41–50 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Federal government regulates money. Given money == speech, you're okay with the government regulating speech?
The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room.
Popular saying, but very bad example. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and h…
The US Federal government regulates money. Given money == speech, you're okay with the government regulating speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and h…
Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and h…
Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how you would enforce that, It boils down to free speech really.
And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but then (per sibling subthread) we're right back to Citizen's United: "So I can spend all the time I want promoting a candidate, but if I use that time to generate money to pay others to promote the candidate, that's prohibited?" Prohibiting "contributions" to candidates, has to infringe on a kind of free speech.
I disagree with the Citizen's United comparison, since donating time towards a campaign can't be pocketed the same way money is. You can't commoditize already-spent labor in that way. Regardless, I think the real solution would be campaign laws similar to the UK's. It's my understanding that each candidate is given the same hard cap on campaign spending, which encompasses everything from advertising to the cost of sl…
And how do you deal with third parties who advocate for issues? If Candidate A and Candidate B have a different position on something, it's pretty clear who you're helping if you blanket the airwaves supporting Candidate A's side of the issue even if you're not explicitly addressing either candidate. Does that come out of his budget? Do we restrict unaffiliated groups?
Those sorts of restrictions have been tried in the US, and each time they get circumvented by (officially) unaffiliated groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
Corporations aren't people. They're groups of people. Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
Before we start admiring things, let's see what happens on Super Tuesday (12 days away). Nothing of what Sanders is doing is going to survive past a left primary. Absolutely nothing he is promising can be done without Congress. ------------ reply to below since I can only answer two replies on HN anymore before being blocked: Wrong comparison. That's like wanting to be manager when you have only worked at a company f…
Two of his main agenda points are no-brainers:
- Medicare for all
- Tuition Free College
And he is right with his assessment that the rising inequality is not a good thing for our future.
Two Youtube videos:
https://youtu.be/hv11kl6i-qU?t=3920 Talk with Bernie Sanders in 2014 where he goes on what it takes to change this system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI Ted Talk from a Nick Hanauer on inequality
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations aren't people. They're groups of people. Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
You shouldn't lose your right to anything when you're in a group, but you shouldn't have more rights solely because you're in a group. The group should have rights, You should have rights, and everyone else should have rights. There's a distinction there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
Corporations aren't people. They're groups of people. Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
No one has suggested that you should. People have suggested that the corporation acting as such, including through its paid agents should not have the same rights as natural persons, acting alone or collectively, but that various classes of corporations should have constraints appropriate to their class.
One of the many reasons offered for this is that corporations are creations of government granted the use of the special form and legal fiction of personhood adn subsidized with various benefits with the purpose of achieving public benefit.
> In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
Unions and advocacy groups quite often are corporations. "Unions" and "advocacy groups" are descriptions of functions, "corporation" is a description of legal structure.