Corporations Will Choose Leaders Now

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't voluntarily give a dime.

[Oh Shoot]

I didn't voluntarily give a dime.

I understand you have no choice in being in the union.

What do you mean about the portion of your dues "going toward this problem"?

Are you saying that a % of your dues went to Obama from the union?

Or went to an Obama only PAC?

If so I'd say that would be real interesting to the Dept. of Justice.

- OS

[tntnixon]

The SCOTUS opinion actually still limits the amount of money that unions and corporations can directly contribute to campaigns. What it does do, is allows them to directly campaign for a candidate. And, yes, the ruling equally applies to unions and corporations. It does not pick favorites.

While the difference between these two things is subtle, it is indeed different and pretty much moots the direct contribution discussion.

But if nobody noticed, George Soros pretty much picked our POTUS, last time around. I do have far more faith in our Fortune 500 than I do him.

He was allowed to do anything and everything, while Corporate America's hands were tied. Who thinks that's fair?

[tntnixon]

I understand you have no choice in being in the union.

What do you mean about the portion of your dues "going toward this problem"?

Are you saying that a % of your dues went to Obama from the union?

Or went to an Obama only PAC?

If so I'd say that would be real interesting to the Dept. of Justice.

- OS

Here's what they're doing, OS.

National Right to Work: Are You Funding Your Union's Federal PAC (Political Action Committee) Unknowingly or Against Your Will? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

[Oh Shoot]

The SCOTUS opinion actually still limits the amount of money that unions and corporations can directly contribute to campaigns.

That limit is 0.

(edit: talking federal elections here all along; I think some states do allow union and corporate direct donations on state or local levels).

What it does do, is allows them to directly campaign for a candidate. And, yes, the ruling equally applies to unions and corporations. It does not pick favorites.

Yep, that's what whole topic is about.

While the difference between these two things is subtle, it is indeed different and pretty much moots the direct contribution discussion.

Yeah, sorry about the tangent.

But if nobody noticed, George Soros pretty much picked our POTUS, last time around. I do have far more faith in our Fortune 500 than I do him.

He was allowed to do anything and everything, while Corporate America's hands were tied. Who thinks that's fair?

I honestly don't know enough about the "George Soros New World Order Movement" I see now and then to comment. Or what his motives would be for it?

- OS

Edited January 23, 2010 by OhShoot
menti

[Oh Shoot]

Here's what they're doing, OS.

National Right to Work: Are You Funding Your Union's Federal PAC (Political Action Committee) Unknowingly or Against Your Will? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Well, I can only quote the site above, since you seem to intimate that you're being defrauded by your union:

"If you believe that money is being deducted from your paycheck and funneled to a union's federal PAC without your written authorization, contact the Foundation. If in the past you signed an authorization for deductions from your paycheck for a PAC and you wish to end that authorization, write to your employer and union telling them you want these PAC contributions to stop. You may download a sample letter (PDF reader required) to stop your payroll-deduction PAC contributions."

- OS

[Raoul]

The unions are the least of your worries.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't choose that wording very well, either, oh shoot.

But, like tntnixon said, it's probably moot, and George

Soros is the bag man behind all the commies trying

to destroy our country. I'm not happy about where my

union dues go because it mixes so well with Soros'

money and influence. I just don't see that Supreme

Court decision making much difference except good.

[Oh Shoot]

,,,. I'm not happy about where my

union dues go because it mixes so well with Soros'

money and influence.

Well, if you won't explain that, I guess we'll just leave it as a mystery.

..I just don't see that Supreme

Court decision making much difference except good.

Well, if you agree that the deepest pockets will likely buy the best Prez, good it will be. As law now becomes, at least you'll know who's paying for him.

The unions will represent chump change in comparison to the corporations.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Leave what as a mystery? I'll look this thread over better

when I get home and see if I can clarify better for you.

[Oh Shoot]

Leave what as a mystery? I'll look this thread over better

when I get home and see if I can clarify better for you.

You've hinted twice that parts of your union deductions that you have no say over go to federal political causes.

You're not required to explain, of course, and it's even become a little off topic, but since you've brought it up ... ?

- OS

Edited January 23, 2010 by OhShoot

[Smith]

Come on this is good. If this was the end of politics then Standard Oil (Rockerfeller) and Andrew Carnegie's families would be Kings by now. There was a time when corporate America ran the country it is not that way anymore. While I have lost much faith in the American people, they eventually wake up when pushed far enough. Besides this is not new or ingenious. The lib corps have been funneling money through back channels anyway, PACs ect. McCain/Feingold was mostly a way to limit the NRA anyway. Why not bring it out where we can actually see what's happening instead of letting them do it behind closed doors and then speculating.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Leave what as a mystery? I'll look this thread over better

when I get home and see if I can clarify better for you.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

+1 Smith. Well said.

Oh shoot, when I sed the word "problem" in that sentence

about union dues, I was referring to the problem of PAC's in

general. No hidden meaning there. Also, I happen to like

my job but not a lot of the fluff that goes along with the

union. I did not want to go all out on the good and bad

about unions. It sprang out of discussion about McCain-

Feingold. I would rather find solutions, however, instead

of compounding problems and I think the problem lies

in one primary area: progressivism, liberalism. That is in

both parties and needs to be dealt with, not this court

decision. I'm looking for solutions. If I mention a

possible solution and don't hear anything but negativity

toward that's worrisome. People do rise up to the occasion

when they feel forced into tyranny. That is what I

think the Tea Party folks are doing. They have had

enough. If this kind of movement can exact change in one

party, isn't that a start?

[Semiauto]

I believe this ruling also allows individuals to place advertising unfettered. No one is talking about the personal liberty angle here. McCain-Feingold was a slap in the face to individual liberty.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I still say that politicians should wear NASCAR uniforms so that we know who/what we are voting for by the advertisements on their clothes...now more than ever.

[NuTcAsE]

I still say that politicians should wear NASCAR uniforms so that we know who/what we are voting for by the advertisements on their clothes...now more than ever.

[E4 No More]

News Flash: Many in power in this country have been operating under the premise that the preamble to The Constitution of The United States says, "We the corporations of The United States of America" for many decades now. Why would this ruling surprise anyone? Kind of ironic how some would fuss about the government's interference with business, (healthcare, banks, regulations), and then fuss about this.

Edited January 23, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[sigmtnman]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a business run by natural persons, like sole proprieterships and partnerships having say in governmnet. Folks seem to be confusing the current corporate landscape with capitalism and doing business.

Corporate personhood is the problem. The moochers and looters have taken over the corps and the government. They are able to influence the government, directing monies and favors toward them.

As far as First Amendment rights for corporations go... We do not have "Constitutional rights". People (natural persons) " are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." How can a legal person created by the government have god given rights? The constitution works much like a trust in that it sets up and restricts the government from imposing on our god given rights. When is the last time a corporation did time for a crime? More than likely it filed bankruptcy to shrug all civil liabilities or just keeps fighting lawsuits in court till they die on the vine.

Corporations must work to make money for the shareholders, not fulfill it's obligations as good citizens. When they do illegal things, the liability is often ambiguos and always seems to fall on a "lone" worker, when it is obvious that more people had to have had knowledge.

Go on and pull out your tinfoil hat and make the boogie men go away.

Edited January 23, 2010 by sigmtnman

[USMCJG]

How about this idea- We create a federal election account by adding a tax of $5 per taxpayer for a political campaign fund. US citizens would be allowed to donate to this fund if they wish, but have no say in who receives the funds. This money will be distributed equally three ways: one part to Democrats, one part to Republicans, and one part to all third parties that demonstrate they can get a certain percentage(maybe 10%) of the vote in any single election for a national office. If a third party manages to hold 10% of national offices(House, Senate, President) then they would get an equal share of the fund and the pot would be split four ways. There would be a limit set on how much could be spent on the campaign of any single individual. Any money that is not spent for a campaign would have to be returned to the campaign fund.

Individuals and corporations would not be allowed to contribute to any candidate directly, but they would be allowed to advertise for the candidate of their choice. But for every dollar that an individual or corporation spent on advertising for a candidate, they would have to pay one dollar to the political campaign fund. Also, corporations would have to have the written consent of every US citizen who had any ownership interest in the company. Television networks, radio stations, newspapers, etc. cannot donate advertising time/space to individuals, corporations, or political parties, they must charge the normal advertising rates.

Any taxpaying individual can volunteer to work on any campaign, but cannot contribute financially. An person who does not pay taxes(some exemptions could apply), or is not an immediate relative of someone who does(spouse, son/daughter who is still a dependent) cannot donate their time since they are not contributing to the campaign fund.

The cap for the national political campaign fund would be $500 million. This amount could be adjusted upward with inflation or with a third party gaining an equal split in the "pot", and the $5 tax would be repealed, if it was demonstrated that donations and advertisement dollar matching could sustain the fund. Any money over that amount would go to paying the national debt and could be not be used for any other purpose.

What do you all think? I am sure there are a million holes in this thing. It's just a sort of stream of consciousness idea I just had.

[sigmtnman]

I tell you how you do it.

Handle it like jury selection, provide dorms and food while congress members are in Washington and reduce the number of days those representatives must be there.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That sounds like a good idea, and take Nancy's and her friends jets away from them.

[sigmtnman]

Take away her seat and give it to a common free man.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

The ONLY thing that influences me in an election, is the candidate. No amount of money spent will make me vote for someone/something I dont like.

I wholeheartliy agree with the SCOTUS ruling. Our Constitution allows for much we dont like, but is needed to maintain the freedoms we enjoy for all. This bill was in fact, a MUCH needed win for the Democrat party, and liberals in general. It proved to me the McCain is not,and never has or will be, a conservative. One of the first groups to oppose and sue over this was the NRA. The SCOTUS ruling is a definate win for freedom of speech, and removes an un-constitution barrier that favored libs and left wingers. Just watch ole Chucky Boy Schumer nearly cry as he bitches about the ruling. Hell, if nothing else.....it was worth it just for that.

[sigmtnman]

The ONLY thing that influences me in an election, is the candidate.

You are an intelligent man. Most people are heavily influenced by the propaganda that comes from whatever corporate owned news source they choose to listen to.

Why should a non natural person (corporation) have god given rights? Are we to think the founders wanted that?

I am not talking about a responsible business owner or partnership. Corporations are not persons and don't have god given rights. The recognition of them by the government oversteps the bounds of the constitution.