A soap box statement if you will indulge me
Pages: 12
I've shared this before, but it very much bares repeating. WOLF-PAC is a democratic non profit that's pushing for a new amendment to the US constitution that would reverse citizens united, explicitly define corporations as NOT people and not entitled to constitutional rights, make all campaign financing public, and limit campaign donations. The idea here is that, well, it's just a fact that lobbyists own congress. A number of peer reviewed studies have found that (on both sides of the fence) congressmen and women tend heavily to vote in favor of their wealthiest constituents. The middle class gets limited representation and the impoverished gets nil. It is no secret that corporations being allowed to have legal standing of people is FUBAR'ing our democracy. Wolf-pac is pushing to fix that. I'm not asking you to donate, I'm not asking you to volunteer or call your legislators. I just ask that you take the time to read and HOPEFULLY sign the petition. Share with your friends and family. This is of grave importance for the US, and to an extent the world.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
I will do, but in order for me to do so I would like to ask a favour: Would you mind explaining what it means for a company to be defined as a person, with rights?
In my country companies have legal persona's wherein owners cannot be personally sued if the business becomes bankrupt, although what you are talking about sound very different.
In my country companies have legal persona's wherein owners cannot be personally sued if the business becomes bankrupt, although what you are talking about sound very different.
The problem with them having constitutional rights is that it allows them to use their massive funds to donate to politicians and more or less buy them off. It's corruption.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Is this just to strip bthe right of companies to donate money to campaign funds and hire lobbyists? If so then yes I believe it would be a good idea. But when you say strip companies of their constitutional rights is much much broader and doesn't sound like you are talking about just campaign donations.
Also would this extend to non profit organizations and unions? Because they buy off politicians all the time also. So targeting only one wouldn't be enough.
I am skeptical of signing the petition because of these things and mainly because it doesn't state anywhere what exactly the constitutional amendment would be or is (Or at least I can't find it).
Changing the constitution is not something to be taken lightly.
Also companies can't dontate massive amounts of money to campaign funds (Unless illegally) there is already a law capping the maximum contribution limits for PACs http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml from what I have read about it. So if it is only about campaign donations of corporations there is no need for constitution amendment when we already have a law for it.
Anyways if you could provide more information on what exactly they are doing it would be great.
Also would this extend to non profit organizations and unions? Because they buy off politicians all the time also. So targeting only one wouldn't be enough.
I am skeptical of signing the petition because of these things and mainly because it doesn't state anywhere what exactly the constitutional amendment would be or is (Or at least I can't find it).
Changing the constitution is not something to be taken lightly.
Also companies can't dontate massive amounts of money to campaign funds (Unless illegally) there is already a law capping the maximum contribution limits for PACs http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml from what I have read about it. So if it is only about campaign donations of corporations there is no need for constitution amendment when we already have a law for it.
Anyways if you could provide more information on what exactly they are doing it would be great.
Last edited on
I'm not exactly good with words, and these guys have it pretty well spelled out. Forgive me for lazily linking, please. http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan
closed account (N36fSL3A)
I don't know if I'm just tired out of my mind but I can't help but notice that this sounds like Communism.
| Mats wrote: |
|---|
| Communism is almost the perfect government. As long as everyone is communist... |
Nope, and history has shown us this.
A. People crave power and it ends up being a dictatorship.
B. No one has incentive to be above average at anything, so nothing revolutionary gets done.
Last edited on
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
| Nope, and history has shown us this. |
your wrong on so many levels. ill explain in a second
| No one has incentive to be above average at anything, so nothing revolutionary gets done. |
"Communism is the perfect government" is demonstrably false, but that doesn't change the reality that people will believe whatever they want. In your (misinformed) opinion is communism the perfect government.
Since debating the merits/failings of communism would only serve to derail this thread, go post in the communism thread. Make the case for your opinion there. I've already promised not to bother with that thread any more.
The idea that corporations have rights is also utter nonsense. Rights are for the protection of people. Not businesses. Not government agencies. Not things.
Unfortunately, people with power (money) wish to aggregate more power (money). The way to do that is to influence the government to their own special needs. So instead of using just their own (considerable) money to influence the government, as they should, they also want to use their company's money to influence the government.
This is a gross miscarriage -- because the company does not represent one person. By using the company's power to influence the government, a few people co-opt the desires of other people in the company -- using their labor (power == money) to influence the government without their voice.
And it would be simplistic to say you should only work for people with whom you agree politically.
It is only free speech when you speak for yourself or those who have explicitly given you consent to speak for them. When someone hires on in at McDonalds, or IBM's mailroom, or whatever, he just wants to make money (increase his own power). It is not -- should not -- be the same as signing away your voice.
That is what Wolf-PAC is trying to fix.
Since debating the merits/failings of communism would only serve to derail this thread, go post in the communism thread. Make the case for your opinion there. I've already promised not to bother with that thread any more.
The idea that corporations have rights is also utter nonsense. Rights are for the protection of people. Not businesses. Not government agencies. Not things.
Unfortunately, people with power (money) wish to aggregate more power (money). The way to do that is to influence the government to their own special needs. So instead of using just their own (considerable) money to influence the government, as they should, they also want to use their company's money to influence the government.
This is a gross miscarriage -- because the company does not represent one person. By using the company's power to influence the government, a few people co-opt the desires of other people in the company -- using their labor (power == money) to influence the government without their voice.
And it would be simplistic to say you should only work for people with whom you agree politically.
It is only free speech when you speak for yourself or those who have explicitly given you consent to speak for them. When someone hires on in at McDonalds, or IBM's mailroom, or whatever, he just wants to make money (increase his own power). It is not -- should not -- be the same as signing away your voice.
That is what Wolf-PAC is trying to fix.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| When someone hires on in at McDonalds, or IBM's mailroom, or whatever, he just wants to make money (increase his own power). |
If they want to survive they should find a job that pays them a living wage. Minimum wage largely doesn't do that. So scratch McDonalds of that list :P
@Lumpkin
That's the issue.
For those with wealth, money==power==control of others.
For those without wealth, money==power==survival.
Obviously, those with wealth have more power than those without wealth, since they are not simply concerned with survival.
That's the issue.
For those with wealth, money==power==control of others.
For those without wealth, money==power==survival.
Obviously, those with wealth have more power than those without wealth, since they are not simply concerned with survival.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
People could also have McDonalds as a secondary job because they need to support their families.
I don't understand how working at McDonalds is even a way to increase their power.
I don't understand how working at McDonalds is even a way to increase their power.
Pages: 12