Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2010, 08:25 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,334
Corporate democracy

Well, now corporations can give all they want. It's a blow to the average voter, and certainly a blow to the man on the street democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-21-2010, 09:34 PM
Jim B.'s Avatar
Who's flying this thing ?
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N. California./ N. Nevada
Posts: 3,611
LOL,

I remember when the International Telephone & Telegraph Company got caught with its involvement overthrowing Salvador Allende, the legitimately elected, but Socialist, President of Chile.

Dita Beard was the lobbyist, as I recall.

They bought out the Hostess company, you know the one, made Twinkies and Sno-Balls?

All of this was around 1973, near the end of Nixon's reign.

They called their acquisition the ITT-Hostess baking company or something similar.


But my friends were asking people, "Who wants to eat cupcakes baked by a telephone company?
__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-21-2010, 09:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 44
From what I read, direct contributions to candidates by corporations and unions will continue to be prohibited. Lobbyists will still have to hand-carry briefcases filled with the direct contributions.
__________________

1983 300D
1983 300CD
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-22-2010, 10:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rockville MD
Posts: 833
Sounds like more backroom sweetheart deals for big PAC contributors. If you believe that money corrupts politics, then what will more money do? Is this really the will of the people?
__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2010, 10:52 AM
dynalow's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,596
After listening to Keith Olberman last night, I'm surprised the world hasn't ended yet! He was apoplectic. I'm surprised he didn't have a stroke.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-22-2010, 10:56 AM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,306
Yep it sucks. Hopefully one day the American people will wake up and change things.
__________________
2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 LTZ
2007 Tiara 3200

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2010, 10:57 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 18,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymr View Post
Is this really the will of the people?
If a corporation is a person, then it is the will of the wealthiest and most powerful 'people' in the country.

Apart from the film, 'The Corporation' does anyone know of a good critical history of the modern corporation? I know they started with the Dutch East India company and the British West India(?) company but I'd like to know more about their legal and cultural history.
I'm partly interested in this history because the increase in the power of the modern corporation on the face of it seems to be inversely related to the decrease in power of the old 'corporation' that used to be allied with the State, the Church.
The price of separating Church and State seems to have been uniting for profit corporations and the State.
Seems like we need a new movement to separate State and Corporation?

edit:
Just found a book called 'The Company'
__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Last edited by kerry; 01-22-2010 at 11:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:01 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymr View Post
Sounds like more backroom sweetheart deals for big PAC contributors. If you believe that money corrupts politics, then what will more money do? Is this really the will of the people?
From what I understand, the SCOTUS is there to interpret the laws. If I am correct, maybe the laws itself needs to be changed.

However, isn't there a simpler way? Limit the power of the govt and thus limit the power of special interest groups. Of course, that means we have to give up the cradle to grave approach but NILIF.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:05 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_campaign_finance_glance

The basics of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on campaign finance:
OVERTURNED
_A 63-year-old law, and two of its own decisions, that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries on ads that advocate electing or defeating candidates for president or Congress but are produced independently and not coordinated with the candidate's campaign.
_The prohibition in the McCain-Feingold Act that since 2002 had barred issue-oriented ads paid for by corporations or unions 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
LEFT IN PLACE
_The century-old ban on donations by corporations from their treasuries directly to candidates.
_The ability of corporations, unions or individuals to set up political action committees that can contribute directly to candidates but can only accept voluntary contributions from employees, members and others and cannot use money directly from corporate or union treasuries.
_The McCain-Feingold provision that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.


Oh dear! This means that people need to be more cautions of who they vote for. What a tragedy. Too bad we can't get someone to spoon-feed them or maybe even pull the lever for them.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:12 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 18,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
Limit the power of the govt and thus limit the power of special interest groups.
Can you elaborate on how you think limiting the power of government will limit the power of corporations? Seems extremely unlikely to me. Multinational corporations are the only institution I can think of that are in a position to have equal or greater power than nation States.
__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:25 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry View Post
Can you elaborate on how you think limiting the power of government will limit the power of corporations? Seems extremely unlikely to me. Multinational corporations are the only institution I can think of that are in a position to have equal or greater power than nation States.
Lets say there are 5 things the govt is involved in right now. What does this mean? Well, I'd look real hard and see if these 5 things involve me. If not, Do I give a rip about what you are? Probably not. You are running for election? Good for you. Oh, you want money? WIIFM? You can't do squat. I might give you $100 and tell you go run along

Lets take healthcare. Say I am a huge medical insurance company. If the govt gets involved in that, there are a lot of reasons why I would want to "help" this man get elected seeing as how it can have an effect on my business. So, I will wine, dine and bribe him to get him to see things my way.

Look at the first example. Same congressperson but no healthcare. I have way less interest. OTOH, take the 2nd example. Now he has my undivided attention.

Lets add another 10 things to the govt. Now they have 16. Of course, a lot of attention is spent on them since I want them to see things my way. With every item you add to the govt's "Honey Do" list, you give them more power and thus increase the magnetic force between them and the lobbyist. Less things they handle, less importance. I might try to elect a Governor who is friendly to my interests. OTOH, I don't care if you are running for Dog Catcher, do I? Do I care if you like me or are friendly to my views?
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:27 AM
dynalow's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
Well, now corporations can give all they want. It's a blow to the average voter, and certainly a blow to the man on the street democracy.
I'm not so sure.

This WSJ editorial notes that the government thought it was legal for them to prohibit corporations from publishing books on campaign positions if this report is correct. And if the editorial is correct, corporations and unions were only prohibited from making these contributions in the last 30 or 60 days of a campaign, meaning they could make these direct donations anytime up to then.

I don't really have a dog in this fight though and I admit I'm not well versed on campaign finance laws. If stockhoders don't want their corporations to make donations, influence the board of directors to ban it. Ditto excessive executive compensation. Stockholder and director effective control on operting executives is universally weak imo.


Freedom has had its best week in many years.

On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.

In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which considered whether the government could ban a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: the Movie" that was set to run on cable channels during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the film became a target of campaign-finance limits.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, aka McCain-Feingold, banned corporations and unions from "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Yesterday, the Justices rejected that limit on corporate spending as unconstitutional. Corporations are entitled to the same right that individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.

Justice Kennedy emphasized that laws designed to control money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that this violates core First Amendment principles. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," he wrote. The ban on corporate expenditures had a "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech, he added.

In last year's oral argument for Citizen's United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to "prohibit the publication" of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.

That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."
For instruction and sheer entertainment, we also recommend Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion that demolishes Justice John Paul Stevens's argument in dissent that corporations lack free speech rights because the Founding Fathers disliked them. "If so, how came there to be so many of them?" Mr. Scalia writes, in one of his gentler lines.

The landmark decision—which overturned two Supreme Court precedents—has already sent the censoring political class into orbit. President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies" and other "special interests." Mr. Obama didn't mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one's special interest.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for "for-profit corporations." Liberalism's bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.

Perhaps one day the Court will go even further and overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that was its original sin in tolerating limits on campaign spending. The Court did yesterday uphold disclosure rules, so a sensible step now would be for Congress to remove all campaign-finance limits subject only to immediate disclosure on the Internet. Citizens United is in any event a bracing declaration that Congress's long and misbegotten campaign-finance crusade has reached a Constitutional dead end.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:44 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Rockville MD
Posts: 833
Free speech is your special interest when you have a powerful PA system at you disposal. Then you can drown out common sense in favor of whatever message makes you more money, hence more influence. It looks like freedom of speech is something that will be capitalized on by the big boys, while the rest of us gawk at the show like little children.
__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2010, 11:53 AM
waterboarding w/medmech
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coming to your hometown
Posts: 7,987
corporations have been codified as persons in the code of federal regulations for years. For instance any "person" may apply for a type certificate for an aircraft design. That dosn't mean just Joe Citizen, it also means Joe Corporation. McCain Fiengold only limited corporate donations in a certain period prior to the election, didn't it? Not sure how thsi will make corporate donations worse or better.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-22-2010, 12:00 PM
dynalow's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,596
One thing the corporate "person" can't do is vote. Attempt to influence, yes. Vote, no.

I can't think of a single ad that has led me to any candidate I have voted for in my lifetime. Also, since negative ads are claimed to be the most effective, who will say that they were influenced by negative ads away from someone they were thinking about, only to be turned off by negative ads? I can't say that. Anyone?

Deliberate internally. Turn out the noise and static of commercials and other BS and propaganda that's coming from the outside. My common sense comes from within, not from the blatherings of others.

Last edited by dynalow; 01-22-2010 at 01:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page