I would like to make a law banning Corporations from giving $ to Politics.

[buckup]

*Ahem* One of the biggest reasons (if not THE biggest reason) Politics is corrupt is because Corporations and companies are allowed to give money to Political Action Committees, Candidates, etc.

Question: WHY the HELL should a COMPANY have the same rights as a person? A company is a COLLECTION of people. If people want to give money, they can. So why are corporations and companies allowed to give money?

Well, I have no idea why. It makes no sense. Companies should not be involved in politics. A COMPANY does not have a right. A PERSON DOES.

So... here's an interesting proposition... could we, in one fell swoop, eliminate MUCH of the corruption of government by simply making it illegal for corporations to give money to Political Action Committees and other politically associated groups, while still allowing them to give to charities, medical research companies, etc?

I must admit, I am not an economist.... this is just something I'm throwing out there. Is this a good idea?

[eallen]

1. We have a law like that in Texas.

So when TRMPAC wanted corporate money, they funneled it through the national GOP. Ronnie Earle has gone after the corporations, and some of the TRMPAC folks.

It's an open question whether that will bring down DeLay, though not looking hopeful at the moment.

[rzemanfl]

2. I would like to "make a law" banning Republicans from polling

places. Then if they still won, we could be sure they cheated and able to prove it. Okay?

[leftofthedial]

3. you and everyone else with a brain

[CAcyclist]

4. It's an excellent idea.nt

[babylonsister]

5. That's the problem, isn't it?

The people with vested interest in certain companies and the lobbyists are ruling our country, not to mention the mind fuck by the religious right. Where are our voices?

Edit to add: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[sendero]

6. I agree..

.... and wonder myself how such contributions can be allowed, since they are by definition corrupting.

Personally, I think only individuals should be able to contribute to a political campaign, with a $500 limit to any one politician and say a $2500 limit to any one party.

But nooooooooooooo that would be sane, and our government is anything but sane :)

[undergroundpanther]

7. Seperations

I'm all for seperation of corporations(all business) from state and revioking corporate "personhood".
Same thing with churches.

No campaigns built on money.

The airwaves are OURS workers make them work not Ceos
We could demand FREE airtime for all candidates.
Fuck the parties and the signs,mass mailing pollution,and the hoo hah.
Each election season I'd like to see each candiate present thier plans/veiws and talk about it UNINNTERUPTED for at least 1 hour.
Each candidate questioned by random people,No handpicking like bush does. ONE on ONE with people alowed to FINISH thier trains of thought.
NO money. NO marketing.

NO more Fashion shows,images and hypocrites, and no more SOUND BYTES and hairstyles determining our future presidents..
To see someones character we need to see what they are about *as a person*and make them EARN our trust.
This is impossible in the way elections are done now.

[Yupster]

8. If you would add unions, then

I think your law would be quickly passed. If you just say corporations, then Republicans won't agree. If you just say unions, then Democrats won't agree. Say both and you'll get a compromise because both sides would lose something.

[stevebreeze]

9. Actually such a law exists and has since 1918

Unions have been prohibited from giving direct contributions to candidates since 1948. Obviously both have been studiously walked around for decades.

What we really need is an alternative to the wealthy buying candidates. The rich can have a bigger house, or car, but should NOT have more democracy.

Check out clean money campaign fiance reform here; http://www.publicampaign.org/

[OneBlueSky]

10. while we're at it, how about a law that says that corporations . . .

are NOT persons . . . corporate personhood entitles them to all of the protections and prerogatives available to REAL persons, which is absurd on its face . . . corporations are NOT persons, never have been, and never will be . . . in fact, the initial legal precedent that makes them "persons" was not even a court decision, but marginal notes made by a court clerk . . . corporations are institutions, and that's how they should be treated in law . . .

[buckup]

11. ... Notes made by a court clerk?

You've got to be kidding me.

Alright, you know what? I'm fine with that, too. No Unions, while we're at it. A Union's job is to make sure a certain kind of job has certain benefits and a certain standard of living, and when it doesn't mee that, they strike. That's the basic premise. They can "endorse" whomever they please, but what are they doing passing out money?

Here's the problem.... money taken, whether it goes to a corporation, or a union, should go to BETTERING that corporation or union.

[democracyindanger]

12. You're going to have to undo laws first

Cases from the late 1800's have been interpreted to give corporations personhood. Here's a good history.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

[rman]

13. "These state laws, many of which remain on the books today..."

<snip>

"After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest-- profit for shareholders was the means to that
end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."

<more>
from corporate history primer
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf

www.reclaimdemocracy.org

====

(Modern) "corporations are illegitimate institutions, they have no right to exist.
And their control is very fragile, they know it.
It’s in principal easy to dismantle them, they understand that.
A large part of the corporate effort to appear benevolent is to make sure that - you can read it in court decisions - "an aroused population will not take away their rights"".
-- Noam Chomsky

[NVMojo]

14. Then you specifically ban them from forming any PACS inside their corps

cuz that is another way they donate to campaigns.

[Kyregan]

15. I like the idea...

It sure beats this: