I agree that economic populism is the best bet for this project. There are plenty of people left, right, and center who are fed up with wealth inequality, and fed up with the banks.
And I think there are plenty of people who think we need to get money out of politics, and would support a Constitutional amendment allowing restriction of corporate spending, Lord Feldon.
That’s a bit different from ending corporate personhood, and in any case the issue has moved on to individuals spending big money on campaigns.
The reason Democrats don’t pursue economic populism is because the ultra educated and pretty darn well off are now a big part of the Democratic coalition. You can ask them to pay a little more(maybe), but let’s be clear: you’d better ask nicely. “Going after” these people would push them into the other camp and the Democrats would become the party of the non-college educated. Of course you can build a majority out of that, but I think even the economic populists like the fact that the Democrats are the party of science, reason, and tolerance. A purely populist party made up of the less educated would look very different. It would be anti-science and anti-immigrant.
If the workers and farmers of Kansas, etc., can disregard their economic self-interest and vote Pub for reasons of culture or principle, so can upscale liberals continue to vote Dem even after the party has taken a left-progressive/economic-populist turn that threatens to chip away ever so slightly at their own net worth. Limousine liberals are nothing new. Warren Buffet wants his taxes raised, so long as they are raised for everyone in his bracket.
I agree. IF you limit it to just going against their economic interests. One of the big problems Republicans have is the WAY they talk about certain voters. If Democrats start using harsh rhetoric against rich people, then that’s going to have a similar effect.
So to reiterate, you can ask them to pay more, but you’d better ask nicely. Trying to win votes by whipping up anger at the rich won’t win you many rich votes. And the Democrats need those votes, if not for majorities, then at least to maintain their self-image. The Democratic Party simply cannot continue to be the enlightened, tolerant party if they become the party of the rubes.
Right now, when Democrats do use populist language, they can call their donors and friends up and say, “Oh, that’s just campaign talk. When we win we won’t act against your interests.” If they start attacking the rich and actually mean it,even Warren Buffet’s not going to be happy.
You’re misdiagnosing the problem; rich individuals can give nearly as much. The problem is the system, as such, of funding campaigns by donation. We need an amendment to restrict that.
What is a donation though? WHen we defined donations as giving money to politicians, that was an easy problem to solve. It’s been solved, actually.
When we define donations as spending money to speak out for or against a candidate, things get a lot murkier. The media speaks out for or against candidates. Artists, actors, moviemakers, speak out against and for candidates and causes.
We could further define the problem as TV ads, in which case you still don’t need an amendment. A law banning TV ads would be constitutional as long as they weren’t based on content or who was making the ad. Where reformers run into a problem is that they want to pass a law defining who can and can’t run ads, and that’s where you run into problems. Americans are all the same as far as free speech rights go. You can’t have a privileged class of speakers(media, politicians), and a restricted class(CEOs).
I don’t see how granting Monsanto immunity from all lawsuits, abolishing the ACLU’s freedom of speech, and making it possible for the government to ban religious minorities from meeting (all of which would be consequences of stripping those groups of personhood) would appeal to people who think corporations have too much power.
How would Monsanto be granted immunity from all lawsuits, or allowing the government to ban religious minorities, stem from ending corporate personhood?
The ACLU & freedom of speech, I could see being more of a grey area.
If corporate personhood is abolished, all of Monsanto’s shareholders are now personally liable for any debts or torts of the company, and each individual shareholder is fully liable, and their liability is not limited to the amount of their investment. Limited liability corporations were invented for a reason.
If the Dems really want issues on which they can get 60% support, they can support a ban on late-term abortions.
They could also include eliminating farm subsidies for the rich, removing the Social Security cap, and legalizing marijuana.
That’s if the Dems want to appeal to 60%/centrists. If this is another thread of wish listing how the Dems should make a sharp left turn, they will certainly appeal to 60% of the SDMB but it will not appeal to the American center.
ISTM that most of this “appeal to the middle by blasting the 1%” is what Occupy tried. Refresh my memory - how many seats in the House did they pick up?
Regards,
Shodan
1-Comprehensive immigration reform constituting increased border security and a path to citizenship for those already here.
2- Protection of Social Security and stopping any plans to privatize.
3- Extension of Medicare to anyone who wishes to buy it.
4- Body cameras on all federal, state, and local law enforcement officers
5- Enhanced consumer protection from predatory business practices
6- Free wifi for everybody
7- Net neutrality
One of the fundamental precepts of common law is that only a person can be party to a lawsuit, and several early corporations indeed argued in court that they couldn’t be sued because they weren’t persons. The idea of a corporation being an artificial person evolved to fix that loophole. In the absence of corporate personhood, in order to hold a corporation accountable for its crimes, you’d have to sue each and every one of their shareholders and then enforce the ruling against each one of them individually.
Likewise, a church is a corporation, and if corporations aren’t people, then a church has no right to freedom of religion.
“End corporate personhood” is one of those slogans that sounds good if you don’t think too much about it. If you wanted to amend the Constitution to limit corporate spending on politics, it would be much better to draft a narrower amendment to overturn the consequences of Citizens United by empowering Congress to set spending/donation limits, require full disclosure of donors, etc.
Exactly as many as they sought.
My proposal was shorthand. What we’re really talking about is whether corporations can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. Thus we could amend the Constitution such that corporations have more limited speech rights than individuals.
Or you could end corporate personhood except with respect to liability.
Sure- buy in with subsidies depending on your age. Oldsters pay Medicare premiums, yet the young buy in as well.
That William Jennings Bryan sure talks a lot of sense on Silver.
Or amend the Constitution to state that free speech does not include the right to spend money to influence elections.
What was that in aid of?
The Medicare proposal is very smart, but in this day and age all programs must be self-funding to be politically viable. You’d have to have people under 65 pay the full cost.
Why not just a public option in ACA? That’s popular and is Medicare in effect if not in name.
“Buy”?