The separation of Corp. and State

allenb they did away with the Party Lever a number of years ago... When was the last time you where in a voting booth? Sorry but I aahve voted in EVERY election since I was 18 years old . (A number of years now 20 to be specific) I even turned in absentee ballots when I was in college outta state. So maybe it is different in other states (I don't think so becuase I think it was federal mandate, but I could be worng) but I havnt seen a party lever .... NOt that your point isnt exactly on target. People do need to look at the candidate rather then the party to make decisions. But the fact is many people do not know what they believe in a listen to the media to make decisions. As far as I am concerned I want as little goverment anywhere. I believe we as people need to rise up and govern. As a populace we need to boycoot those companys that make unethical decisions and hurt humanity and/or employees. But we dont we still buy their product and they make money even when they have bad business ethics. Companys should understand that if they are going to act in ways that is not in the good of the people the people arent going to suppose their company, but there is enough people in this global economy to support even those that have the shadiest business practices...

The party lever lives on in my state, unfortunately.

Let me try to wade in here and do two things, first is my opinion and second is an attempt at analysis of the consequences.

I believe that it is not just businesses but also Political Action Committees (PACs) that are a major part of a serious problem. If you want to get businesses out of the political donation game you have to get rid of PACs too. Otherwise bussinesses will be able to donate to the PACs and will still maintain their power.

One of the difficulties is the definition of Business. If you make it illegal for Businesses to donate to politicians then you also remove a very important segment of our population, the small businessman. His income is from the business and he has as much right to donate as anyone else earning a living. Any loophole you put in for him can be used by big business to circumvent the rules. Say we allow people to donate only from income they have accounted for on tax documents. Many small businessmen rely on their tax breaks to keep their business viable. You are eliminating much of their income. Big Businesses on the other hand would encourage their employees to donate to a campaign and could legally do so through incentives. This is easier to accomplish with PACs than with direct donation to a politician or party. If you don't think this happens then I am glad for you. Where I work our CEO sent out a memo of recommended donations to the Small Bank PAC. Nothing was required just a recommendation but everyone knew the truth and what was expected. My donation was in that same day.

So if you remove businesses but not PACs businesses will funnel their money through PACs. If you remove businesses and PACs then politicians are beholding to a general population rather than a few. Here again we have a problem. The reason for PACs is so that many small donators can have their voice heard by donating through an intermediary. If I donate $100 and want something that someone who donates 1 million does not, who is our "noble" politician likely to listen to? However if 100,000 of us donate $100 to a PAC who makes known our wishes we have more clout.

So with PACs businesses and the wealthy tend to have more access to our politicians. Without PACs wealthy people who normally run big businesses have more access to our politicians.

One word about collecting all the money and sharing it equally with all parties. As a Libertarian my first reaction is good idea. As a pragmatist my second is, oh my God. It takes about 100,000 people to start an Official National Party, less for State parties. If you look at the billions donated how many new parties do you think would spring up to get the money. I know I would start one, share part of what was received with those who signed my petition and run a tight fisted campaign and retire with the left overs.

My answer: limit government to what they are supposed to do. I agree with the attitude of the constitutional party. Since when has the Federal gov. been given the far reaching powers it currently has. The most important political arena to me should be my local one. Local government should have the most effect on daily life, then state, and lastly the Feds. More of my tax money should stay local, then the state and lastly the Feds. Limit the government and you will limit the abuse. Then businesses can invest in the Federal parties all they want. If the Feds are responsible for the Military, International and Interstate Trade, and not much else then it is business that should fight for their attention. States should be limited to state wide issues and the local government would then be responsible for matters locally. Then if I didn't like my politicians I could always move a few miles down the road. Simplistic, yes, but this is the only system I see really able to reverse the trend of power in this nation.

You can not take money out of politics and here is why.
Let's say the people get really fed up with all the
corruption, and decide to have total comprehensive
campaign finance reform. First you outlaw corporate
contributions of both hard money (to individual candidates)
and soft money (general party contributions).

These guys aren't stupid, so they'll contribute to PACs instead,
so you'll have to outlaw PACs. As mentioned before, companies
will lean on employees to contribute, special interest groups
will put out propaganda asking people to contribute etc.

So you will also have to outlaw individual contributions too.
Rich guys will try to pay for their own campaigns, so you'll have to
outlaw that too.

Major metropolitan newspapers could give free publicity to their
favorite candidates and slant the news against those they didn't
like. All the interest groups would funnel their money into the
newspapers, so you'd have to prohibit the newspapers from
supporting candidates...

you've only got one small problem:

Quote:

---

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

---

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
:cool:

You know the idea of a decentralized goverment where the power really rested in hte state and local goverment was a GREAT idea to the founding fathers. It was also a time when it took two month to recieve word of a major happening somewhere else in the colonies. Today we have a global economy. We have instant access to news and to information exchange. We have the internet (we are here arent we) Some corporations have a presence in every state of the nation plus internationally. It is unrealistic to think that we can leave the control of these type of corporation (which in an of themselves represent same goverments and economies) to local or state goverment. THese can move head quarter to a state with a lower minimum wage or with less stringent idea about what is accept level of polution. But some of these local regulations effect what this company does nationally. This is a great idea and one that I totally like but how do we implement this in our global economy and infrasturcture. There seems that today we need to have more centralized control, as much as I hate to admit it.

Paldie, no one said to remove control of interstate or international corporations. Certainly not me. National Government is responsible for International and Intrastate Commerce. That is part of the original powers vested to them. This covers interstate Corporations. The Federal Government is allowed to regulate and tax such commerce. They are also vested with the powers to defend our borders and, with the approval of Congress within a certain time period, wage war. Before anyone jumps on it the interstate Highways system falls under this same charter since it was built to support national defense and boost interstate trade.

The government needs centralized control to deal with other nations: granted by the constitution, they need it to settle disputes between states: granted by the constitution, they need it to maintain a military for defense of its people, property and interests: granted by the constitution. They do not have a charter to control health care, schools, etc. They do not have a constitutional power to tax income (neither do the state nor local governments for that matter). I believe in a strong central government to handle their Constitutional Charter. However, that is far less than what we have now.

Finally as to your argument that a company will go where the Minimum Wage is lower, what do you think happens now. It isn't the minimum wage since that is a Federal standard but it is taxes and right to work. Wages, other than the minimum, are much lower in Arizona since they are a right to work state and are giving huge tax breaks to companies that relocate there. So Phoenix is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. Along side Atlanta and others that offer the same types of incentives (I do not know if Georgia is a right to work state or not). Distributed government will not affect this trend at all. Arizona voted in the right to work so their middle class make less money than many states. I support a business friendly tax system with a union friendly work law. This, IMO, seems to balance out things to allow business to survive at the expense of government rather than at the expense of their workers. However, I must admit I have never been part of a union so I am not sure how effective they are anymore (have only known two people who were and they were very dissatisfied but that is not a good general indicator).

Hope this clarifies more than it muddies.

Everyone rise together and revolt against the united states goverment! WE NEED TO TAKE BACK the GOVERNMENT!!!!

SodaMoca5 I totally agree with you on this. My assumption in my thought process of what the original founding father where thinking at the time of the farming of the constitution. Most of them had the thought that local goverment was the only way to go because at that time it was the only way to go. Information flow did not happen like it does today. and there where any large multination corporation like we have. THese thought process are harder to raltionalize in today society. Although I would like to be able to do this I believe it is unlikely. I do not think they (founding fathers) even thought that goverment would be in the state that is it today. I wonder if many of them would revolt again... Wasn't Thomas Jefferson who state that ever so many year the people should riase up and over though the govt. Please don't get me wrong I am NOT advoating this just makeing discussion.... Sorry for the confusion...

Well, so far I've seen a good debate on the ramifications of the 'proposed' action, but it seems so far we all agree that what we have in its present form isn't working the way our founding fathers intended it to. Just to clarify, when I said candidates should be publicly funded, that covered all aspects...PACs, parties, businesses and individuals.....no funding from any of them, period.

Quote:

---

when I said candidates should be publicly funded, that covered all aspects...PACs, parties, businesses and individuals.....no funding from any of them, period.

---

As I mentioned earlier, what about the media? How do you prevent them
from advocating candidates, and criticizing other candidates. The newspapers could
spend unlimited funds on campaigns, and you couldn't do a thing about it
unless you repealed the first amendment.
:cool: