04 Nov 11
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164400/occupy-ballot-colorado-voters-reject-corporate-power
Voters in Boulder backed an anti–“corporate personhood” referendum by a 3-1 margin, putting the Colorado college town on record in favor of a constitutional amendment that declares that corporate campaign spending is not protected as a free-speech right.
and
Boulder voters endorsed a move to create a municipal power authority to replace Xcel Energy Inc., the biggest electricity provider in Colorado. And on the same day, they voted to increase their taxes by roughly $15 a household per year to cover the cost of what is expected to be a lengthy battle to dump Xcel and replace it with a publicly owned utility.
Xcel won’t go easily. The company spent Xcel spent $950,000 on a campaign opposing the Boulder ballot measures. The company’s campaign overwhelmed that of supporters of the referendum, who spent only about $87,000. But the public power advocates still won.
The anti-corporate, anti-bank spirit of the Occupy movement is spreading across the world. The days of corporate tyranny are numbered. All power to the people!
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by rwingettYou do realize that if you are able to bring down these corporate giants Obama and company will just have the tax payers bail them out again don't you?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164400/occupy-ballot-colorado-voters-reject-corporate-power
[quote]Voters in Boulder backed an anti–“corporate personhood” referendum by a 3-1 margin, putting the Colorado college town on record in favor of a constitutional amendment that declares that corporate campaign spending is not protected as a free-speech right.[/quo ...[text shortened]... spreading across the world. The days of corporate tyranny are numbered. All power to the people!
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy shouldn't corporations get to spread their message? It does not seem to me that only people without jobs and enough free time to occupy public parks in protest should be the ones who get to express their views.
Corporate campaign spending is not "free speech". It is legalized bribery.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackOne man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. I hope I don't have to explain why the former is more desirable.
Why shouldn't corporations get to spread their message? It does not seem to me that only people without jobs and enough free time to occupy public parks in protest should be the ones who get to express their views.
By the way, if you ban corporate donations, this does not mean corporations cannot endorse parties/politicians anymore. I've never seen Royal Dutch Shell (or whoever) do so, though. I guess people tend to be a bit cautious about corporations telling them what's good for them (but apparently people like you are fine with corporations telling you what's good for you by proxy).
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThere are all different ways to express your ideas. Some people write; spoke talk; some pay for ads; some give financial support for those who have similar views. There is no such things as too much speech and one should be able to use there money and time to support causes they believe in.
Money is money. Speech is speech.
Unions collect money to support candidates and endorse parties and candidates all they time. Corporation deserve the same opportunities.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by quackquackNo, neither unions nor corporations should have the opportunity. Do you really have no problem with the fact that someone with more money than you has a larger vote than you?
There are all different ways to express your ideas. Some people write; spoke talk; some pay for ads; some give financial support for those who have similar views. There is no such things as too much speech and one should be able to use there money and time to support causes they believe in.
Unions collect money to support candidates and endorse parties and candidates all they time. Corporation deserve the same opportunities.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHe's a Randian; I don't think he believes the "parasites" (which is pretty much everybody who isn't rich according to him) should be able to vote at all. They'll only decide to tax our betters after all.
No, neither unions nor corporations should have the opportunity. Do you really have no problem with the fact that someone with more money than you has a larger vote than you?
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackCorporations "deserve" only what the majority decide they deserve; they are artificial creations that exist only because of positive law. They are allowed to exist because it was decided that there is some economic benefit to society overall by so allowing their existence; it's hard to think of any societal benefit to their indirect bribery of politicians.
There are all different ways to express your ideas. Some people write; spoke talk; some pay for ads; some give financial support for those who have similar views. There is no such things as too much speech and one should be able to use there money and time to support causes they believe in.
Unions collect money to support candidates and endorse parties and candidates all they time. Corporation deserve the same opportunities.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderUnions are artificial creations which coerce union members to pay dues that go to support political candidates and political parties. The only difference I see between unions and corporation is that unions aren't taxes so unlike corporations they don't actually directly contribute to society and as such they deserve fewer rights/ freedoms. Thus, I would certainly give corporations the right to articulate their political position if unions were given the same ability.
Corporations "deserve" only what the majority decide they deserve; they are artificial creations that exist only because of positive law. They are allowed to exist because it was decided that there is some economic benefit to society overall by so allowing their existence; it's hard to think of any societal benefit to their indirect bribery of politicians.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEveryone only gets one vote so technically that's not true. But if you are asking me do I have a problem that people with more money than me may have more influence than me the answer is no because there are thousands of ways people an influence policy more than I can and none of those ways bother me. For example, already people who have more free time than me have the ability to have more influence, as do people who write or public speak, people who have fewer responsibilities and more time to protest also have more influence. People who start grass root campaigns or people who started by volunteering and become influential in a political party also have more influence. Why somehow people are so upset about money influences but not other influences is beyond me?
No, neither unions nor corporations should have the opportunity. Do you really have no problem with the fact that someone with more money than you has a larger vote than you?