Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bernie’s Army of Coders

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#31

Post by yequalsx »

bmelton wrote: post #19
weatherlight wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.

I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that co…

Children have to abide by the law but don't have input into its making. Thus I think your rationale on 2 is not sufficient. I'm against corporations from making campaign contributions because the money GE, for instance, has far outweighs what millions of actual people have and the decision to spend GE's money is in the hands of very few people. Those people who do have the power to spend GE's money on campaigns are themselves very wealthy people and already have a disproportionate amounts of influence on campaigns.

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#32

Post by specialist »

bmelton wrote: post #9
weatherlight wrote: post #5

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…

The US Federal government regulates money.

Given money == speech, you're okay with the government regulating speech?

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#33

Post by specialist »

bmelton wrote: post #19
weatherlight wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.

I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that co…

personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers

What are you suggesting here? Increased direct democracy? Less lobbying, presumably thru regulation, thereby curtailing speech?

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#34

Post by rapicastillo »

SilasX wrote: post #2

Interesting! This part got me thinking though: >And last summer a map compiling all the Sanders campaign happenings across the country, built by volunteer Rapi Castillo, a Philippine immigrant living in Queens who isn’t an American citizen and can’t vote this November, became the official “eventslink on Sanders’ website. So a foreigner is effectively giving an in-kind campaign contribution to a candidate? How come pe…

Hi! I'm the immigrant in the story. For what it's worth I'm permanent resident, not allowed to vote. Furthermore, it's seen as an in-kind contribution, just like when you help building a stage for the campaign, only in online-terms. It's explained more in http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders...

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#35

Post by specialist »

weatherlight wrote: post #14
bmelton wrote: post #9

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.

I'll believe corporations are people (natural persons) when Texas executes one.

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#36

Post by dragonwriter »

weatherlight wrote: post #14
bmelton wrote: post #9

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.

> Corporations shouldn't be people though.

Juridical personhood is the defining characteristic of a corporation.

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#37

Post by toomuchtodo »

specialist wrote: post #32
bmelton wrote: post #9

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?

The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room.

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#38

Post by [deleted] »

specialist wrote: post #32
bmelton wrote: post #9

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?

[deleted]

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#39

Post by MCRed »

specialist wrote: post #32
bmelton wrote: post #9

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?

First off, depends on how you use the word "regulate".

But the government has done a poor job of regulating money, and well, to be honest, money is really the result of our efforts / labors, and thus yeah, the government should not be regulating it, generally.

Re: Bernie’s Army of Coders

#40

Post by MCRed »

weatherlight wrote: post #14
bmelton wrote: post #9

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.

This ruling didn't make corporations people, it gave groups of people the right to exercise the free speech rights they already had, even when they choose to pool their money to buy the media on which they wish to express themselves.
Post reply on HN