OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Honsoku
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Actually broadsword solutions is how we got here, and is the way to go back.
Really? Would seem to me we didn't learn our lesson the first time. How often have broad changes come around and bit us in the ass?
This is not so much a change, as it is going back to how things were done before the Supreme Court stated that corps have the same rights as an individual.
quote:
quote:
Negative. If the business is not a communication company that promotes information to the public, then they are not the press. That has been addressed in the courts before.
Then it would fall under freedom of speech clause. The first amendment covers both. Freedom of speech may have been intended for political speech, but that isn’t the current interpretation.
This is way a broad stroke of an amendment to remove these rights from corporations is needed. In that amendment, you can state what protections the corps get as an entity. Now if the CEO wants to make a political statement, he has to stand behind his words personally.
quote:
quote:
Individuals can be capped to an amount that would fractionalize the amounts they could give, and you offer very severe penalties to those that break the rules.
I would expect this to be a normal part of capping soft money.
As well as adding in donations as strawmen for corps or political organizations, being against the law. We need campaign reform along with what I suggest.
quote:
quote:
But they can spend their own money for campaigns (Freedom of Speech) which is a right that should be reserved for people, not legal entities.
What keeps them from giving the money to an individual to do the same? Or donating the money to a think tank, or some other organization with that goal? Or an advertising company renting out their services at a deep discount to a candidate or party?
The problem isn’t the money. It is that the money is controlled by too few entities. It is the concentration of power that is the issue.
Money is a large part of the problem, because that is what campaigns need to be successful. Making it so that corps cannot fund political campaigns, messages, etc. combined with campaign reform will accomplish alot of this.
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|
RE: Should Income be capped? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread