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.
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.
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.
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.
i would like to know where you got that idea... anyways. communism is the perfect form of government. the only problem is that we cant achieve a perfect state of communism because everyone would have to have the same goals. which doesnt happen. just because we cant do it doesnt mean its not good. we technically cant make a circle but it is a very important shape in our society
"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.