The Double Edged Sword of Term Limits

[TheOneX]

On the topic of political donation reform. It is very important to put geographic limits on donation. Someone in California should not be able to donate to a politician running in Georgia. The money you raise should only be able to come from those in the district you represent.

[The Conservative]

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

Corporations should have rights as, the separation of business and state is just as important as the separation of church and state. We just need to set in stone that those rights are different than the rights of individual humans, and codify what those rights are. Right now because we do not make that distinction we are forced to apply the same rights of individual humans to corporations.

If a corporation is considered an individual, then the corporation can not donate more than what an individual can. (from or on behalf of)

[SuburbanFarmer]

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

Corporations should have rights as, the separation of business and state is just as important as the separation of church and state. We just need to set in stone that those rights are different than the rights of individual humans, and codify what those rights are. Right now because we do not make that distinction we are forced to apply the same rights of individual humans to corporations.

If a corporation is considered an individual, then the corporation can not donate more than what an individual can. (from or on behalf of)

I could live with that, if individual donations weren't unlimited, via SuperPac.

[The Conservative]

Corporations should have rights as, the separation of business and state is just as important as the separation of church and state. We just need to set in stone that those rights are different than the rights of individual humans, and codify what those rights are. Right now because we do not make that distinction we are forced to apply the same rights of individual humans to corporations.

If a corporation is considered an individual, then the corporation can not donate more than what an individual can. (from or on behalf of)

I could live with that, if individual donations weren't unlimited, via SuperPac.

SuperPacs are another story, but an individual/corp/company would only be able to donate the maximum amount that an individual can donate. That would nip in the bud really quick the mega donors.

[clubgop]

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

So independent dark money. Same as it ever was. You play accounting games with people that have a message and big bank balances, the message is going to get out. Why drive this shit underground? Have it in your face and deal with it head on. Dirty dick wants the fantasy of sullying an untouched virgin but there aren't any they are all whores at least this way I know who is paying.

Because as open as things are now, if we push back (and we should) against a minority of moneybags making the decisions for the politicians we vote for, we should have the ability to stand on equal ground. A person who donates a million dollars has the same voting power as someone who donates one.

What dressing do you recommend for this word salad?

[clubgop]

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

Ridiculous. So when the NSA wanted all those phone records, phone companies just had to comply afterall they have no 4th amendment rights. I am sure you are cool with that. I am sure if Congress passed a law severely restricting news corps that would be ok with you.

[clubgop]

On the topic of political donation reform. It is very important to put geographic limits on donation. Someone in California should not be able to donate to a politician running in Georgia. The money you raise should only be able to come from those in the district you represent.

Liberals will never go for that.

[clubgop]

Corporations should have rights as, the separation of business and state is just as important as the separation of church and state. We just need to set in stone that those rights are different than the rights of individual humans, and codify what those rights are. Right now because we do not make that distinction we are forced to apply the same rights of individual humans to corporations.

If a corporation is considered an individual, then the corporation can not donate more than what an individual can. (from or on behalf of)

I could live with that, if individual donations weren't unlimited, via SuperPac.

[clubgop]

If a corporation is considered an individual, then the corporation can not donate more than what an individual can. (from or on behalf of)

I could live with that, if individual donations weren't unlimited, via SuperPac.

SuperPacs are another story, but an individual/corp/company would only be able to donate the maximum amount that an individual can donate. That would nip in the bud really quick the mega donors.

Blatantly unconstitutional.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

Ridiculous. So when the NSA wanted all those phone records, phone companies just had to comply afterall they have no 4th amendment rights. I am sure you are cool with that. I am sure if Congress passed a law severely restricting news corps that would be ok with you.

I am completely fine with that. The 4th amendment applies to those individuals who had their phone records searched. Said records should be protected by the 4th. Not the corporation.