I am confused by your definition of "government too big" do you mean there are a disproportionate amount to the population of the country? That their powers are too strong for the people who are suppose to be in charge of writing laws? Or that they need to go on a diet?
The problem with corporations is their duties are to the shareholders and basically to make money. Maybe a few corporations actually show some morality, but that isn't their job. The majority of corporations are in exsistence to make money. So they will support the canidate that will help them achieve this goal. Tabacco corporations advertise to the youth not because they care about teh youth, they care getting that youth addicted to tabacco. They say corproations are people . . . bullshit.
I'd support some sort of publicly financed campaigns and/or hard caps on how much can be spent by campaigns. By far the most effective method of reaching the voters is TV commercials and those cost a bundle. The amount that is currently needed to keep pace financially in a major campaign makes it near impossible for someone not beholden to special interests to compete, so only a very few voices end up mattering. Limiting the TV time $$$ requirement puts issues and the character of the candidate ahead of their ability to raise cash/indebt themselves. STOMP
This. If the government was there to provide a safety-net, and not to try to dictate our economy, there would be much less incentive for corporations to try to influence the candidates.
The airwaves belong to the people. For a couple of months every 2 years, the tv stations can give away the airtime needed. I would rather see people get such free airtime by getting enough signatures on a petition.
As I think about it, if I secretly let the tabacco corporations know I will vote for anything that is pro-tabacco and write bills in favor of their product, do you think they would put some commercials out for me if I ran for office? I mean I could potentially save them millions in taxes . . . just put a few of us in positions of power and those neverending increase taxes on tabacco will stop . . . along with all the strict regulation.
this is a silly argument, no one actually thinks corporations buying off politicians is a good thing....
Pretty sure corporations own the airwaves now that we switched to digital instead of analog airwaves. It's the part of the 1996 telecommunications that Bob Dole called the biggest corporate give away in US History. Previously, under analogue they were technically renting from the people, at absurdly low prices, but theoretically and legally the people held ownership. Not anymore. Anyone who isn't horrified by the increase of corporate and government merger simply isn't paying attention. Yes, government dictating the economy and corporations dictating government is a HUGE problem. By the way BOTH parties brought us this.
So these "free market" folks in here, along with the "Government is too big" folks do realize that the private sector is the one pushing for the big government so they can control it right? Every major corporation wants regulation, because they want to control it. Once they control it, they can hold onto their monopoly, in fact the best way to maintain a fortune 500 company is to control regulation and block entrance into the market place. So people say don't tax the rich, and the rich say thanks for the extra money now I can spend it on my federal regulator lobbyist too make sure that I make more money and get taxed less at the same time. All the while they cry about regulation while the hand them money through the backdoor. Yet people still support the free enterprise system and praise these two faced douche bags.
You know, I never thought of it that way. Capitalism sucks! Down with free market! Grow the government! More regulation! I hate the rich! Spread the wealth!
he's saying that if given the money, the campaigns would use it for advertising. in this case, the campaigns don't actually get the money but if it serves the purpose the campaign would have wanted it to serve anyway, what's the difference?
As I see it, the Constitution generally, and the Bill of Rights specifically, give and limit rights to people and the government. It says nothing about businesses. This ruling essentially says that businesses are the same as individuals under the Constitution. A strange, strange conclusion for a bunch of strict constructionists. Bad for the Constitution, bad for politics, bad for the country.
The ruling doesn't say that businesses are the same as individuals at all. The court ruled that restrictions against corporations being able to contribute to candidates may stand. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st amendment, protect speech and importantly, political speech from recrimination from the government. Whether we like it or not, corporations do have interests and they do have a right to speech of all kinds. The alternative is chilling. The problem with government restricting anyone or any entity's speech is that those who are in power have an interest in staying in power. They could legislate against anti-war speech or anti-Obama (or Bush) speech or anti-tea party speech, and so on. I felt from the getgo that the anti-free speech provisions of McCain-Feingold were certain to be overturned by the court. The ruling is no surprise, and a refreshing restraint on govt. power. “If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” All this aside, I don't see why it's in the interest of shareholders to have the companies they own spend money on political ads. At least it shouldn't be. Address this and the rest sorts itself out. Consider that neither you nor I may have enough spare cash to buy a TV ad because we're unhappy about something the govt. is doing and we want everyone to know. Together, with enough like minded folks, we can get enough money together to buy those ads. We're not "individuals" in this scenario, but an association of like minded folks. Do we want govt. to proclaim us a "corporation" and force us to pull our ads?
Corporations "exist" solely for the purpose of shielding money from taxation, and business practices from regulation. They are an unfathomable drain on our capitalist system and the reason it will never succeed as originally planned. They are "anti-citizenry" if they are anything at all. They wantonly pollute, they support governments which are enemies of our country, they support slavery, forced hard labor...there's no actual legitimate reason for their existence other than to give their wealthy owners power over individuals. An American's chances of being killed by a terrorist are minute when compared to the likelyhood he/she will die as a direct result of a corporation's practices.
