US Voting & Corporations

Post Reply New Topic

Short version: Corps run US because the money they donate to candidates has a bigger influence than actually voting. I want a bill that says that you have to be able to vote to donate to a political candidate’s campaign fund.



So. The USA is run by gigantic corporations through their financial support of political candidates on all levels, from mayors to presidents.

This is a pretty common sentiment, no?

Wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't the case? Wouldn't you like it if, you know, people were picking who gets to run for office?

Oh wait, corporations are people. Right. s**t.

Well, they still don't have a vote. So why do they get to have a larger influence on all of our elections?

Because money is speech, legally. A bit back, congress ruled that money = speech, so that under the first amendment it can't be regulated. Any person can give any other person as much money as they want.

Money = speech, corporation = person. Corporation can give as much money as it wants to a candidate, effectively picking out who can AFFORD to run for public office.

Don't you think that's a bigger deal than having just one vote? Like, you know, a real live breathing human US citizen has?

Under federal law, there are only two types of "people" who are not allowed to vote. That's people under the age of 18, and corporations. (I know some sates don't let felons vote, and some keep people with certain mental handicaps from voting, but that's really a different discussion.)

Kids can’t vote pretty much because it’s agreed that you need a bit of life experience before you start influencing the path of the nation. And, since minors aren’t allowed to own anything, they can’t give donations to political candidates. They have no way to directly influence elections. (They can, of course, try to influence voters, but that’s second-hand.)

Where am I going? Well, one of the two types of citizens that can’t vote isn’t allowed to donate money to candidates. I don’t want the other type to be able to either.

What I’m wishing for is a constitutional amendment that says money is not the exact same thing as speech, and that you have to be able to vote to donate to a political candidate’s campaign fund.

That seems simple to me.

Money has a bigger influence than a single vote, and a candidate needs a fair bit of money to be able to contact potential voters. Less now than before, what with this nifty thing the kids are calling “The Internet” but it still takes some. Corporations as a whole are just fine with not being allowed to vote. Each one is just one person, after all. They’ve got what really matters: cash.

I’m not suggesting that the rich (real) people who actually run these corporations not be allowed to donate. They have votes, just like me. Fine. You’ve got more money than me to donate, do it. But it has to be their own money. It has to come from their pockets, not the far deeper ones of their corporations.

Candidates will still have to find money. They’ll still need the fundraise like crazy. But if they can’t get all they need from huge corporations, they’ll have to get it from real people with more legitimate concerns. They’ll have to listen to a wider variety of views because donation sizes with be smaller.

Who would support a bill like this? One that makes it so that you have to be able to vote to donate money to a political candidate campaign? Who would vote for candidates that promise to support such a bill?

One interesting point not raised is that corporations seem to be able to move out of the country by outsourcing labor and establishing bases in foreign countries without the requirements of a passport needed by any citizen. If they can take their labor supply out of the country but nevertheless control the government of the laborers they throw out of work there seems to be something totally out of whack.

Clever.

Campaign finance reform isn't new. A left suggestion is to limit all candidates to public financing. Typically, corporate donations have been considered constitutionally protected through a combination of free association and free speech. There are some regulations around it, but obviously lobbying and campaign financing matter a whole lot.

Oh? If corporations are people, how come we, as people, can't move around as freely as they can and without restrictions? (Such as making my base in a fiscal haven? <.< ) Hmm hmm.

"I’m not suggesting that the rich (real) people who actually run these corporations not be allowed to donate. They have votes, just like me. Fine. You’ve got more money than me to donate, do it. But it has to be their own money. It has to come from their pockets, not the far deeper ones of their corporations. "

As for that.... Make a limit to how much money one can give based on the average salary americans can obtain?

Corporations are limited by campaign finance laws. However, Bush the Younger's lawyer is leading an effort to ban such limits claiming it to be a free speech issue. The Supreme Court is expected to overturn precedent and rule in his favour, thanks to the change in the court's balance achieved under Bush the Younger.

As it stands, most corporate influence is through Political Action Committees organised by industrialists to pool the resources of extremely wealthy people.

From the beginning of this "democracy", there's been a strong belief expressed that "those who own the country ought to govern it". The use of bribery by the very wealthy is seen as necessary to curb the evils of democracy - specifically, the fear that the majority who own very little will vote for politicians who will redistribute from those at the top. Those at the top thus require the right to bribe politicians into not doing that.

Sure, there are "government corporations", but at least we have choices. I don't think I could deal with nationalized companies.