Isn't the complaint that the business is corrupt and buying the government? Is it unfair to have a body have power over another but not let those being ruled to interact with it?
OK, if corporations are indeed buying the government, then they are most certainly interacting with said government. And they can certainly vote, and write to their representatives, and all the other myriad things that absolutely everyone else can do.
In fact, the only difference is that corporations can throw around way more money than you and I can. And that becomes the problem - when money is more powerful than speech, and the majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, then you've got a situation where the majority have a voice with no power.
THAT is the complaint.
As for the government being "bought," that is and isn't the case. You can buy congressman and senators, sure. But buying one isn't very helpful. And you can lobby like crazy, sure. But that's still not a guarantee that the government will go the way you want. Personally, I don't buy into the concept of a completely "bought" Congress. Sure, there are instances where that's the case, and yes it causes problems, but there are people trying to do the "right" thing in many different levels of government.
Your idea to de-regulate is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. Fix the things that make some regulations suck. Don't get rid of them all.
In theory wouldn't making all lobbyist open and documenting all of it have the same result?
Lobbyists are only a part of the government. All that's telling you is who's trying to get what from whom. That doesn't tell you, say, whether or not someone is violating OSHA regulations at their factory.
Isn't the complaint that the business is corrupt and buying the government? Is this not a conflict of interest to have a body have power over another but not let the ones being ruled to interact with it?
Isn't this nearly the exact same argument being levied against public sector unions?
Also, can the employees and owners of said businesses not vote? There is nothing preventing them from interacting with the government, it's just not fair that they get an unequal representation due to financial well being.
How do you judge this? Should a 1,000 member union/group get the same exact representation as one with 10,000 members? Should there be a per person financial limit on lobbying?
I argue that they are, much in the same way that the voting public is a part of the government. Lobbyists technically exist to advocate for particular issues to the government. Petition the government for redress of grievances and so forth.
They are not elected or appointed officials, but their role is governmental just the same.
In theory wouldn't making all lobbyist open and documenting all of it have the same result?
Well all Lobbying is supposed to be open and documented. Hense why there are strict reporting rules for gifts and such and you have to register as a lobbyist.
In fact, the only difference is that corporations can throw around way more money than you and I can. And that becomes the problem - when money is more powerful than speech, and the majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, then you've got a situation where the majority have a voice with no power.
THAT is the complaint.
Is this not a result of representatives not properly representing their constituents? Is the fault really in the corporations or in the people who are taking the money from corporations? Why fault the corporations for doing everything they can to get ahead?
Should there be a per person financial limit on lobbying?
Yes. I say limit campaign contributions to $1 per person (corporations are not people). The Constitution guarantees the right to petition government, not to buy officials with campaign pledges.
Why fault the corporations for doing everything they can to get ahead?
Because, for example, when the Koch Brothers buy Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, the result is the persecution of thousands of teachers and the unlawful elimination of their collective bargaining rights. Greed is good and corporations are good only when they're tempered by an opposing force that will limit the extent of the damage they can cause. The same is true of government, which is why we have the separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, and multiple layers of governance. Life is all about checks and balances.
Should there be a per person financial limit on lobbying?
Yes. I say limit campaign contributions to $1 per person (corporations are not people). The Constitution guarantees the right to petition government, not to buy officials with campaign pledges.
Why fault the corporations for doing everything they can to get ahead?
Because, for example, when the Koch Brothers buy Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, the result is the persecution of thousands of teachers and the unlawful elimination of their collective bargaining rights. Greed is good and corporations are good only when they're tempered by an opposing force that will limit the extent of the damage they can cause. The same is true of government, which is why we have the separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, and multiple layers of governance. Life is all about checks and balances.
I don't blame Koch Brothers for that. I blame Scott Walker and so should everyone else
If you limit contributions to $1 per person you have just kneecapped every special interest in the country. I know my union spends more than $1 per person in lobbying efforts and that's not including 'in kind' contributions like manning phone banks.
"Lobbyist" is a paid federal position. Special interest groups can apply to have a person act as their lobbyist. The lobbyist is paid a salary by the federal government, and as such has to abide by all the rules for accepting gifts and so on. Each group can have one lobbyist at a time.
I haven't really thought this through much, but the idea is that you can remove the influence of money by restricting the amount of money actually being thrown at lobbying.
Yes, it's a restriction on "petitioning for redress of grievances," but we have other time/place/manner restrictions on other freedoms.
So what happens when every family member of a senator becomes a paid lobbyist? After all the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front will both need lobbyists. Except for the Front of the Judean People... no one likes them.
So what happens when every family member of a senator becomes a paid lobbyist? After all the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front will both need lobbyists. Except for the Front of the Judean People... no one likes them.
What already happens is ex-senators become lobbyists, it's called the revolving door.
the $1 dollar per person limit would be devastating compared to the money spent in modern campaigns, Obama is planning to raise a billion dollars for the election. That doesn't make me outright opposed to it. Harsh limits without any other reform could just make politicians even more desperate and spend even more of their time on the fundraising side. Finding a way to decouple money advantages to political victory would be the best way. It's hard to see how that happens though.
Why fault the corporations for doing everything they can to get ahead?
I don't blame Koch Brothers for that. I blame Scott Walker and so should everyone else
So essentially don't hate the player, hate the game? I can buy that, if that means we make sure the game changes. If everyone agreed that corporations are essentially sociopathic entities then we could probably start agreeing on proper restrictions for them. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who want to canonize corporations, not pen them in.
If everyone agreed that corporations are essentially sociopathic entities then we could probably start agreeing on proper restrictions for them
This is what really pisses me off. This kind of behavior isn't even in their best interest, being a shitty person only leads to short term gains. It's corporations run by short sighted idiots, or people trying to bum rush some money and jump ship that give this image of horrible monsters. Corporations aren't bad, bad people running corporations are. Of course the flaw is anyone smart enough to make a difference in congress is smart enough to not want to live the kind of existence that comes with being in congress.
being a shitty person only leads to short term gains.
See, that's the problem. They care only about short term profits and not the fact that their destructive behaviors will make shit get real year down the road.
Corporations aren't bad, bad people running corporations are.
A corporation is like a big machine. It is not sentient, it will just move in the direction it is pointed. Corporations are amoral, it is people who make evil decisions.
If you limit contributions to $1 per person you have just kneecapped every special interest in the country. I know my union spends more than $1 per person in lobbying efforts and that's not including 'in kind' contributions like manning phone banks.
Is there any regulation on what you can sell a campaign? For example, if I own NBC, can I sell time-slots cheaper to one guy than another? Is that illegal and well regulated? Are there loopholes like that - which would allow essentially under-the-table donation?
Is there any regulation on what you can sell a campaign? For example, if I own NBC, can I sell time-slots cheaper to one guy than another? Is that illegal and well regulated? Are there loopholes like that - which would allow essentially under-the-table donation?
U.S. media companies are legally obligated to offer equal advertising at equal rates to candidates, but they are not obligated to give equal editorial consideration or show appearances.
Is there any regulation on what you can sell a campaign? For example, if I own NBC, can I sell time-slots cheaper to one guy than another? Is that illegal and well regulated? Are there loopholes like that - which would allow essentially under-the-table donation?
U.S. media companies are legally obligated to offer equal advertising at equal rates to candidates, but they are not obligated to give equal editorial consideration or show appearances.
Why is that fair? If I own NBC and I don't like a candidate, why should I have to give them any kind of consideration? A quality news outlet would, but if I wanted to be terrible that should be my choice as the person who owns the station. Relevant note to this I add fuck the FCC and the MPAA.
This is what really pisses me off. This kind of behavior isn't even in their best interest, being a shitty person only leads to short term gains. It's corporations run by short sighted idiots, or people trying to bum rush some money and jump ship that give this image of horrible monsters. Corporations aren't bad, bad people running corporations are. Of course the flaw is anyone smart enough to make a difference in congress is smart enough to not want to live the kind of existence that comes with being in congress.
You have a bit of a chicken and egg problem here then. I agree that a large part of the problem is bad people making short term decisions that benefit them but might burn their own corporation to the ground. But can you expect to purge those people and install enlightened executives in their place, or are you forced to create a structure of checks and balances to those corporation's power? If you look at another large organization structure, government, the checks and balances method has been imperfect but far better than waiting for the enlightened dictator to come along.
This is basically Scott and Rym's panel "The Game Makes the Community." OWS is saying "I don't want to play this game anymore, everyone who plays it is an asshole" The environment around us influences our behavior. If we allow extreme aggregation of wealth coupled with money being a major part of political power, if we allow such a discrepancy between productivity of workers and their compensation etc...sociopaths will inevitably take over. If we want better corporations and behavior, we have to change the game. If you take the video's examples as an analogy: the US is playing Heroes of Newerth, and I'd prefer to be playing Natural Selection. Unfortunately you usually can't make transformations that dramatic all at once. So let's focus on removing denying where you kill your own guys and then we'll work on the next thing after that.
Why is that fair? If I own NBC and I don't like a candidate, why should I have to give them any kind of consideration? A quality news outlet would, but if I wanted to be terrible that should be my choice as the person who owns the station. Relevant note to this I add fuck the FCC and the MPAA.
Are you suggesting Rupert Murdoch should be allowed to say "I don't like Obama so we won't have any pro Obama ads on Fox, Fox News, Fox News Radio, Fox Business, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (New York Post -ed), and his quarter stake in Hulu?"
Brief Googling brings me to this list of News Corp publishing assets:
ALPHA Big League Daily Telegraph donna hay Dow Jones Gold Coast Bulletin Harper Collins Publishers Harper Collins Australia Harper Collins Canada Harper Collins Children's Books Harper Collins India Harper Collins New Zealand Harper Collins US Harper Collins UK Herald Sun Inside Out New York Post News America Marketing News International NT News Post-Courier Smart Source Sunday Herald Sun Sunday Mail Sunday Tasmanian Sunday Territorian Sunday Times The Advertiser The Australian The Courier-Mail The Daily The Mercury The Sunday Mail The Sunday Telegraph The Sun The Sunday Times The Times Times Literary Supplement The Wall Street Journal The Wall Street Journal Digital Network Weekly Times Zondervan
Missing: The Post. Also, "The Times" is not NY, its a UK newspaper.
Comments
In fact, the only difference is that corporations can throw around way more money than you and I can. And that becomes the problem - when money is more powerful than speech, and the majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, then you've got a situation where the majority have a voice with no power.
THAT is the complaint.
As for the government being "bought," that is and isn't the case. You can buy congressman and senators, sure. But buying one isn't very helpful. And you can lobby like crazy, sure. But that's still not a guarantee that the government will go the way you want. Personally, I don't buy into the concept of a completely "bought" Congress. Sure, there are instances where that's the case, and yes it causes problems, but there are people trying to do the "right" thing in many different levels of government.
Your idea to de-regulate is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. Fix the things that make some regulations suck. Don't get rid of them all.
They are not elected or appointed officials, but their role is governmental just the same.
You might want to rethink the $1 proposal.
"Lobbyist" is a paid federal position. Special interest groups can apply to have a person act as their lobbyist. The lobbyist is paid a salary by the federal government, and as such has to abide by all the rules for accepting gifts and so on. Each group can have one lobbyist at a time.
I haven't really thought this through much, but the idea is that you can remove the influence of money by restricting the amount of money actually being thrown at lobbying.
Yes, it's a restriction on "petitioning for redress of grievances," but we have other time/place/manner restrictions on other freedoms.
the $1 dollar per person limit would be devastating compared to the money spent in modern campaigns, Obama is planning to raise a billion dollars for the election. That doesn't make me outright opposed to it. Harsh limits without any other reform could just make politicians even more desperate and spend even more of their time on the fundraising side. Finding a way to decouple money advantages to political victory would be the best way. It's hard to see how that happens though. So essentially don't hate the player, hate the game? I can buy that, if that means we make sure the game changes. If everyone agreed that corporations are essentially sociopathic entities then we could probably start agreeing on proper restrictions for them. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who want to canonize corporations, not pen them in.
This is basically Scott and Rym's panel "The Game Makes the Community." OWS is saying "I don't want to play this game anymore, everyone who plays it is an asshole"
The environment around us influences our behavior. If we allow extreme aggregation of wealth coupled with money being a major part of political power, if we allow such a discrepancy between productivity of workers and their compensation etc...sociopaths will inevitably take over. If we want better corporations and behavior, we have to change the game.
If you take the video's examples as an analogy: the US is playing Heroes of Newerth, and I'd prefer to be playing Natural Selection. Unfortunately you usually can't make transformations that dramatic all at once. So let's focus on removing denying where you kill your own guys and then we'll work on the next thing after that.
The Washington Post in this analogy would forbid any ads criticizing standardized testing