Gotten nationwide publicity for its cause without hurting anyone or breaking the law?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!
- Thread starter Piggy
- Start date
Gotten nationwide publicity for its cause without hurting anyone or breaking the law?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Do not assume OWS is the disease. It is the symptom. Ignoring the symptom will not cure the disease.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And let's look at 2 proposed "cures" for this disease are, mentioned in this very thread.
1. Repeal the 1st Amendment
2. Political meddling in the actions of the central bank.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Like when George Washington underwent bloodletting.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
The fact that somebody suggests acupuncture doesn't mean that there is no disease.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
But they reject going to a qualified MD...
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Still does not mean that the patient isn't sick.
The fact that the patient has a real complaint does not mean that the patient is qualified to determine the best course of treatment.
Something I told my children; Ignore your health and it will go away.
We have a sickness in this country that has to be addressed or the consequences are dire.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I suggested solutions to several of these problems, yet not a single OWS supporter has expressed any interest at all in them.
Cap campaign donations to $100 per person per candidate per election cycle. Cap party donations to $100 per person per year. Also cap party donations to candidates. This makes politicians beholden to average voters rather than big-money special interests.
Crack down hard on employers who hire illegal workers. This boosts the wages, benefits, and working conditions of low-skilled and unskilled workers, thus reducing income disparity.
Any interest in these ideas OWS?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Trouble is that corporations can spend as much as they like in support of a candidate. Until we address that, and it will take a Constitutional Amendment stripping corporations of the privilege of personhood, I don't want to see individual contributions capped. Or, if we could somehow use that faux personhood to limit corporate political spending along with yours and mine, I am on board.
And I am for felony prosecution for I-9 fraud.
But then I don't speak for anybody but myself.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Why would they? How'd that work out for Target when they tried? If they support one candidate they piss off their customers who support the other. And candidates certainly don't want others stumping for them since they can't control the message.
Personhood has nothing to do with it. Citizens United hadnothing at all to do with corporate personhood. And if you did that how could you enforce a contract against a corporation? It would be like suing a tree.
Because you want to still be able to buy your preferred candidates?
You want to limit freedom of speech in order to solve a problem you haven't even demonstrated exists at all?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
So, you think Corporations should be able to spend like drunken sailors but I shouldn't be able to?
Right now I cannot give more than $2500 to a candidate, and I assure you, on the national level that won't buy me a candidate.
And you are correct that public-facing corporations are restrained by public opinion, but most corporations are not so strongly public-facing.
What would public opinion mean to Peabody Coal? Or to DuPont? Not much other than an annoyance. They can spend as much as they like to buy a Congress who will give them what they want.
My freedom is already limited with respect to campaign finance and corporations should be similarly limited; http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits
Right now I cannot give more than $2500 to a candidate, and I assure you, on the national level that won't buy me a candidate.
And you are correct that public-facing corporations are restrained by public opinion, but most corporations are not so strongly public-facing.
What would public opinion mean to Peabody Coal? Or to DuPont? Not much other than an annoyance. They can spend as much as they like to buy a Congress who will give them what they want.
My freedom is already limited with respect to campaign finance and corporations should be similarly limited; http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I don't expect it to be accomplished in two months; but I think it's fair to expect something to have been done toward that end within two months. Any conferences organized? "Town halls" held to discuss the subject (that actually managed to get to the topic they were planned to discuss)? People gathering signatures for petitions (online are legally meaningless and don't count)?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Why can't you? Everyone should be free to express their opinions all they like.
No, but donating $100,000 to the party sure can. That's why it's important to have limits on party donations. And to limit what the party can spend on any one candidate. Otherwise you end up with what we have here in Illinois, where candidates are beholden not to their contituents but to sleazeball party bosses like Mike Madigan.
How do you by a candidate without donating money to them? It's the rubbing elbows at $10,000/plate fundraising dinners that gets influence. Beyond that, they're free to make their case all they like. But very few, if any, will for the reason I already mentioned. Illinois has never had any restrictions on such spending, and I don't recall ever seeing an independent corporate-paid campaign ad for any candidate. I'm sure it has happened, but it's certainly not common.
They'd have the same limits you do.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
But they do not. They can spend unlimited funds.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No corporation has unlimited funds. Particularly for something as risky as running a 3rd party political campaign.
Do you have any examples of this happening in Illinois, where no such laws ever existed preventing them from doing this?
Last edited:
Many things happened in the Sixites. Can you be more specific?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
And the first step toward this would be an Occupy talking point: Clarify the Constitution -- corporations are not people, and money is not speech.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
No, it would not. This is a bogus argument.
And if corporations are people, why can't they vote? Why can't they be put in jail? Why can't they be issued a driver license or a passport? Why can't they get married?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I think I've been pretty specific about the wrong lessons these folks learned.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Anybody can spend unlimited funds. That is, their only limit is the amount of available funds they want to spend.
If they want to spend more funds than they have available, they can pool their funds with like-minded individuals. They can even set up an organization dedicated to raising and spending such funds. Their only limit then is the number of people they can convince to contribute to their cause.
Another good way to increase one's spending limit is to do something really necessary or desireable, so that people give you lots of funds in exchange for all the useful work you're doing. You can even set up an organization to increase your usefulness--and your revenues--by leveraging specialization and economies of scale. If you don't want to set up such an organization yourself, you can always join one, and increase your spending limit that way.