Ask Me Help Desk - Your Congressman

Your Congressman

Hello:

SHOULD your congressman represent you, or the corporate interests in your district?

I ask, because our right winged friends think that ALL a business has to do to make money, is provide a good product at a good price... If that's so, then why would a businessman need representation as an individual, AND as a corporation?? Doesn't that give him TWO voices? Besides that, since all a business needs is a marketplace to compete in, what favors could a business person possibly get from his congressman??

Towards that end, does a corporation have the same rights as YOU, an individual?? Does the corporation have free speech rights? If that's so, why do the owners have free speech rights as individuals, AND free speech rights as a corporation?? Doesn't that give them TWO voices, one much more powerful than the other?

If corporations can give political donations, and you own, lets say, 25 of 'em, doesn't that give you 25 times the political clout as everybody else??

Does any of the stuff above bother you?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I ask, because our right winged friends think that ALL a business has to do to make money, is provide a good product at a good price... If that's so, then why would he need representation as an individual, AND as a corporation???

That's a VERY good point. If the business' product or service is what the market wants then the business should not need the help of the government.

Ex what you have is a system of government which was put together in the days when there were few corporations and economic power was exercised by individuals. The abuse of the systems today wasn't envisaged two hundred years ago and the political systems of two hundred years ago are in need of serious revision today. In my opinion corporations (artificial persons with a protected status) should be banned from making political contributions and the size of political contributions made by individuals should be limited. Some societies who formulated their political systems later than your own instituted more checks and balances into the system because they had the benefit of some hindsight.

Government's place is to provide services which cannot be provided otherwise because of the scale of the undertaking; i.e. Military, Law, Education, Public Inferstructure, and to regulate the activities of individuals and corporations

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ex what you have is a system of government which was put together in the days when there were few corporations and economic power was exercised by individuals. The abuse of the systems today wasn't envisaged two hundred years ago and the political systems of two hundred years ago are in need of serious revision today.

Hello clete:

Very cogent answer. Tomorrow morning is going to be fun. Well, for you, it'll be tomorrow night.

excon

Shattered

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

Very cogent answer. Tomorrow morning is gonna be fun. Well, for you, it'll be tomorrow night.

excon

Or even Wednesday. Excuse my ignorance, Ex, but what Earth shattering event happens tomorrow?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

what Earth shattering event happens tomorrow?

Hello again, clete:

The wingers wake up, and I can get to arguing. It's no fun when you guys agree with me.

excon

The congressperson should not be accepting any money that will influence how they vote on or make laws. If this were true then lobby money would be a wasted efffort. The contrary is true. Corporations, unions, trial layers, NRA et al all know that most congress people are out primarily for themselves, and not really for their constituents. So they accept the money for their campaigns to stay in power. They use taxpayor money for their own personal earmarks so their district benefits,they look good to their constituents and they stay in power.

They [ lobby money and the politicians ] are in the same bed. The only way to break that cycle is for the citizenry to know how their government is acting; use that knowledge and on a regular basis vote out those who are not producing results. This is regardless of where on the political spectrum you lie.

G&P

Hello in:

That was a very interesting answer to a question I did NOT ask.. Can you answer the one I did?

excon

Quote:

If corporations can give political donations, and you own, lets say, 25 of 'em, doesn't that give you 25 times the political clout as everybody else??

Hmm, let's ask George Soros.

I hold my Congressional Representative to account ;not the corporation. More often than not the reason the corporation tries to influence Congress is because Congress over regulates . If Congress weren't over regulating ;often well beyond their Constitutional mandate ,then the problem of corporate money would not be an issue.

Let's move this logic beyond corporations . I have freedom of speech and a right to petition Congress on my behalf. Do I have more influence if I pool my resources with other like minded citizens in an association ? Of course ! Would you deny ;oh let's say NORML the right to petition ;lobby , give campaign donations ? I doubt it.
Or as Ron Paul's followers say :

Quote:

Be careful what you ask for. If Corporations are not allowed Constitutional rights that protect individuals from government control then you'll see authentic and thorough socialism or fascism as all corporaitons will be controlled by the government and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. Please don't let these leftist/socialist anti-corporation ideas infiltrate the true free-market capitalist movement. Because if you're against corporation freedom, then you're actually a socialist. EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AS DR. PAUL DOES WHERE CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROL, OR YOU BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FORCIBLY CONTROL/REGULATE CORPORATIONS, SUCH AS FOR "THE PUBLIC GOOD," aka SOCIALISM. Which is it?

Why shouldn't a corporation have the right of Free Speech and Press? | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

I believe the question being asked here is not how the government controls corporations but how the corporations control government, which leads to votes and decisions made to favour the corporation not the citizens. Ex, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we understand the question, NK. It doesn't bother me that businesses have a voice, I believe that's essential. It does bother me that so many politicians are willing to accept and pass out favors and like Chris Dodd, get away with it. My point in my previous post is that this is always implied as the GOP is beholden only to corporate interests while giving a pass to the left.

Billionaire George Soros has tried his damnedest to be a puppet master over elections and the Democrats are so intertwined with unions, "community organizers," Planned Parenthood etc. it's impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. So if we want to discuss politicians being unduly influenced by entities let's lay it all on the table.

This is where this will lead. Obama doesn't like FOX . If FOX doesn't have the right to the same free speech afforded individuals then it would be lawful for the Obots to prohibit FOX from criticizing Obama.

I don't think this is a GOP/DEM thing, it definitely applies to all politicians. The practice of accepting those "donations" doesn't seem to serve the interests of the constituents. Anyway ex is explaining himself well in the other thread, I'll leave it with him.

Hello again,

You're correct, of course, NK. That's the idea...

But, I wrote a whole thing on it, and it gave me pause... As I wrote, I asked myself a few questions...

Do people have the right to associate with other like minded people, and have that association speak collectively for them?? I'd have to say yes.

Can people speak with their money? I'd have to say yes.

Does that mean that people with money have a bigger voice than people without? It goes without saying that they DO, but it flies in the face of "equal protection under the law", which is what the Fourteenth Amendment is about.

I suggest, however, that there are SOME provisions that we've carved out from the Constitution, otherwise corporations would be allowed to VOTE?

Plus, if a corporation is a "person", then when a corporation gets convicted of a crime, why doesn't anybody go to jail??

THOSE exception have been carved out, and Clete is right. We need to carve out new rules for today.

excon

Every single person, regardless of wealth, has ONE vote, so unless there is outright direct paying for votes or other voter fraud, what good would it do to make more rules. The rules should apply to those governing and to every citizen, whether that is Walmart or Acorn or Exxon or the AFL/CIO. But we know the current rules are not followed, always enforced or just bypassed.

G&P

I think maybe The Goracle has a bigger voice than the rest of us, he's poised to become the first "green" billionaire.

Quote:

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

$560 million in government grants just happened to go to utilities this company The Goracle invested in has contracts with. Add his cap and trade investments and it's no wonder he's positioned himself as the green guru. Now do you really think he has our best interests in mind?

It's the old saw of "Money talks and Bulls*it walks". And big corporate has a LOT more money than any one person has - even multiplied by several million people ten times over.

It's never what the people want or what is good for them, blah, blah, blah. It's what Big Pharma wants. It's what Big Insura wants. It's what Big Corporation wants. It's NEVER what the "little folks" want or need for that matter. They don't count period. The only thing that the "little folks" have to offer up is their hard earned money carefully sifted out of their wallet under the guise of "insurance premiums", "prescriptions that cost too much", "overpriced automobiles", "overpriced homes", "overpriced doctors", blah, blah, blah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

It's the old saw of "Money talks and Bulls*it walks". And big corporate has a LOT more money than any one person has - even multiplied by several million people ten times over.

It's never what the people want or what is good for them, blah, blah, blah. It's what Big Pharma wants. It's what Big Insura wants. It's what Big Corporation wants. It's NEVER what the "little folks" want or need for that matter. They don't count period. The only thing that the "little folks" have to offer up is their hard earned money carefully sifted out of their wallet under the guise of "insurance premiums", "prescriptions that cost too much", "overpriced automobiles", "overpriced homes", "overpriced doctors", blah, blah, blah.

Now you know that the only way to prevent what you speak of is to completely change the system of government. That has been tried in certain parts of the world and it appears they couldn't make it work. China is an interesting experiement at the moment but the little people have no voice there either. What you need are honest politicians who are allowed to follow their own conscience, a seeming contradiction not only to the party system of government but to human nature, perhaps the implementation of citizen initiated referendums as used in Switzerland might give the people the voice they are denied

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now you know that the only way to prevent what you speak of is to completely change the system of government. That has been tried in certain parts of the world and it appears they couldn't make it work. China is an interesting experiement at the moment but the little people have no voice there either. What you need are honest politicians who are allowed to follow their own conscience, a seeming contradiction not only to the party system of government but to human nature, perhaps the implementation of citizen initiated referendums as used in Switzerland might give the people the voice they are denied

I'm going to make some of you angry here.

I want to focus on your "honest politicians" and add honest CEO's, honest business owners, etc.

What makes anyone honest?

Fear of punishment?

Nope!

People are either honest or not based on who they ARE on the inside. Every man is a law unto himself, he is his own policeman.

Decades ago, you could find business owners and corporation heads that actually had some degree of concern for those that worked for them. There was a strong Christian influence in this country, at least stronger than now, and it was this inner character that kept owners from fleecing their employees and customers.

Politicians often went to church to hear what the pulpit had to say about issues before they voted.

Those days are long gone. Now we live with the consequences of a culture deprived of any moral compass.

Success is defined by the amount of material wealth one can amass, not whether a person is honest and fair.

Christian principle demands that we treat others as we would like to be treated.

That means that a Christian politician will vote based on the best interests of all his constituents, not just the ones that contribute the most to his campaign.

That means that a Christian CEO will not grab millions every year while doing everything possible to keep the employees working for minimum wages.

The answer to all this is a real Christian revival, one that affects the culture around it.

There! I told you I would make some of you angry!

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

The answer to all this is a real Christian revival, one that affects the culture around it.

There! I told you I would make some of you angry!

Couldn't agree with you more but where can you find two honest men to agree it is necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Success is defined by the amount of material wealth one can amass, not whether a person is honest and fair.

THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

Speak for yourself for a change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Speak for yourself for a change.

What does even mean? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's a VERY good point. If the business' product or service is what the market wants then the business should not need the help of the government.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

Government should not be involved in the running of businesses. Let the business succeed or fail on its own. If their product is a good one offered at a good price, it will be successful. If it is not, it will fail. The company shouldn't need government help to succeed.

We are in agreement on this point.

So... the question becomes, why do so many people want government to intervene?

Elliot

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.

Eliminate that power, and the funneling of the money will stop. And the free market will open back up. Two birds, one stone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What does even mean? :confused:

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.

Nah, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. In the same way that some people believe that establishing their brand of religion on everyone would make a better world, that's a load of hooey In my opinion.

But what I didn't understand was "speak for yourself". I did speak for myself. I don't represent any group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What does even mean? :confused:

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.

Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.

Hello again, Elliot:

Boy, THAT'S just wrong.

Corporations don't just happen. They're creations of the STATE. People ASK the state if they can BE a corporation because there are benefits attached. In exchange for those benefits, a corporation agrees to be regulated.

Now, if some group of businessmen DIDN'T want the benefits and subsidies that come with corporatehood, they could certainly CHOOSE to operate as a partnership, or an association, or some entity that DOESN'T get benefits. Then, they wouldn't BE subject to corporate laws... But, there's a tradeoff, if they want government largess.

That's as it should be, too. The above, by the way, is pretty damn Constitutional.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.

I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

Your remark was insulting, overly broad, arrogant and hackneyed. I guess that's the best you can do...

So thin-skinned. Sorry I wasn't politically-correct for you. That's not how I roll. :)
Now go tell galveston how arrogant his "religion for all" post was. LOL!

NK, what you said was entirely PC, that's exactly how you roll.

Oh OK. Cheers then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

In my opinion corporations (artificial persons with a protected status) should be banned from making political contributions and the size of political contributions made by individuals should be limited. Some societies who formulated their political systems later than your own instituted more checks and balances into the system because they had the benefit of some hindsight.

I agree. Much of this debate is related to the question of corporate personhood, which is a controversial issue in the United states, stemming from a court decision at the end of the 19th century.

For example, Wikipedia states:

Quote:

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.

Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

asking from your own source you should see that the issue predates any recent court decision. Corporations have had the status of an individual since the time of the founding of the nation ;and in fact is a part of common law.

I don't understand the issue here.

The legal meaning of a 'person' is a subject/citizen of legal rights and duties.It is better that a corporation has people status otherwise it would be above the law. In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. When corporations got the status of people they too could be sued and held accountable for its debts.
But since it has all the liabilities that a person has ,it also has the rights of a person ;and that includes it's 1st amendment rights to petition it's government .