campaign contributions

Anyone can donate money to a political candidate. Corporations thus “buy” politicians. Limiting or forbiding these donations is said to be violating The First amendment.
Meaning the free speech.
I can see how a lawyer can say that money=free speach (I ain’t a lawyer, to me money=many things, but poor or rich, anyone can talk. Politicians are mostly lawyers, the logic is different there). But the Constitution was written for individuals, not for corporations. Most Amendmends are unapplicable to corporations, anyway, just do not make sense, as they do not make sense for babies or pets.
What gives?

What gives is anyone can give anyone any amount of money for any reason, assuming it is a gift.

Money is speech in politics, because things cost money. (Things like TV time, posters, and everything else a campaign needs to gets its message out.) No money, no speech.

Corporations don’t “buy” politicians. First of all, it’s much easier to give money to someone who already agrees with you than to try to sway an enemy with money. Second, many of the biggest campaign contributors are groups like AARP, coalitions of regular people. Babies and Pets probably have pressure groups as well.

Mah,
First of all, it’s not exactly true. By law (IRS rules), a “gift” cannot exceed $10,000/year, $20000, from spouses. After that, it’s heavily taxed. As you correctly said, it’s “anyone”, i.e., a person, not a corporation.
I do not think that “gift” rule applies to political contributions.
Da Ace, are you a lawyer? Your logic is twisted. Civil liberties do not extend to pets or kids because they cost money. If “… things cost money.” … do not go into politics. Stay home. If a “campaign needs to gets its messages out”, it can do it as it was done when good (by historic sctandards) people were elected, like DW, TJ, JQA and other guys. The people of this country got them pretty cheap.
Nobody tries “to sway an enemy with money”. They just give it to their enemy, enemy’s enemy. Simple. And I ain’t talking about “campaign contributors”. I am talking about for-profit corpotations. After all, their money is your and my money, too. They sell to us their products (ultimately, all is done for individual consumers), add a bit to it, and then give this to politicians to get what they want. You do not need to do that to speak your mind.
I know that without corporate money rich personally guys will have advantages. There are other flaws. But on balance I think the people of this contry will benefit if corporations will stick to what they were created for and people will just buy their products and do politics.

Are you paraphrasing me, or asserting this yourself? (I think it’s wrong either way, but it would make a difference.) Kids do have civil liberties, similar but not identical to adults. Pets have some limited rights under the law, but not as many as a sapient being.

I’m not even sure if it’s civil liberties or kids and pets that cost money, so I’m afraid your argument is lost on me. Oh, and I’m not a lawyer, just a guy who can think straight.

**

Are you claiming that past political campaigns were free? Do you have any idea how much money was sent on now-illegal "get out the vote " mechanisms as free beer on election day or outright bribery (vote for Tilden and get $5!)? Politics has never been free, and it’s only rarely been cheap.

What are you saying? I’m not a politician. But, to be heard, politicians need to spend money. TV costs money, but so does radio. And bumper stickers. And campaign buses, so that you can go meet voters. Not to mention that the candidate needs to pay his staff so that they don’t starve before the election. Money buys things that a political campaign needs; I can’t say it any more simply than that.

**

Do you mean to their “enemy’s enemy’s enemy?” Let’s apply that to a real-world situation. I’ll say I’m a tobacco company, and I want to work against Gore. Bush is his enemy, Gore is his own enemy’s enemy, and I suppose Nader is his enemy’s enemy’s enemy. I’ve just gotten dizzy, so I don’t donate my money to anyone. I’m not sure what you mean.

**

But a majority of the money donated to politicians – a sizable majority, too, I might add – is given by individuals and non-profit groups. Corporations are quite limited in what they can give under the current system, so they don’t give all that much. (If you want to get into soft money and illegal contributions, we’re talking a different ball of wax.)

**

So you think it’s still your money after you’ve spent it? What kind of weird economics is that?

Corporations often ask things of governments without giving them money. Sometimes they get what they want, sometimes they don’t. Often different corporations are on opposite sides of the same issue, so they can’t all get what they want.

**

So you want corporations to be legally barred from contributing and/or attempting to influence legislation? Would individuals – who happen to work for a corporation and whose individual welfare is greatly affected by that corporation’s well-being – be allowed to donate and lobby “on their own?”

Or would only anti-corporate forces (environmental groups, unions, various other pressure groups) be allowed to influence the government? What do you think the outcome of that would be?

Da Ace, I even do not know where to start. Evidently, we both want the best. I think that corporations in principle are business entities, , not political ones. Nobody asks them to do whatever they are doing. If they do not like, say high taxes or anti-pollutiom laws, they may get out of business. If their business is needed, consumers/voters will find the way to get them back (e.g., by relaxing the laws). But they should not be allowed in politics. It’s ain’t their business.
I realize that town meeting anciet Greece democracy does not exist anymore. It does not mean that the opposite (whatever it is) has to rule. And do not eliminate commas from my posts, as you did in enemy’s enemy. And do not add an extra possessive case. And Gore is not tobacco companies’ enemy. He is a tobacco grower. Or at least he says so in front of tobacco farmers. And I ain’t paraphraising you, only straight quotes. And what civil liberties (or rights?) of kids are similar to adults’? Free speech? When they have to repeat to their teacher what they read in the approved textbook? Or did you mean the right to bear arms? Or to be elected and to vote? And what about pets? You are the master. If you need a law prohibiting cruelty to pets in order to protect your pet from your actions, I pity you…
Politicians do not NEED money to get elected. But money helps. TV and radio adds were invented to sell products, not ideas. Ideas should work on the merit, not promotion.
In general, I’d like to place the burden on myself: if I can’t pick up a politician, I have to dig to find out what’s the difference is, if any. I wish politicians could offer me “free samples” of their proposals. But very few people are interested in politics as is, so I’m afraid that some form of advertising is needed. But not by the corporations.

This feels more than a little like it is turning into a debate over corporate campaign contributions (which I believe are illegal, BTW).

Would you care to restate your question, peace, to ensure that this stays a General Question?

Manhattan, it makes the two of us. I guess you meant the contributions SHOULD BE MADE illegal: they are legal now. Pretty soon, we’ll convert the whole country.
As far as this thread: I trust your judgemet, you have more experience with these matters. I found out that somebody thinks this contry should be continued to run by the corporations. So, my question was in a way answered. If there was a discussion, it looks like it’s over. So, move it or leave it, you make desicions here.

Corporations CANNOT donate to candidates in federal elections. Only individuals can. Corporations can donate to political parties, to Political Action Committees, or to other advocacy groups.

But not to candidates.