Should Corporations be able to "donate" money to politicians, campaigns, and/or parti

Please discuss.

My personal opinion is that they shouldn`t, though I won`t give my reasoning until a decent number of people have given their opinions.

 

Of course they should be able to donate money. I'm all for the Sierra Club and Greenpeace (and the NRA) to be allowed to donate to politicians, campaigns and parties.

 

Yes; I also believe our elected representatives should have plans for our republic. Why even have a Congress, if they only resort to special pleading at private Firms behest, when promoting the general welfare of the republic.

 

I disagree, since it is essentially bribery, and it has undermined the power that popular opinion once had and replaced it with money. Also, anyone care to explain their answer?

 

I believe our elected representatives would not "need to be bribed" if they could simply better promote the general welfare.

 

NO, of course not - this is corporatism and is well on the road to Fascism

 

But they don`t "need" to be bribed, but because of the corrupt system, corporations do it in order to get the government in their pockets. Once that happens, they can cause a war for, say, greater access to natural resources, despite the hundreds of thousands of families who would be devastated by the losses of their husbands' , fathers` , and sons` lives, and millions upon millions of citizens who would oppose the war in the first place. However, because of the corruption of the governmental system in the U.S., this is all irrelevant, overshadowed by the power of some sleazy oil company that wants a fatter wallet and is willing to DESTROY the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens in Saudi Arabia in order to get it.

 

You may be missing the point: our elected representatives would not "need to be bribed", if they could simply better promote the general welfare.

 

That is a rather Hallmark Channel view of history. The reason PACS were created to begin with was to give people an opportunity to have a voice because the only "popular opinion" being heard was in smoke-filled backrooms among the king makers. of course corporations should exercise free speech--they are people too.

 

Corporations are not people. Just because someone has a lined pocket doesn`t mean that they should dictate our government. And who cares if some channel thinks similarly to me?

 

They don`t "need to be bribed". It`s the corporations` choice to bribe the politician, and though many politicians are bribed, not all are, showing that they don`t need to be bribed. And if corporations couldn`t bribe them in the first place, then they would promote the general welfare. If a corporation can get a politician to promote its welfare rather than the general welfare in exchange for money and the politician chooses the money, then, surprise, surprise, the politician is no longer promoting the general welfare. Therefore, the entire idea that free speech encompasses money causes many politicians to not promote the general welfare, and the idea that politicians will continue to promote the general welfare in spite of offers of billions of dollars is not only contrary to United States political history, but completely absurd.

 

If you disallow corporations or any organization (you will have to do both you just can pick and choose which entities don't get to donate) you pretty much hand over all the power to the wealthy people like Soros and the Koch brothers since they can give unlimited amounts of money via DNC/RNC or just forming their own nonprofits and running ads all day long. Organizations like NRA and Sierra Club etc level the playing field by allowing average Joe to be able to have some influence by sheer force of numbers.

There is also this idiotic notion among lefties that some how coorporations only give to Republican candidates which is just flat out absurd. They give equally to both parties and they give more to whichever candidate they think is going to win. Obama has received more money form Goldman Sachs than any other candidate.

 

Corporations are people. It has been so decreed and so shall it be.

Well considering your touchy feel-good view of the past that is not supported by facts, apparently not you.

 

Corporations give money to whoever will be able to give them the most unfair advantages.

 

It doesn`t matter whether the government has decided that corporations are people, they are and always will be faceless, emotionless entities who look out for themselves and no one else.

And the notion that somehow I have a "touchy, feel-good" idea of the past because I dislike a legislation that was passed after "the past" is absurd. And how is it not supported by facts? from the 30`s to the 80`s, a person`s vote actually had power, there were virtually no bank crashes, and there were great amounts of economic growth. My arguments are centered around statistics, not emotions of nostalgia. Corporations` right to donate money to politicians has destroyed the power of the public opinion. Now, a corporation can give money to a politician, and the politician will do what they can to help the corporation. Therefore, the conclusion follows that politicians tend to represent who pays for them, not who votes for them.

 

This claim makes no sense; it implies that the private sector must pay the politicians in order for the politicians to promote the general welfare. This completely contradicts the half of a century when the politicians represented, to some extent, their voters, and the country flourished.

 

You should check your local listings. Hallmark Channel folks recover from the fever during the course of a few days, and farmers have nothing better to do than sit around talking with their lives while mother nature tends to their crops and livestock as well.

 

It is only your reading comprehension that doesn't allow it to make more sense. Why do you believe money is any form of perceived problem in politics now?

 

If you are actually comparing me to a farmer and using it as an insult, you have more to worry about than politics. All I`m saying is that McDonalds`, Delta Airlines, and other corporate machines shouldn`t be able to dominate the political landscape with their money.

 

I assure you, my reading comprehension is fine. I think it`s a problem because society should be in charge of itself, not a slave to these corporations whose monetary power allows them to essentially control the government.

If any of you who are taking snipes at me have actual arguments rather that cheap shots and a completely unfounded view of the U.S.A.`s modern political landscape, please use them rather that hurling comments about agriculture that are supposed to be insults.

 

Yes. Indiduals donate money to politicans and campaigns, for their own interests and wants. Coperations do the same, just to a greater extent. Logic is, "You donate way more than the average person, therefore you can't". Illogical to me.

 

I say yes.

People are in denial I think as to the fact that since we live a commercialized, corporate lifestyle, corporate people are our leaders. Going against them means losing, sooner or later, the corporation-organized standard of living. I like living in the "developed" world myself. I for one welcome our corporate overlords.

 

My theory, is that campaign donations should only travel through unaffiliated groups. They're the ones that campaign for politicians on their on behalf

 

The point is, that if our elected representatives had better solutions, the private sector would not need to waste money "bribing" them.

 

Yeah, but the logic says that you are as much of a human as anyone else, and having more money shouldn`t affect how much political power you have.

- - - Updated - - -

I REALLY hope that`s sarcasm.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet they`d be able to come up with plenty solutions if the corporations weren`t bribing them. The corporations bribe them for their own interests, not to somehow use their money to help them come up with better solutions.