Supreme court ruling on corporations and politics

Post Reply New Topic

And do you think people who buy the produce of major corporations are aware of their political manipulations and will act in response? Are you that naive?

I never said that they would use the power they have. I merely said that they have that power.

And they also have the power to legislate that corporations are not suitable for influencing elections.

And I am of the opinion that it is better in the long run for consumers to learn to control corperations by speaking the corperation's own language than by passing laws limiting the freedoms of the populace, even if it is a minority of the populace (I.E. the leaders of corperations).

Then you are simply unaware of the nature of political power and how it is manipulated. It is a shame that someone of your age can be so ill informed.

Well, ok, but the issue is that if their motive is just to make a buck, we really have weak ability to determine whether they are really doing the right thing. Especially on something like providing support for a candidate. They might say they are doing this for X reason, but the candidate and the corporation might both know that Y is the real reason. Y ends up undercutting the public good in some form or fashion though, but it still gets supported under the cover of X. This doesn't seem unreasonable, but rather how things would likely work to some extent.

Corporations are not people so they can't have free speech. Who speaks for the corporation? The board of directors? Do the shareholders vote on what word to say next in their speech?

Corporations exist and are recognised at the government's pleasure. It's like an image produced by a projector. The projector can be turned off and terminate the image. Such things are not alive. They are dead! Dead! Why not recognise a ventriloquist's dummy as a person while we're at it.

Sand: Once again, instead of providing a counterpoint, you insult me and pat yourself on the back. I assume you do this because you have no points left to make. I call victory by forfeit.

Awesomelyglorious: I know that deception is a problem. I would support more severe punishment for any corperation that lies to it's consumers. Like life imprisonment or banishment.

I would also argue that, after Candidate X has corporation Y's money, what motivation does candidate X have to actually carry out what Corporation Y wanted them to do? What can corporation Y do? say "No fair, the money we donated was a bribe?" and if it's a half now, half later type of thing I would argue that the problem is not that corporations are donating to campaigns but that politicians are accepting bribes once they are in office. Keeping corporations from donating to campaigns will not stop corrupt corporations from bribing politicians, it will merely prevent legitimate corporations from backing politicians for legitimate reasons.

xenon13: if a corporation is not donating the money, a C.E.O. would. unless you would also limit how much a person can donate, which is defiantly an infringement on free speech. this law wouldn't change anything. It would be just another chapter that lawyers wold have to read to graduate law school. nothing more.

Hold on, you want to imprison people for life or banish them if they tell any single lie? Additionally, how on earth do you meaningfully determine motives so as to check whether a corporation is lying? Unless you propose a psychic squad or some arbitrary way of testing for political purity in corporations, then my contention still stands. Your own efforts seem as if they could hurt more than they did.


Umm.... future donations? You don't think that politicians run for offices multiple times? How about this: the continued corporate support for the particular party. I mean, betrayal only works in a one-time event, but if there is any way to extend the expected life of this matter then both sides are likely going to want to push for this(political parties want secure cash flows, corporations want some security with their allies) and because of the need on both sides for security, we will end up having donations that impact the political process.

I am not talking about bribes here. The fact that political arrangements tend to last between elections does not mean that there is corruption.

To go even further, let's say that candidate X's platform is naturally very pro-corporate but otherwise is perceived negatively by most people. If corporation Y and others like corporation Y can donate more to candidate X, then candidate X will do better than would be expected under another institutional arrangement. If candidate X does better than usual, then candidate X may get office when otherwise he wouldn't or candidate X might tell other politicians to trade-off policies that the populace wants for what corporations want in exchange for money simply because the money is more effective at swaying the marginal voters than good policy. Democracy doesn't mean rule by everyone, it tends to support rule by the people who are most wishy-washy about the matter, people in the middle(who aren't necessarily in the middle for any virtue of their own). At least especially so in a 2 party system.

It is the court's job to figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth, not mine. Anyone who would lie for power we are better off without.

If the politician does a good job because they did not sell-out to corporations, they can ride that momentum all the way to re-election.

If it doesn't indicate corruption, then why pass a law preventing it?

This law would not stop people from being wishy-washy. don't treat the symptoms, treat the disease. and as you pointed out, the disease is the party system.

The decision is based on the quaint notion that a corporation is a person.

ruveyn

Ok, but the court can't reasonably implement this matter. The criticism is that the kind of rules that you want to implement for your world are impossible to reasonably put in place.


Ok, but do you really think that this is likely to happen? Most politicians take funding from these kinds of organizations, and the only way to get away with not doing this


There is no law preventing parties and organizations such as corporations being chummy with each other.


Society is the disease. Unless you want human extinction, we are damned to always treat the symptoms.

I don't know... I think if I thought long and hard about it I could find a way. But seeing as a) I don't want to be bothered with that right now and b) it's not really relevant to our current discussion anymore, I'd rather not explore it any further at this time.

That's the thing about democracy: It's as likely as the voters believe it is. I'm not saying they shouldn't take funding, I'm saying they shouldn't let it influence their decisions. Then they can campaign on the fact they didn't let it influence their decisions.

I know. the suggested law would put an end to corporate funding.

Yes, yes, society is inherently evil, but that's just a dodge. My point is that even if corporations couldn't fund politicians, nothing would change. a C.E.O. would fund them instead. unless you would prevent anyone from funding a politician or put a limit on how much they could, which is a violation of freedom of speech.

Why pass a law that won't change anything?

Everyone thinks that about their cherished idea. It really doesn't have epistemic weight, but it really is relevant to the discussion. I claim that corporations will selfishly promote their interests, and you think that we can have selfless corporations, and that rules about corporate lying will help. Both claims are contested, and the latter is currently an issue.


They'll likely let it influence their decisions even if they say it doesn't, people are really bad at assessing themselves fully. Additionally, do you really think that such campaigning will really be a big difference over the impact of boatloads of cash in spreading the word?


Who suggested a law ending corporate funding??


It's not really a dodge. Besides, I never said anything about society having moral failure.


This is the biggest point I can see here. Frankly, that's why I don't actually care about the financing law one way or another, it probably won't be that big of a deal.

(Note: this isn't to say that the law won't change anything at all, but likely nothing on the same scale that everyone thinks will be changed.)

Inherently evil? Depends how you define "evil". I think you have to be a little bit greedy to get to their position...

Do you think that it's fair to win elections with money in the first place?


How is that a violation of freedom of speech? Since when is using money for propaganda and paying people "speech"?

Awesomelyglorious:

Well, I know courts have to decide wether or not someone is lying all the time as it is now, so I imagine it would go something like that. Most of the lies wold be pretty easy. I mean, it doesn't take much to find out wether or not bounty really is the quilted quicker picker upper. As for more bribery-related issues, I'd imagine lots of lie detector tests, psychoanalysis, and hunting for snitches to testify for immunity or honor would take place.

the candidate in question will have an awful lot in their favor. For starters, the will be an incumbent, which is generally an advantage. Next, they will have already proven their competence and honor. Next, it is not like they will have no money, people will still donate to their campaign. Besides, there's lots of ways to get the word out these days that costs little to no money. I mean, didn't Obama use viral youtube videos to spread his campaign? Now I am as repeatedly confounded by the depths of human stupidity as the next guy, but I would like to think that, at the very least, people would not vote an incumbent who has already proven his competence and that he has the people's best interest at heart out of office simply because his challenger dumped more money into his campaign. But hey, I'm an optimist.

Isn't that what this is all about? ending corporate funding? or at the very least, limiting it.

yes, it is a dodge. You weren't really addressing the point, namely: that nothing would change if this law where passed. And you said socitey was a disease. a statement like that strongly implies you think it is evil, and regardless of your beliefs, I still find society to be two tons of pure evil in a five-pond sack.

Well, at least we can agree that is certainly wasn't the "final deathblow to democracy" so many people are claiming it was. I believe the government should be pragmatic, and passing laws that will have no functional effect is the polar opposite of pragmatism. Besides, I would much rather have all the bribery on the table where everyone can see it than under it.

Omerik:

I would say you have to be ambitious to get into their position.

No, but I think it's less fair to tell people how they are and are not allowed to spend their money. Besides, if a candidate wins with money, that is a failing of the voters, not the system.

You are assuming everything they say will be lies. I would support implementing a fact-checker to say when campaign ads are lies (and disqualifying and imprisoning the liar) but not telling people how they are and are not allowed to spend their money.

And for the record, as long as we live in a capitalist society, spending money is a form of speech. And I feel we would all be better off if consumers paid more attention to what they where saying.