How do we get Congressmen to do their jobs instead of peddling influence all the time?

[RTFirefly]

@John_Mace

That will pretty much destroy the economy, but at least we’ll have clean politicians! Maybe.

And they should learn that the term they are searching for is “personhood”, not “people”. It’s actually frightening to consider their complete lack of understanding as to why corporations are granted, for legal purposes. “corporate personhood”.

John, I think you are very confused on this topic.

There’s a world of difference between “corporate personhood” in the sense that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, who (beyond the potential loss of their investment) are not liable for the acts of the corporation, and “corporations are not people” in the sense that the Constitutional rights to free speech and whatnot shouldn’t apply to them. They can be stripped of the latter without touching the former.

[lance_strongarm]

@RTFirefly

John, I think you are very confused on this topic.

There’s a world of difference between “corporate personhood” in the sense that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, who (beyond the potential loss of their investment) are not liable for the acts of the corporation, and “corporations are not people” in the sense that the Constitutional rights to free speech and whatnot shouldn’t apply to them. They can be stripped of the latter without touching the former.

Yes - the former has a confusing name.

Of course, a corporation is by definition a “legal person” - but nobody has ever though, and no court has ruled, that it means the same as a real (“natural”) person. That’s obviously absurd.

(Not that corporations have no rights either, but that’s the next item).

[lance_strongarm]

@Czarcasm

Such a plan, and all plans similar, fails because it only limits contributions to the campaign. To be successful you would have to start limiting free speech rights of individuals and corporations to run private campaigns. Well established congresscritters have well established FIHPS(friends in high places), and unspoken agreements would swiftly undercut any such law established.

Well, there are also lots of us regular folk who strongly believe in the First Amendment.

[lance_strongarm]

@Fear_Itself

Would it infringe on free speech to require that all donations to campaigns or PACs be transparent and identify the donor by name? Does the Constitution guarantee the right to anonymous speech?

I believe anonymous speech is a right.

I base this on this case: NAACP v. Alabama - Wikipedia

Anonymous speech has long been a way throughout history of safely speaking truth to power without fear of retaliation. And, of course, we are all here speaking under screen names, so we of all people should get it.

[silverkitty]

It is my opinion that lobbying needs to be outlawed. Any politician accepting bribes from lobbyists should also be tried as the criminals they are. They care more about the perks they get to sell their votes to the lobbyists than looking out for the interests of the people who elected them!

[gamerunknown]

@Richard_Parker

Wow. No wonder the major parties are able to agree not to talk about certain issues.

Sorry, missed this first time around. Which issues did you have in mind? The European Parliament has more room for diverse political opinions, as do council seats.

I just skimmed the link – is the ban on just TV or all third party advertising expenditure?

ETA: Also, how does that rule apply to media properties like Sky News?

Ofcom is responsible for these regulations, and it appears its regulatory power derives from section 333 of the Communications Act 2003, which is limited to public service stations. However, there are a load of amendments to the act which have not yet been added by the staff of the website, so I really have no clue.

[Chronos]

Quoth silverkitty:

It is my opinion that lobbying needs to be outlawed.

Great! Why don’t you write a letter to your senators and representative telling them that?

Oh, wait…

[foolsguinea]

It’s there for political reasons, not necessarily good ones.

Anyway, what most people think of as First Amendment rights are really Fourteenth Amendment applications of those rights. When the First Amendment was written, it wasn’t a big problem making it overbroad, because it was restricting federal power, not all state power. Since the Fourteenth Amendment applying it to the states, we find ourselves in the position of a plank of the Constitution implying an absolute right to libel, slander, and fraud. That’s very bad.