Nope. Not Torture.

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3070383
Why is this such a hard concept? (...) They are representing a portion of the American general public. That is ALL I'm trying to say.
I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. Corporations represent me not at all. They are representing themselves.
Not only that, but there is no Constitutional provision for gov't meeting w/ corporations. A corporation is a legal fiction, not a person.
That a corporation is able to meet w/ government for the purpose of establishing policy is a seriously fascist concept. It also flies in the face of the ideals of a Constitutional Republic.
Not only that, but as far as major corporations go, they are hardly domestic.
How are my interests best represented by a multinational (Fiat and/or Daimler -Chrysler, any given brokerage, Japanese car mfrs. (who're getting bailout money) etc. - but in particular those corps. whose ownership is foreign and yet have the ear of OUR representatives?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3071018
I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. They are representing me not at all. They are representing themselves.
Not only that, but there is no Constitutional provision for gov't meeting w/ corporations. A corporation is a legal fiction, not a person.
That a corporation is able to meet w/ government is a seriously fascist concept. It also flies in the face of the ideals of a Constitutional Republic.
Not only that, but as far as major corporations go, they are hardly domestic.
How are my interests best represented by a multinational (Fiat and/or Daimler -Chrysler, any given brokerage, Japanese car mfrs. (who're getting bailout money) etc. - but in particular where ownership is overseas?
I fail to see the benefit to me and that's precisely the point. Constitutionally, there should be no such thing as a gov't benefit. For Corporations or for me.
Finally you at least partially understand this concept.

But I NEVER said benefit to you... I said they represented various Americans. You aren't the ONLY American in the USA... What may benefit other Americans will hurt another portion of the demographic.
Take welfare for example, I pay a significant percentage of my salary (a hurt) so that X person who doesn't have a job can theoretically have something to eat. A benefit.
Lets take Chrysler for example. I don't think I have to argue that the legislative branch of the government basically dictated or at least was highly involved the "planned bankruptcy." I also think it is fair to say that those closed dealerships also included small corporations, Sub S or an LLC or whatever they are called these days.
Do you NOT think they then should have been doing whatever is possible to say open? Including lobbying?
2nd, how is allowing Americans working for corporations who are benefiting Americans by employing americans, and have americans holding their stock to lobby on issues that benefit the corporation, a fascist idea?
3rd, even if the government was holding true to the intent of the constitution. Which in my opinion means creating a framework made up by laws and regulations to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Will result in creating laws that would restrict other people or legal entities from trampling on others while they pursue life, liberty and the happiness. This extends to business. There has to be some sort of framework where people can pursue business. Basic stuff like enforcement of contracts, employee safety, and work days, would not be possible without government creating that framework. Which does fall into their constitutional duties. And I don't think you will have a problem agreeing that there would be disagreement as to what fair. Thus government has to arbitrarily set standards, which will effect company X positively and company y negatively. Thus the term benefit to the company...
There is a legal framework in which business operate. Do not the people of those businesses deserve to be able to discuss with the government the repercussions and consequences of those actions.
Take Smooth Haley, that was a legal tax, that basically brought international trade to a halt. That effected the entire United States, big reason for the great depression. Joe Blow isn't going to realize that it would help cause the great Depression. But big international trading corporation, might have some insight and say hey wait a minute. Other countries are going to be ticked and raise their tariffs too, making it prohibitively expensive for companies like me to do business. I'm going to have to lay off all my work force and close my doors.
All this is taking the bribery system we have in place out of the picture, I don't think that is much of a debate...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3071018
I absolutely and unequivocally disagree. Corporations represent me not at all. They are representing themselves.
Not only that, but there is no Constitutional provision for gov't meeting w/ corporations. A corporation is a legal fiction, not a person.
That a corporation is able to meet w/ government for the purpose of establishing policy is a seriously fascist concept. It also flies in the face of the ideals of a Constitutional Republic.
Not only that, but as far as major corporations go, they are hardly domestic.
How are my interests best represented by a multinational (Fiat and/or Daimler -Chrysler, any given brokerage, Japanese car mfrs. (who're getting bailout money) etc. - but in particular those corps. whose ownership is foreign and yet have the ear of OUR representatives?
The corporation has the right and a need to petition the government just like we all do. Corporations are formed by we the people. We also have a stake in what they do. They provide jobs, goods and services that affect out lives.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3071202
The corporation has the right and a need to petition the government just like we all do.

What amendment is that?

 

[darthtang aw]

I have a question...is the ire about lobbyist mainly directed at corporate big business lobbyist...or is it also directed at the small business lobbyists (I am apart of one as they help me stay up to date on laws that might affect my business take a general polling from us business owners and then present that to the representatives compilying our basic arguments nd points all in one). With out the small business lobbyists there is much I would not be aware of and many times I don't have the time to write my representative on every single thing and read about these laws.....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3071453
What amendment is that?
What clause forbids them?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3071477
I have a question...is the ire about lobbyist mainly directed at corporate big business lobbyist...or is it also directed at the small business lobbyists (I am apart of one as they help me stay up to date on laws that might affect my business take a general polling from us business owners and then present that to the representatives compilying our basic arguments nd points all in one). With out the small business lobbyists there is much I would not be aware of and many times I don't have the time to write my representative on every single thing and read about these laws.....

For me personally it's about any business lobbiest big, small, micro or mega that uses bribes to influence law. Bribes being in the form of favors, campaign contributions, etc. Representative should be looking out for the business environments as part of their job, there should be no added incentives.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3071561
What clause forbids them?
Corporations have NO rights. They are ALLOWED to operate within the confines of current policy.
That's not really the right question though. The constitution is a document limiting the powers of government. There is no clause that allows government representatives to accept bribes from corporate lobbiests.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3071564
Corporations have NO rights. They are ALLOWED to operate within the confines of current policy.
That's not really the right question. The constitution is a document limiting the powers of government. There is no clause that allows government representatives to accept bribes from corporate lobbiests.
Don't the individual that own the corporations have the same rights as say the guy who owns a pizza joint?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3071567
Don't the individual that own the corporations have the same rights as say the guy who owns a pizza joint?
If they are U.S. citizens then yes, they have the exact same rights. The individuals have the rights. The corporate entities do not have any rights.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3071563
For me personally it's about any business lobbiest big, small, micro or mega that uses bribes to influence law. Bribes being in the form of favors, campaign contributions, etc. Representative should be looking out for the business environments as part of their job, there should be no added incentives.
I get what bang Guy is saying here and actually agree with him. Basically he is saying lobbying groups and corporations should NOT be able to donate money to campaigns as the amount the donate is in essence a bribe for favors later and returned for future campaign contributions.
So what I am gathering is, the lobbying firms and such don't need to be removed, the laws need to change regarding contributions and where they can come from.
personally I think this could be easily solved, you can obnly accept money from individual citizens with a maximum allowance of 5000 dollars per campaign......It would change the dynamic of the campaigns and the TV adds we would see.

 

[reefraff]

Corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. People who work for them can with the same restrictions as far as the amount you can donate applied as with anyone else. The "bribes" come in the form of "Business trips" and seats on the corporate boards etc. A congressman from Montana who was a highschool teacher his whole life suddenly got put on a bunch of boards. Yeah, being trained as a high school history teacher makes you qualified to sit on numerous boards.

 

[uneverno]

Yeah.
Corporations cannot donate to political campaigns anymore than Unions can...
Corporations, like Unions, are legal entities, not (Constitutionally protected) people. Therefore, they have NO rights.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3071064
All this is taking the bribery system we have in place out of the picture, I don't think that is much of a debate...
hey i agree with most of what you are saying... still dont like the fact that you see lobbyist as my representative but i dont have a problem with them talking to the gov't as long as they are not giving them money (in any form)... the way i see it, they really dont have to "talk" the the gov't officials, just give money to their campaign and say "this is how you vote"... but if they didnt give the money do the think the representatives would be any more likely to sit down with them than they would to sit down with you or me???

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3072067
hey i agree with most of what you are saying... still dont like the fact that you see lobbyist as my representative but i dont have a problem with them talking to the gov't as long as they are not giving them money (in any form)... the way i see it, they really dont have to "talk" the the gov't officials, just give money to their campaign and say "this is how you vote"... but if they didnt give the money do the think the representatives would be any more likely to sit down with them than they would to sit down with you or me???
I'm not saying your representative. I'm simply saying that we can't say no lobbying to people who are representing some American's interest.
It may be the wrong thing to do nationally, it may hurt every other american, but in a representational republic they at least deserve to be heard. They just shouldn't be able to say, this is what we think, then hand the person an envelope of money for their "pet charity" and say, "we think you should think that way too..."

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3071667
Corporations cannot donate to political campaigns.
If you reword that slightly I would agree - "Corporations cannot directly donate to political campaigns"
As an example, General Electric has donated $7.7 Million to Political Campaigns. Where did it go? They're a typical megacorp that hedges their bets and donates to most major candidates and both sides of most major elections. So, why would a corp donate to both sides of a campaign? hmmmmm

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3072190
If you reword that slightly I would agree - "Corporations cannot directly donate to political campaigns"
As an example, General Electric has donated $7.7 Million to Political Campaigns. Where did it go? They're a typical megacorp that hedges their bets and donates to most major candidates and both sides of most major elections. So, why would a corp donate to both sides of a campaign? hmmmmm
A candidate for office cannot accept a donation from corporate funds. The corporations I think can donate to the political parties and sponsor the conventions and so on but yes, for the most part they bribe both sides.

 

[uneverno]

Same w/ Unions.
That's why PAC's and lobbyists exist.
As for contributing to both sides, I demonstrated why way upthread.
Lemme 'splain. No - is take too long - lemme sum up:
(Princess Bride)
There is no two party system. It's an illusion. The game is rigged - in favor of wealthy entities and against the interests of We the People, whom they, The Elected, are sworn to serve.
E.g. Cap and Trade has the potential to be the biggest tax increase ever enacted in this country, but the NEWS is focused on the death of a child molester. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, these are not the droids you're looking for, etc.)
I'm a liberal and I approve this message.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3072340
I'm a liberal and I approve this message.

I'm a conservative and I applaud your message. I've always thought that as long as the career politicians can keep liberals and conservatives pointing the fingers at each other then the politicians can continue to rake in the undeserved power instead of serving the people. We are our own worst enemy by believing our representatives could give a rats kidney about any of us. We keep reelecting the

[hr]
though, year after year.

 

[uneverno]

Absolutely agreed!