 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 :
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?
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
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! |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Congressman Gary Ackerman
[ 8 Answers ]
Hello: Video - CNBC.com excon
Congressman admits that Dems ran trojan horse campaign in 2006
[ 2 Answers ]
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) admits, on camera, that the Democrats "stretched the facts" about their capability of ending the war in Iraq and that anybody that "was a good student of Government" would have known it wasn't true but the "temptation to want to win back the Congress" made them...
View more questions Search
|
