comic I posted. Laws that benefit corporations ultimately benefit their profits. Corporations have influence on the law if they have influence on the politicians. What part about this is a mystery, Nickman? Isn't it obvious?

Because others often note about the length of my post, I only wished to address the most important points. I will now address the following points of post 11 that I did not have time to address in post 25:

• I.

  I'm ok with the Citizens United ruling because I actually know what it does. It simply forbids the government from placing limits on the number of political advertisements a corporation can run and it removes the cap on soft money contributions.

  Why should a Corporation be allowed to campaign for a political figure? Why should a Corporation be allowed to funnel millions of dollars into politics? Why should a Corporation be considered a person?

Questions of "should" make no sense in the context of this discussion, e.g., Why should the sky be blue? You need to ask yourself "why does" and "why is" if you want to find out why it occurs. I think Winepusher and I have answered this quite well. You seem to be avoiding the heart and soul of the problem for the side effects. You can't address the motives and the reasons why this happens without looking at the why and the how regarding corporate motivation to get into politics.

• II.

  No, I'm saying that Citizens United won't destroy our democratic system (contrary to what people on the left are saying) because there will likely be an equal amount of democratic and republican ads that will effectively neutralize each other. Apparently you agree with this, so what's the problem?

  It is not about advertisement. CU goes much further. You seem to think CU is only concerned about advertisement. No, they are concerned with a politician that will do what they want. Why would a corporation put money into a politician who won't vote for them? You see, politicians are supposed to vote for the people which they represent. If whom they represent is a corporation then EFF the citizens.

The purpose of paying for advertisements is to help a candidate win. That candidate will help the corporation that helped them by voting for laws which positively affect said corporation. I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me when you say things that are logically consistent with my argument.

Saying that politicians are supposed to vote for things which are in the interests of the majority of the people is just silly propaganda; that's not what typically occurs, even in the absence of corporate involvement. When you say things like this, it means you're ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room -- other legal fiction with monetary interests, the state. The state will regularly do things that don't serve the interests of the people, majority or otherwise. I'm sure you don't deny this so I'm not going to bother listing examples, as I wouldn't know where to begin due to their number.

As for what Winepusher said here, I already addressed that in point 1 of post 24.

• III.

  First of all, I think it's pretty funny how you assume that this quote was directly solely at you. For the record, it wasn't. It was directed towards all the people on the left who are in an uproar about this case for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I agree that big money in politics is a problem. No, I don't think overturning Citizens United (and reinstating McCain Feingold) is the correct way to go about fixing this.

  It wouldn't be the first time that you have directed such towqrd me, later to retract it.
  
  I never said that we need to reinstate MCvsF. What I said was that we stop corporations from having personhood, being able to pay politicians, and sway votes.

I didn't bother with this because Winepusher already addressed this in the third paragraph of post 14.

It's not as if you didn't notice his response because you addressed it in post 21, and based on your rebuttal, I have to say you don't understand the role of taxation as it relates to personhood.

Personhood as described here is a legal fiction, and if you remove that state created legal status from a body, be it abstract or physical, you cannot then use state law to tax it. In terms of the law created by the state, it is only legally able to tax legal persons. And euphemisms such as "sugar taxes" and "tea taxes" are in reality taxes on people (because the state doesn't send the bill to Mr. Sugar, but to the seller).

[T]reating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people. . . .

Without corporate personhood, the IRS couldn't send a bill to Walmart, and it would have to be satisfied with just taxing its employees, shareholders and CEOs as it already does. Therefore "getting rid of corporate personhood" is fundamentally ill-conceived, because what on earth would incentivize the state to not want more tax revenue for its own purposes? I know progressives probably wouldn't like it too much if they knew these businesses weren't being taken from.

So which is it Nickman, are you for corporate personhood or are you against corporate taxation? You can't have it both ways.



2)

Care to post all that I said? The part you posted is what I call "quote mining" or "taking out of context."

You seem to be either misquoting me or saying that it is government fault that corporations meddle in politics. Which is it?

I wanted to address points that both you and Winepusher made. I figured the best way to do that was to organized them by topic. Each point stands on its own, and nothing was changed other than their order. I indicated there was a change to the original order with ellipses, but they were complete thoughts by themselves. It's like when you quote an idea repeated in a scriptural passage. Nothing in your surrounding statements changed anything about those statements I quoted, which stand on their own. I did not change the context or meaning of your argument in the least. All three of us aren't fans of campaign financing. You understand that it is a problem to a greater extent than Winepusher cares to acknowledge. You understand the motive (profit), but you completely disregard how that profit comes to be, which both Winepusher and I have already explained. I honestly do not understand your objection to this most obvious reality.

One of the main reasons I wanted to organize the points both of you made was because Winepusher was absolutely correct as to why corporations desire to involve themselves in politics, but his solution to the problem of campaign finance is about as half baked as yours (which I wanted to address separately, see the following paragraph); don't get me wrong, they're nice sentiments (keep the government from dishing out favors and keep the corporations from influencing politicians), but they're both incredibly naive through and through; neither will work because they cannot overcome the incentives. It's no different than saying Communism will work if human beings weren't self-interested. My point is, impossible propositions are not practical solutions.

I addressed them both in Point 5 of post 25. This one of the main reasons I replied in the first place. I didn't just want to reiterate what Winepusher said, I had my own point I wanted to make. However, you obviously stopped reading by the second paragraph of point 3.



3)

You have changed the subject from corporate involvement into government involvement. So lets discuss that as well. The Federal Government makes money off of taxes, fines, student loans, and wars. You have created an Aunt Sally argument here. The OP is about corporate involvement in politics. You have changed it to government involvement. No bueno.

I know I'm guilty of bringing the topic of the state into a lot of discussions where people don't normally realize their connection to it.

However, in this topic it is impossible not to mention the government. Corporations are involved in the government because government is involved in the economy, and that fact affects them financially, and drives them to do what they do. Winepusher put it quite well:

You and I apparently agree that corporations need to stop 'meddling' in politics. Well, I am simply asking an obvious question, why do corporations meddle in politics to begin with? In my opinion, the only reason why corporations try buying politicians and elections is because they want to buy the influence and power that the government possesses. The government has direct control over corporate taxation, corporate regulations and corporate subsidies.

Your insistence, Nickman, that the state's central role in this problem should be avoided is as ridiculous as saying "don't bring up the drug war" when discussing the reasons for the arrest of drug users. Yes it's a travesty and something should be done about it, but the reason why it happens is kind of too important to leave out.

Discussing the central reason for campaign financing is not to create a red herring that takes us away from the issue of campaign financing. Ignoring the cause of the problem is a failure to do the topic justice, and if you don't wish to discuss why campaign financing happens, then why did you bring up the subject in the first place?



4)

The black market is only there because of taxes. That of which corporations do not pay. At least very little thanks to corporate bought politicians.

The black market is not regulated or taxed whatsoever, and there's no restrictions on what can be sold outside of the law. Someone buying weed on the street, like Obama, Bush or their friends did, is operating on the black market. Someone who purchased wine during prohibition was as well. Corporatist politicians, no matter how bought they may be, cannot do away with corporate taxation altogether, but the elimination of legal personhood for corporations would most certainly do just that.



5)

Yes, I mean economics require government intervention. A truely free market would result in monopoly. Vanderbilt, Morgan, and Rothschild are examples of such.

No, economies (not economics, which is the study thereof) do not require government intervention to function, else the black market would not exist, let alone thrive as it does.

When it comes to the behavior of state programs, you cannot envision a more powerful monopoly than the state. The state not only dominates every sector you can imagine, it often does so violently, prohibiting competition from even entering the market in the first place.

State regulated markets, whether they are hypothetical laissez-faire economies which allow for the state regulation of property rights, or more controlled economies ranging from the socialist one we have now to completely centralized economies of state-communism as seen in the USSR -- all guarantee monopoly in some form or another. These could be government monopolies or state created and sustained corporate monopolies.

Monopolies cannot last long, if arise at all, in a truly free market environment, because they cannot be sustained artificially through the state by way of bailouts, subsidies, and all manner of state favors, which benefit them at the expense of their competition. Even if it were magically possible that they could dominate the marketplace for long periods of time, they would still not last as long as they do currently in this regulated economy which protects and prolongs them.

A truly free market, free from all government intervention is not one that we have now -- no matter how much Winepusher may object. We don't have a free market now and the Industrial Revolution never experienced a free market then either. In fact the government would regularly supply companies with orphaned children to serve as their laborers. (This was a time when child labor was the norm prior to industrialization, however most parents did not want to endanger their children, who did not end up as doffer boys, unlike the orphan children did).

How can you look at this and call it free?

Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,[1] and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme.

The facts are on my side that this economy is regulated through and through, and that the state controls the money supply, both of which do not occur in market anarchy. The US economy may be freer when compared to others, but it is not free, in the same sense that a 19th century slave was not free simply because he was free range and not beaten as frequently as other slaves on other plantations.

[center][/center]



6)

[C]orporations have the ability to control the government at the expense of the consumers. Detroit automotive industry was already going to fail earlier if the government didn't intervene. They were on decline since the 60's. If you blame that on government intervention in the 2000's, you are misinformed. You are blaming the government for trying to help a sinking ship.

Because corporations have the ability to influence the lawmakers, it follows that regulatory law will reflect policies which do more to benefit those corporations than not.

Progressives despise corporations except for when they gamble and lose and are rewarded by the government for doing so with bailouts.

But if you are to take a look at the city of Detroit and its progressive policies, with its enormously high taxes and absurd regulations (not to mention non existent services), you will understand why companies big and small failed. Bailouts for failing companies which were failing in large part thanks to state law.

The government is the cause of so many problems masquerading as the cure. It is the iceburg that sank the Titanic, and the survivors who now stand on it praise it for saving them.

When progressives blame the consequences of state policies on "the free market," it's truly cringe-worthy.

[center][yt][/yt][/center]



7)

So, you are ok with unregulated food?

If you had just read the second and third paragraph of point 3 in post 25, you'd know that I support more regulation than you do.

But because you, in actuality, are the one who didn't read my post in full, and because you like to make false choice accusations like this, I'll let my friend handle the rebuttal:

[center][/center]



8)

You think that a corporation will sell you something that is good to eat? You think that corporations care about integrity? Let us take away devious behavior. Companies have and will sell products that are harmful even if they don't know. Asbestos was supposed to be great. Not so much. Lead paint, many medicinal products have recalls and lawsuits every year, vehicles are sold every year with a stamp of company approval yet they have recalls thanks to government intervention. The Chamber of Commerce has united to legislate law that makes them immune from "frivilous lawsuits" calling it tort reform. If you don't watch the following video we have nothing to discuss further. This video shows in detail how corporate money is used to help themselves. Yes the government is part of the problem, but mainly because corporations make more than the government annually. So they get paid.

This is why I don't support the state's monopoly on regulation. I think more regulation by independent third parties would do a better job than what the state does currently. You conveniently missed that really important point by not reading my post in full, and then engaged in projection by falsely accusing me of doing what you did.

As for the video, I agree that McDonalds should not have sold their coffee at a dangerously hot temperature without so much as a warning label. The lady was certainly justified for compensation. However without corporate personhood she would not have been able to sue McDonalds as a legal entity.

If there were no such thing as limited liability, you could bet that safety would be an even greater priority than it is now -- because if it were not, employees and business owners would be sued directly for recklessness, or if covered by insurance (who would be responsible for paying for all the damages), the insurance company would raise their rates, costing the business owner. These incentives alone would lead to more safety. When combined with the fact that insurance companies would demand that all potential companies they cover allow third party inspection by regulatory organizations -- it'd be a heck of a lot safer for the consumer than it is now.

But you're content with the state right? The people who inspect raw meat for bacteria with a visual inspection... okay then...



9)

The government is not the problem. It is the corporations who influence the government.

If corporations - themselves fictitious creations of the state - wield such influence over the government to the point where state interests are served by serving corporate interests, then you cannot solve that problem by petitioning said government to do something about it; their incentive already lies with corporate money. Your votes and rallies and demands are a joke to them. Reform is not possible because of this. Restricting government intervention into the economy, such as Winepusher suggests, is also bound to fail so long as the government wants to tax and control.

Ending legal personhood for corporations but also maintaining that they somehow be taxed, stating that the government should restrict its own involvement in the economy, and suggesting that we get money out of politics -- all of these "solutions" are fundamentally retarded.



-

[otseng]

All you will get is corporate biased BS.

Moderator Comment

Please remember that profanity of any kind is not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Nickman]

@Darius and Winepusher

You have both posted some very good points that I am researching more. At this point I will concede the issue. I realize that my understanding on this subject was limited. I appreciate your input.

Do you think it would be fair to tax corporations while not letting them hold the same rights as individual citizens?

What do you think would be the best way to alleviate corporate involvement? I have heard "less government involvement," but to a point I disagree. I think that corporations would run a muck if allowed to. There would have to be some governing body to keep them in check. Or at least their products. If no one challenges their claims for their products then they can sell anything. Also, we already know (i think we all agree) that corporations run the government and the government thrives on corporations. What is the remedy? Obviously there needs to be a divorce between the two.