My criticism of your ridiculous notions is the useful thing I contributed.
To the degree that your previous posts seem to indicate what you believe to be the degree that corporations control our government now, you haven’t shown any evidence or reasoning to back it up.
In fact, you brought an incredibly flawed set of pre-suppositions to the table, and when called on it, only got defensive without offering any defense.
Well, yeah, but today is a day in which I’ve been seeking some distraction.
Unfortunately, the OP doesn’t wish to come out to play. Thus, I am very disappointed that my efforts at debate have foundered. Even Bo’s commentary isn’t even holding my attention.
I wonder if it would still be democracy and free speech if say Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and a few Billionaires from abroad formed a Super Duper PAC in order to get Democrats or Independents elected into office. The Super Duper PAC would then buy up huge advertising blocks and in so doing prevents or limits any other PAC from advertising.
I’m going to bet that the same people that have effectively scuttled McCain-Feingold via the Supreme court along with the Free Speech folks will be the same people heading back there to figure out a way to limit big money control of Government.
I guess it’s really a matter of whose OX is getting gored.
If the United States isn’t a democracy now, then it never was one.
People may vote now based on who broadcast the most TV commercials. They used to vote based on who was handing out whiskey at the poll or who their ward boss told them to vote for. Voters have always been subjected to attempts to buy their vote.
All the Super PACs need do these days is b uy just enough votes in selected counties or or buy enough influence with selected Election Commissioners in selected States to swing the delegates to their candidate and voila… they’ve got the election sewn up. The people’s voice is effectively controlled or shut down. That isn’t Democracy.
So all the Super PACs will influence the voters the same way? They all get together at their corporate overlord meetings, and all the corporations agree to support the same candidates?
Voters also put money into PACs. So if you take away a person’s right to contribute to an organization, be it Vote Jesus & America or the Sierra Club, you’re essentially infringing upon their rights as citizens of a democratic country.
Yeah but I don’t see why corporations get the same rights as citizens, when they clearly are not citizens. I don’t even buy that they are “people”, much less do I buy the notion that they are citizens.
If a collective organization is made up of union organizers and laborers whose officers try and advocate advantageous political outcomes (by supporting candidates, advertising, and even more or less ordering their members to vote a certain way) it is fine with Democrats.
If a collective organization is made up of shareholders who have bought into the company and whose elected officers make decisions to try and advocate advantageous political outcomes, it’s the end of democracy.
The whole purpose behind corporations is that they’re people. That’s why their owners set them up, so that they have an existence independent of their shareholders. This is not even particularly controversial. It was an established principle in English law since before the US was even founded (see Case of Sutton’s Hospital).
Constitutionally I’ve never understood why a corporation or a labor union or any major lobbying group like the NRA, MoveOn.org et al should be viewed any differently than the two political parties themselves. There isn’t anything intrinsically constitutional about the Democratic and Republican parties, they are just a means to collect disparate ideas into a more centralized form, streamline fundraising and etc.
For some reason when other entities made up of well, groups of people with similar interests, want to coalesce their resources in an efficient way to advocate things it’s seen as terrible.
I don’t really know that I think General Electric deserves less (proportional) influence in politics than say, the Democrat or Republican parties. GE has hundreds of thousands of shareholders and employees, why shouldn’t those interested parties be able to use GE itself as an organ of collecting their will and influence. That’s how democracy has always worked, you group together with like individuals. That is how the two big parties came to exist, and they are not, constitutionally speaking, recognized. So just because GE doesn’t officially nominate candidates I don’t know why it, as a collection of individuals, should have no rights to advertise and advocate when the Democratic and Republican parties, which are just collections of individuals, should have those rights.
Is it only wrong if the collective entity runs a profit? Is it okay as long as it’s only labor unions and political parties? Why is it okay in that instance but not others?
“Existence independence of shareholders” =/= “personhood”, not by a long shot.
I don’t really know what the legal status of corporations is in detail, but here on the ground I hear ignorant people (I include myself in the category) make arguments that presume that “corporations are people” means “corporations have exactly the very same legal standing as human beings do.” If this really is what corporate personhood amounts to, then it seems to be a clear case of a bad, bad idea.
No one has ever argued that, ever. Corporations cannot run for elected office. Corporate personhood is just a “phrase” or a “term of art” to describe something in simple terms that isn’t so simple. It’s basically an easier way of saying “corporations exist as separate entities that can exist in perpetuity from the original shareholders, and they can engage in certain activities that persons can engage in legally (contracting, buying things, etc.)” It isn’t ever intended to mean they are “people” and there are lots of things no one thinks a corporation should be able to do (marry someone, adopt a child, run for office etc.) The fact that it confuses you so much is just indicative you should read about it a little more, it only takes a few moments on Wikipedia.
What exactly is it about say, the Democratic Party and General Electric that should make their rights vis-a-vis political campaigning so different? The parties are essentially corporate in legal nature in any case, with 50 state sub-units and a national organizational body that coordinates action.
But does it really matter if a Soros Corp is putting 30 million into an election or if it’s Soros-funded MoveOn.org? The money will get to where it’s going somehow.
I think the legal status of each should be identical vis-a-vis political campaigning.
I also think there should be an absolute limit to how much may be spent, total, by all entities, on behalf of a candidate in any particular election cycle. And the limit should be pretty low. 
Dreaming the impossible dream…
*What I actually think is that the limit should be zero, and all the money involved should be public funds, and it should be a very small amount. Like, every candidate gets a website and a 300,000 word limit or something. And that’s it. Any other advocacy for a candidate would be illegal.
I know, I know!
I would be behind that more before the age of DVR. Since the DVR age I’ve had very little opinion on political advertisement, I don’t think I’ve watched one on TV in about 4-5 years.
All the billboards and signs that have been plastered everywhere every election since I was born aren’t really much of a nuisance, and I dunno that I’ve ever personally had one impact my opinion on who to vote for…I almost wonder if anyone has ever studied their efficacy (I know they must have) I can only imagine at a certain level just generating name recognition gets you some votes.
I’ve long since destroyed most internet advertising through browser add ons, and with Sirius satellite radio I’m even mostly insulated from radio ads these days.
So all in all, I don’t have nearly the opinion of it I used to have.
Are you aware that numerous peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that above a certain threshold level (enough so a candidate is known), increased spending has diminishing returns in attempts to influence elections?
No, I didn’t think so.
Citations, please.
Is the relevant community in complete agreement on these results (no studies with contrary results)?
Hi, Opal! 
I’d be interested in that as well. I will say that it jives with things I’ve heard about advertising in general, there is definitely a “point of diminishing returns” in traditional ad campaign dollars, and I wouldn’t be inherently shocked if political campaign dollars might have a similar curve. In business classes it was called “advertising saturation.”
Even if it’s true, diminishing returns don’t amount to zero returns.