California became the sixth state to take a stand against Citizens United, which has given corporations and individuals unlimited power to spend on federal and state of elections. The California Senate voted yesterday 24-11 to pass the resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to pass an amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling.
California’s Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 22 puts California in the company of Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland as states working to put an end to what amounts to legalized political bribery.
A coalition of groups including Public Citizen, Common Cause, California PIRG, CREDO Mobile, California Church IMPACT, Free Speech for People, California Labor Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, and many other organizations advanced the resolution and kept pressure on the legislature to pass AJR 22. The coalition worked with California Assembly members Bob Wieckowski and Michael Allen in introducing the resolution.
“Today’s vote sends a clear message that California rejects this misguided ruling made by the conservative activists on the Supreme Court,” Wieckowski said. “The Legislature’s action and the 50,000 Californians who quickly signed petitions in support of AJR 22, show that it is time to restore sanity to our campaign finance laws. If Congress doesn’t act, our electoral process will be more dominated by wealthy interests and their concerns will drown out the voice of common Americans. This resolution is designed to send a grassroots message to Washington about the urgent need to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and restore fair elections to the people.”
California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg added: “I’m proud that the California State Senate passed AJR 22, memorializing our disagreement with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and calling upon the U.S. Congress to act to overturn the decision. Since the decision, large corporations and the wealthy have dominated campaign spending. We must tip the scales back to a balance that once again gives a strong voice to the people.”
“California, the nation’s largest state, has joined the growing chorus of voices calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and return fair elections and constitutional rights to the people,” said Jonah Minkoff-Zern, senior organizer with Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People campaign. “The voices of the 99% are growing stronger in demanding a government that is truly by and for the people. Together we will create a more democratic and more just nation.”
The GOP, with the help of the Citizens United-created super PAC mess, is aiming to raise $1 billion in outside money and could ultimately outspend the Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin according to officials in the budgeting of these groups on the right and left. A perfect example of this degree of campaign fundraising and spending was witnessed in the Wisconsin recall election, in which Governor Scott Walker out-raised his Democratic opponent by a 7-to-1 margin. Two-thirds of his $30.5 million in campaign contributions came from out-of-state donors.
“Unless we aim to turn over control of our elections to Karl Rove, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Sheldon Adelson and a very few others, we need a constitutional amendment to reset our campaign finance system and to re-establish the principle that democracy means rule by the people, not giant corporations,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.
July 06, 2012 at 5:03 pm, Molly Gibbs said:
I'm searching for the actual text of the Resolution. Without addressing corporate personhood this is not what we need; hopefully it IS included in the Resolution. Anyone else read the text yet?
July 06, 2012 at 6:59 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
if you don't want corporate personhood, then quit being a hypocrite and taxing them like they are individuals. Liberals want higher corporate taxes, it's already over 30% on average, and then THAT isn't enough, so they sack the shareholders of that company a SECOND time with capital gains taxes!
And then you want to sit here and cry that they're influencing our elections? You don't want them to donate- fine! Stop taxing them!
July 06, 2012 at 7:26 pm, Ken Brucker said:
right here, Molly
20112012AJR-22 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov:80/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AJR22
July 06, 2012 at 7:30 pm, Ken Brucker said:
"Arthur Vandelay" Art Vandelay – sock puppet.
But to treat "your" opinion seriously, are you serious? Capital is amoral – corporations won't back off of trying to manipulate government to extract more profits from anything because corporate officers are legally obliged to make as much money as possible.
It's the only law that investors give a damn about.
July 07, 2012 at 5:42 am, Molly Gibbs said:
Ken, thanks a lot. We're taking a Resolution forward in the next few weeks, so this is very helpful. (Municipal level–our State bill is dead, blocked by a corporate lawyer, Jamie Pedersen, who works for K & L Gates. His clients are Hallibuton and Bank of America, etc.
July 07, 2012 at 3:41 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
how is that any different than how people vote?
People don't vote because Obama will give the "Free" healthcare? Students don't vote for the candidate that will give them lower interest school loans?
People don't vote for a candidate because he will use the treasury to help them buy a house?
Again- no consistency or principle to what you are saying. You are saying people have the right to vote based on money that will come to them, but not corporations. You are totally devoid of any real, coherent thought dude.
July 07, 2012 at 3:47 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Molly Gibbs you are chasing your tail. The reason these companies lobby is because you give your government the power to make them wealthy.
We have made a government-centric economy, where pleasing the government is far more important than pleasing the consumer. You make the consumer unhappy, okay, big deal, they just go to another business and that will gradually affect your profitability.
You make one government bureau agent unhappy and they will come back with a cease and desist. Gibson guitars is a perfect example of this.
THAT is why they lobbying so hard- you've given the government king-making ability. Why are you so surprised that they are simply following where the money is?
You're leaving out bags and bags of garbage lying around and chasing your tail trying to figure out how to get rid of the ants. You're treating the symptoms, not the root cause, which is why your efforts will fail and always will.
Influenza isn't defeated just because you brought down someone's temperature
dumping them in ice water.
July 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
@Jeremy Arthur Vandelay..It is amazing every time I see this written..Capitol gains tax is tax on "new" money..as in profit/interest..it is not being taxed a second time. I doubt any large corporation is being taxed at the 30% rate
July 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
@ Virginia – And what do you think corporate tax is taken out of?
if a corporation makes $10 million in profit, they pay a 30% corporate tax on it- the profit is now only $7 million.
If there are 10 share holders- each now gets only $700,000 instead of $1 million, so right off the bat the share holders have already lost $300,000 to taxes.
They then pay a second tax of capital gains at 15% so they now pay an additional $105,000.
So now their $1 million has been reduced to $595,000 with over 40% taken out in taxes.
This is not hard to understand. Shareholders are taxed twice. Once as a collective group, the second time as individuals.
July 06, 2012 at 6:09 pm, Lyla Lagner said:
The GOP, with the help of the Citizens United-created super PAC mess, is aiming to raise $1 billion in outside money and could ultimately outspend the Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin according to officials in the budgeting of these groups on the right and left. A perfect example of this degree of campaign fundraising and spending was witnessed in the Wisconsin recall election, in which Governor Scott Walker out-raised his Democratic opponent by a 7-to-1 margin. Two-thirds of his $30.5 million in campaign contributions came from out-of-state donors.
July 06, 2012 at 6:12 pm, Steve Grogan said:
Quick, Panic! FUD! and send money!
July 06, 2012 at 6:57 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
It's this simple- corporations are taxpayers. The end. you don't want them having a voice in our elections? Fine! Eliminate the corporate earnings tax, which on average is over 30%, and then we can talk about eliminating their role in campaigns.
Until that happens, everyone can shut the fuck up as far as I'm concerned. You pay taxes? Great- you get a say in how it's spent.
July 06, 2012 at 7:25 pm, Ken Brucker said:
Hurry, Steve Grogan! Get more logical fallacies instead of facts that you don't like!
July 10, 2012 at 4:01 pm, Lila McGrew said:
Jeremy – Corporations have a very large and loud voice already – they are called Lobbyists.
Giving Corporations the same rights as living, breathing individuals essentially gives board members 2 votes. Corporations a made up of groups of people, they are not people.
1 person-1 vote is not how our government is currently working. When granting corporations personhood, the rich essentially get 2 votes.
July 18, 2012 at 11:07 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
look, I agree with you. I don't want corporations running our government- BUT YOU CAN NOT TAX EXXON AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEN DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS.
If you want to ban their influence, you can not rightfully tax them as a corporation, and then tax all of their employees and shareholders separately a second time through income and capital gains taxes.
That is the fundamental right behind citizens united- if you pay taxes, as a person or as an organization, you have the right to donate to political campaigns to reflect your interests.
Why can no one understand this?
July 19, 2012 at 1:26 am, Lila McGrew said:
Jeremy – you can play that record over and over again, but it just won't fly. Corporations Are Not People. They are legal entities operated by individuals.
Corporations (ie: Exxon) are not taxed as an individuals, they are taxed as corporations. Corporations pay taxes on profits once expenses – like employee payroll – have been deducted.
The employees – People – then pay income tax.
Capitol Gains taxes are taxes on the profit earned when selling an asset for a higher price than what it was purchased for.
Corporations are not being double taxed in the manner you describe.
Corporations are not people.
And, yes, they can be taxed, and yes they should be.
And they absolutely should not be allowed to influence elections.
The share holders, board members and employees already have a voice in government as People. Let them influence government through their individual voices the same as the rest of us.
Oh, except for those pesky Lobbyist – so I guess they already do get to influence government more than the rest of us already.
July 19, 2012 at 2:06 am, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Lila McGrew – okay, I don't know why I'm failing at this, but allow me to try again.
You have 10 people that combine to become "Whatever Corp."
You tax those 10 people's combined earnings (Whatever Corp's profit) at 30%.
After that 30% is taken, you then separate the shareholders as individuals and then hit them with an additional round of taxes- capital gains.
So either you are taxing "Whatever Corp" separately from the 10 individuals that own it, or you are taxing those 10 individuals twice on their profits- so what which is it?
I know you don't want to believe this line of reasoning because it means you want to tax them twice and give them only one voice, or you want to simply tax the corporation and deny them their right to contribute to the political climate.
Let me be clear, I don't like what corporations do to our political process, but if we take their money AND take the share holders' money, then we have to give them both a voice. It really is that simple.
So either revoke the corporate income tax and revoke their citizenship, or you keep both. You can't have it both ways.
July 19, 2012 at 2:07 am, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Lila McGrew and lobbyists are not unique to corporations. Individuals can lobby as well.
July 06, 2012 at 6:34 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Right… corporations have no right to donate to political campaigns, but it's cool if they pay a 30% tax rate.
You people are idiots.
July 06, 2012 at 6:51 pm, Jon Miller said:
Do campaigns pay taxes on donations? I honestly don't know.
July 06, 2012 at 6:52 pm, Jon Miller said:
I know you don't actually have to be running to say you are running and set up a donation fund, aka: Sarah Palin.
July 06, 2012 at 6:53 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
No I am talking about the tax rate that corporations pay, and then their shareholders individually pay a capital gains tax on top.
Basically my point is that if you don't want corporations donating to campaigns, then don't take their tax money either. No taxation without representation? We've heard of that before in this country haven't we?
July 06, 2012 at 7:30 pm, Ken Brucker said:
^ thinks that corporations are people who get hurt when they don't get represented
July 06, 2012 at 7:52 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Oh I see, so taxation without representation is fine as long as other people think it doesn't hurt you.
That is an amazingly principled stance, Mr. Brucker.
July 07, 2012 at 6:08 am, Ken Brucker said:
A Sock Puppet is mocking my morals….I'm chagrined.
July 07, 2012 at 6:19 am, Nick Hawthorne said:
So Ken, do you agree that your representation should be based on the amount of money you have? I'm fine with corporations following the same rules and donating $2300 dollars. If the individual shareholders do the same, I have no problem with that.
July 07, 2012 at 6:20 am, Nick Hawthorne said:
And Jeremy
July 07, 2012 at 3:34 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Jon Miller If you mean write off of the company's taxable income, I'm pretty sure they don't pay taxes on it.
July 07, 2012 at 3:39 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Nick Hawthorne no, because the share holders pay taxes separately from the corporation. First the corporation pays roughly 30% of their total earnings in taxes. After their earnings are hit (say it went from $10 million to $7 million after this tax) the share holders now pay a second tax on them individually- the corporate gains or income tax, depending on how it is set up.
So they now pay tax each as an individual, as well as every employee in that company pays an income tax. Let's also not lose the fact that the company they work for was just hit for $3 million that could be used toward either higher wages, more benefits, price cutting which would make them more competitive, or higher returns for the share holders.
That is why you can't limit corporations from contributions- they pay taxes the same as individuals do. Their share holders pay taxes separately, so they can donate separately.
When share holders donate, they may have other personal interests that don't totally coincide with the corporation, that is why the leadership of the corporation has the right to donate to whomever THEY believe would have policies that best benefit them.
And individuals do not have a limit on how much they can donate to Super PAC's; only to individual candidates directly, laws which corporations are also subject to.
July 07, 2012 at 3:49 pm, Ken Brucker said:
Nick, representation to a person should be accorded to them with their right and ability to vote and vote alone. That is why I support http://nationalintervention.org/the-amendment/
July 07, 2012 at 3:53 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
That's a nice attempt at a loop hole, but my question would be- why couldn't corporations move to say 'if we are not represented as individuals, why are we taxed as individuals?"
Explain to me how you rectify this moral contradiction? Make no mistake, I do not like the influence corporations have on our government, so I am against taking their money in both taxes and contributions.
You want to have it both ways, taking their money while depriving their voice. It's simply wrong.
July 07, 2012 at 5:04 pm, Ken Brucker said:
In a time when corporations present boilerplate laws state legislators to reduce a state's authority to arbitrate dispute consumer complaints with multi-billion dollar, international conglomerates on service (I can't complain to the CA PUC about bad service or over billing of my phone or cable television) or damages to one's person and property (really, what has Louisiana or Texas done to remediate their citizens living near petroleum refineries who have been inhaling toxins for years?), it is bizarre to read the repetitive assertions by a sock puppet that it is immoral for corporations to not have a say in government.
Art Vandelay, if a business can't get it's employees and/or equity holders to advocate on it's behalf, that's their problem.
July 07, 2012 at 5:37 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
blah blah blah blah blah- everything you are saying is totally irrelevant. You are not addressing the contradiction of taxing a corporation separately, and then denying their right to influence elections.
You can't give me all the examples you want. I could sit here and list all the horrible instances where the first amendment is used to say all kinds of shit that we would be better off not hearing (every Dane Cook or Larry the Cable Guy joke ever, for instance) but that does not negate their first amendment right to speak freely!
You are not addressing the bankrupt principle you are espousing- that corporations are taxed as individuals, but you want to deny their influence in elections because you don't like what they want to have done.
I'm sorry, but you're arguing a complete lack of principle here, and you rap off all this stuff because you know you don't have a leg to stand on, philosophically.
July 07, 2012 at 7:25 pm, Ken Brucker said:
I find it consistent for a sock puppet to resort to using logical fallacies to support "his" own argument.
July 07, 2012 at 8:05 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
that's great- explain to me on a philosophical level how you disagree.
July 07, 2012 at 8:07 pm, Ken Brucker said:
I'm not going to waste my time trying to talk you out of your castle in the sky, Vandelay.
July 07, 2012 at 8:21 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
right… because you're full of empty rhetoric and hyperbole. There's no defending that, so hide behind your lofty platitudes and insults. Typical liberal.
July 07, 2012 at 9:06 pm, Nick Hawthorne said:
Jeremy Arthur Vandelay, I follow your logic in your response to my comment. I think the problem lies not in the exclusive right of corporations to act as a person, but lies with the ability of any individual (corporation, millionaire, church, etc) to spend their money with out limits on forming interest groups. Limiting this ability is a complicated fine line between limiting freedom of speech or limiting corruption, but we need a system in place that distinguishes influence from speech, particularly when it comes to elections. As the satire duo Colbert and Stewart nicely articulated, Citizens United is ineffective at dissuading corruption, as its provisions are unrealistic and unenforceable. My interpretation of the law (feel free to challenge it) is that its coordination provisions should not allow for Romney SuperPacs or Obama SPACs. Obviously the law failed in this respect. However, a repeal of Citizen's United doesn't necessarily solve the influence dilemma, and once we pick and choose who and how people can spend their money we flirt with Constitutional folding. To me, its fair to limit the financial input (if done intelligently) of any "individual". The mechanism to do that is unclear to me. I don't study law. It isn't correct to limit the speech of any one "person", but to those of us who continually see the 1% drown out our voice, we have to wonder if its democratic to let money do the talking.
July 07, 2012 at 9:36 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
But the core fundamental problem is that you are discriminating against those with financial resources. It goes so much deeper than just money.
For instance- say you have a skill for organizing volunteers and they are all employed only part time or not at all and can donate many hours to furthering your political agenda through multiple campaigns. Should that resource be limited?
What if you are an animator and know people that are very skilled at making videos and marketing them? Should the number of videos you are allowed to make or the people you use to promote them be limited?
You are singling out money, which is simply not fair in any way. The ability to make money is no different than any other skill, but many do not recognize this inconsistency in their thinking.
The reason limiting financial input does not work is because it is a symptom of a deeper problem. You are not acknowledging WHY it is in these companies' interests to donate to politicians.
We have created a government-centric economy. Just like they used to spend all the money influencing us to do business with them for profit through advertising and product improvement, they now spend it trying to please the government.
With every regulatory law written, it increases the government's influence, and many times those regulations clash with what the consumer wants, so the government is appeased over the people.
THAT is the core problem. If you don't want corporations influencing government, then you need to remove the government's influence over the economy and their profits. Until we realize that, we are chasing our collective tails.
July 10, 2012 at 4:08 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
@Jeremy Arthur Vandelay..The authors of the Constitution were very careful to pass legislation to prevent corporations from using their money to donate to campaigns..while they may be taxed..their clout and power were a worry to our countries founders. And rightly so..as we are witnessing today. An individual compared to big business with their moneyed influence does not have a prayer. Sometime in recent history..with corporations/big business moneyed influence… PACs were allowed. Corporations were not allowed to donate their money to campaigns but could set up PACs for their employees to contribute. It is to be on a voluntary basis. Each PAC promoted a candidate or party. Today the Supreme Court has declared corporations are people when it comes to free speech. What has happened? A small number of ultra rich people contribute astronomical amounts of money to these Super PACs..do not have to disclose who they are and use it on media outlets to influence voters. Even the candidates have no say to what are in the ads etc. The authors of the Constitution must be rolling in their graves. For you to feel sorry for corporations being taxed and not represented would be funny if not for the fact you honestly believe this. Have you not heard about lobbyist? Corporations are in fine shape. Wouldn't you like to hire a person to represent your best interest and take Congressmen to dinner, attend meetings, push for legislation for your benefit and be able to contribute large amounts of money insuring these interest are passed as law?
July 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Where does it say anywhere in the constitution or in prior laws that they did not want corporations involved in the political process?
What you are discussing are symptoms of a root cause you have no interest in addressing. You're all running around panicked about our fever symptoms, proclaiming we need to dump ourselves in ice water, when the real problem is that our fever is caused by cancer which you have no interest in treating.
THAT is what you are doing- right now. Corporations only spend money or invest it in profitable ventures. It is NOW more profitable to corrupt government than ever before because government has exerted tremendous authority and influence over the economy.
The government passed 40,000 new laws last year alone. They are claiming they have the right to regulate everything from the internet and raw milk to the kind of wood Gibson uses to build their guitars.
The consumer has no say in anything anymore- the government passed obamacare forcing people to buy insurance from private insurers or pay a tax! Obama has blocked the importation of foreign pharmaceuticals solely to protect American Pharma profit margins.
On and on and on. OF COURSE The corporations are sponsoring candidates left and right- the government controls the economy! The corporations are FORCED to do this because if they do not influence the political process in favor of their company, their competitors will!
And you're running around try to make a law that will somehow prevent these companies from pursuing what's in their self-interest? You're on a fool's errand dear. The government (state / local and federal) is responsible for nearly half of ALL money spent in the United States economy. They are the biggest demographic there is in marketplace- what you are addressing solves none of these massive problems.
In other words, you want to leave food laying all over the house and then try to figure out a way to keep all the ants from getting in. You're chasing your tail.
July 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
@Jeremy Arthur Vandelay..I wrote our forefathers passed legislation preventing corporations from donating their company money to campaigns. It may not be in the Constitution but has been legislation for hundreds of years until recent history. As for the Affordable Health Care Act..I would not believe any politician promoting this as unprecedented, implying the government has not passed legislation that "forces" its citizens to abide by the laws. I can see you did not really read my comment. Corporations are represented quite well..using their clout/money and the hiring of lobbyist..That does appear to be your argument..does it not? That they are taxed but poorly represented?
As for the Affordable Care Act and the mandate that all must purchase health insurance or be penalized…The same mandate is required by Medicare recipients that all must purchase prescription drug coverage through a private health insurance company or pay a penalty (passed during the Bush Administration) The penalty is a 1% permanent increase on the premium for each month the recipient refuses to purchase this insurance. Not a whimper.
It is not a law that "WE" are trying to get passed but an amendment to the Constitution. Your comment has me somewhat confused..stating "the consumer has no say in anything anymore" and yet it is evident that you are okay that corporations have influence. I also can tell from your comment that your opinions are most likely coming from the libertarian point of view/media outlets…as in raw milk..and Gibson guitars. (He broke the law several times and used imported wood protected as rare/on the extinct list of that country… lending not one thing to the sound of the guitar..but increased the price for his profits.) Raw milk if not regulated by testing cows etc can be responsible for transferring the TB bacteria to those who drink it. Though you may be too young, TB was a "death" sentence (much like cancer and HIV today) when diagnosed. Thankfully, we now have two drugs that can irradiate it. It still can be a threat as this germ can become resistant and there are only two anti-tuberculin medications as of today. I understand there has been an outbreak in Florida among the homeless.
July 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
The point about raw milk is fine and good, but what difference does it make how dangerous it is? That is not good enough reason for banning it- cigarette smoking is exponentially more deadly, as is the consumption of alcohol, and we clearly have rejected the moral hazard argument in banning either, so I'm sorry, that argument simply holds no water.
Meat has been shown to spread all kinds of disease, are we about to make it illegal to eat a rare steak?
The point that I am making is that you sleep in the bed you make. You want the government to control the economy, you are going to have corporations fighting to influence the government, REGARDLESS of what piddly laws we pass.
If you truly want this fever to go away, you need to greatly reduce government-rooted profitability of corporations.
Ebay is a perfect economic model. The board at Ebay receives no contributions from any sellers, large or small, because they know it is in vain. The only way to be profitable through this unregulated online marketplace is ultimately to gain market share through the products you offer, the prices you offer them at, and your reputation.
That is how the United States economy USED to work- until everyone started crying out for more laws that enforce THEIR particular opinions on how the economy should be "run".
These laws are then twisted and corrupted. Instead of using it to infringe on the rights of the greedy capitalists, the greedy capitalists themselves take hold of those writing the laws and use them to further crush the people for profit.
Goldman Sachs epitomizes this. GE epitomizes this, and Halliburton epitomizes this.
And then you cry for more laws on top of laws to correct the old ones, when the entire problem is over-reaching laws in the first place.
Limiting any person, organization, group, company or corporation of their right to donate to political causes, ideologies, or anything else, is utterly wrong.
You, and no one else, have the right to tell others how they may spend their money or their time, or any other resource.
You are not addressing the root problem. Again, you are chasing your tail trying to suppress a symptom (corporate political spending) instead of trying to cure the root cause (politically-motivated control over economic profitability)
July 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
And you are arguing against your own argument/comments that corporations are being taxed without representation. Of course, simply not true. Until you realize that money talks and influences our government it is useless to debate this point with you. The working class, in fact, are the ones least represented today in the Congressional environment. When corporations continue to owe no allegiance/loyalty to their employees/the United States and then use their campaign contributions to influence elections, this is what we get. Candidates that favor corporations with tax breaks/subsidies, winning. Candidates that support the elimination of bargaining rights in the work force, winning. Candidates that erroneously/deliberately dumb down their constituents into believing regulations on corporate greed and fraud is bad and they should have free rein on any tactics, manipulation they choose..no matter how it harms our country, winning. Free rein of campaign contributions is the root problem. Government does have the right to regulate commerce through the use of taxes and it is in the Constitution. To be used for the general welfare of its citizens.It is not in the Constitution that corporations have this right. Do you really believe that I or any one individual can influence for the general welfare of our country? It is only when we stand together with our vote and protests that we get big business influence out of government. Allowing a few ultra rich men to contribute obscene amounts of money to campaigns and you see nothing wrong with this?
July 12, 2012 at 4:28 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
Jeremy Arthur Vandelay There are regulations banning smoking, alcohol use, meat products, eggs and on and on. Nor is the drinking of raw milk banned..just that certain regulations must be met to ensure it is safe. Why? Because of the costs financially and health wise the general public will pay when people take risks with their health. Our government will never be able to eliminate these risks. People will always do what they want. The government will always attempt to reduce these risks because ultimately..the public population/taxes pick up the tab. Has government over reached? Yes, in some instances. But the government is damned if it does or damned if it doesn't (just as our President) for not carrying on as each individual thinks it should.
July 18, 2012 at 7:11 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
I'm sorry Virginia, you're simply wrong on most of what you said. Government has no right to eliminate people from putting themselves at risks if they are adults and choose to do so.
Regulations are a joke. Anyone that truly understands "regulations" knows that all they are are laws designed to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests to suppress their competitors and shield them from market repercussions of bad service / products.
The consumer is the ultimate regulator- they reject businesses on an individual basis, and if enough of them reject the company, they are put out of business. It is that simple.
The reason our marketplace is riddled with failures today is because we have removed the decision making from the individual and delegated it to politicians and their employees.
I'm sorry, but all you are identifying and chasing your tail trying to fix are symptoms, you don't understand the root cause, and neither do our politicians or voting public- that is why no amount of reform will ever solve these problems.
July 18, 2012 at 7:58 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
Of course the government has that right…we give it to them with our vote. I admit some laws and regulations over reach..most usually in favor of the party having the majority to pass them. If the government were not allowed, this country would be a jungle, uncivilized and the weak preyed on. The Constitution and its authors understood this and worried about those without a voice or say. They worried about tyranny or the overtaking of the one thing that keeps us civilized…government and its laws/regulations/rules. They were not in favor of corporations and their moneyed influence that can corrupt. The consumer is not the ultimate regulator, when a corporation monopolizes..why there are laws against that. The consumer is not the regulator if there are no laws preventing fraud against them (to prevent it or bring suit). They abhorred the thought corporations could "buy" our government and use it to represent their interests and for their benefit, ignoring the harm it caused the common man. It is not true the individual cannot make choices..he makes it when he votes. He makes decisions when he protest and airs his grievances, calls or writes his Representative. Stands up for what he believes is wrong with the country. You are against regulation. You are against big government. Vote for Ron Paul. Vote for state and local politicians that support your view. Run for office.
July 18, 2012 at 8:11 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
Jeremy Arthur Vandelay "You are not addressing the root problem. Again, you are chasing your tail trying to suppress a symptom (corporate political spending) instead of trying to cure the root cause (politically-motivated control over economic profitability)" And who is chasing their tail?..You are okay with corporate political spending (out of control now with the Citizen United ruling) and believe they won't use it for economic profitability?. Tell me do you believe they have a good heart and will use their influence and power for the common man.. if not for the fact we have regulated them ineffective. So how did they accumulate their wealth?
July 18, 2012 at 8:41 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
you do not understand what I'm saying.
Remove the profitability of corrupting the laws and they will no longer waste money corrupting laws that do nothing for them.
Votes mean nothing with regard to your rights under the constitution. If the people voted tomorrow to reinstate slavery by a 80-20 majority, that would not make slavery legal.
It violates multiple amendments to the constitution. The constitution is what provides government authority to do anything that it does- nowhere does it grant it the right to enslave people, or to regulate food, or to remove risk from your life.
You have a complete misunderstanding of the limitation of the authority of government. If government can do anything it wants with a simple vote- why even have a bill of rights or a constitution?
You don't understand any of this.
July 07, 2012 at 3:47 pm, Gabriel Gonzales-Roybal said:
this didn't seem to work out well for Montana.
July 07, 2012 at 5:31 pm, Ken Brucker said:
A discussion about this topic is going on right now.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/coffeepartyusa/2012/07/07/politics-done-right-with-egberto-willies
July 08, 2012 at 5:45 pm, John Cassan said:
Write your state Representatives to to commence a constitutional convention to amend the US Constitution to ban the Citizen's United provisions. They silence the 99% of us who have no money for our speech. It only allows the position of the wealthy and corporations to be heard.
July 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
that's retarded. How many times must I make this point? No taxation without representation.
Corporations are taxed directly, no differently than individuals, so if you don't want them to have a voice in the political process, then eliminate the corporate tax. If not, then shut up.
July 10, 2012 at 5:09 pm, Ken Brucker said:
Your use of ad hominems, insults and other false arguments doesn't make any more sense of your double taxation argument. That being the case, I invite you to write something about my mother, a lascivious hippopotamus and the evils of double taxation…what ever they may be.
July 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
no one is insulting your mother or making personal attacks. I make a very clear, valid point. All I hear in return is static nonsense
July 10, 2012 at 6:39 pm, Ken Brucker said:
Let me spoon feed it to you, Art: two comments before you used these words "that's retarded" as a stand alone sentence. Aside from the grammatical and punctuation errors, it is also an ad hominem.
I wouldn't expect a corporation to understand that, but I do expect it of someone who argues at length for days to have the attention span and capacity to understand how ad hominems won't support an esoteric position like the evils of double taxation.
July 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm, Amanda Luke said:
Corporations are taxed very differently from individuals. Perhaps if you had known that you wouldn't have seemed so strident.
July 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
how are they taxed differently?
July 10, 2012 at 10:35 pm, John Cassan said:
They have more voice than we do. Besides owners and stockholders already have a vote. They should not be allowed to buy the vote with billions of dollars.
July 10, 2012 at 10:37 pm, John Cassan said:
Your point is more retarded as owners and stockholder and CEO's etc have a vote and spend more on the political process. Why should they have more say than an individual which they are not!
July 18, 2012 at 7:13 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
because they are taxed twice, genius. Corporations pay a corporate tax. Then the employees and share holders pay a capital gains or income tax.
If you want to tax the corporation as a separate entity then they have to be permitted to be a separate entity with a separate voice. This is not difficult to understand.
July 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm, John Cassan said:
Whatever you say is retarded as Corporate stockholders have as much free speech if not more than I do. We do not need corporate sleazes drowning out our free speech with more lies than who knows what!
July 10, 2012 at 4:21 pm, Virginia Nancarvis said:
We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near.
future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”.
Abraham Lincoln 1864.
July 15, 2012 at 6:53 pm, Why is Google Not Citizens United? | Consider Again said:
[...] occurs when the same people who considered the decision of the Citizens United v. FEC decision a victory for legalized bribery now turn around and call this an “admirable campaign slogan”. If you’re going to [...]
September 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm, Citizens United comes home to roost tomorrow | Death and Taxes said:
[...] forbade them from airing on TV 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary.The Citizens United decision changed all that, and tomorrow the Citizens United group will do what it couldn’t in 2008: [...]