Methinks this would all go buh-bye if we reduced the equivalency between corporate personhood and real personhood
Not really. This thread is just a whole bunch of ignorance. People don’t know what a lobbyist is and what a lobbyist does for the most part. Anyone who represents a Union is a lobbyist, anyone who represents a trade association is a lobbyist. So someone who represents Virginia Librarians is as much a lobbyist as someone who represent Merck.
And while corporations DO have undue influence, corporations are also the source of all of our wealth, they employ us. So if you work for a big corporation then that corporation’s lobbyists are also tangentally representing YOU.
No, because corporations regard their workers as expendable assets.
my point is that if you deny corporations an equivalent amount of legal standing as a normal person, then you can issue laws proscribing their ability to petition the government through lobbyists and not risk running afoul of the constitution.
Not relevant. Even if you work within an industry and change companies the lobbyists that represent that industry represent you.
Yes, and I do not see why that should be considered desirable.
Its desirable to avoid the situation we have right now: pfizer, goldman sachs, and wall mart all contributing x millions of dollars,almost in 50/50 proportion to each party, to get legislation passed that only benefits them
But legislation doesn’t benefit ONLY them. That’s a false dichotomy. You are talking about it like they don’t provide any services that YOU benefit from. Even in a recession you are still one of the wealthiest people on the planet simply by being an American.
That’s nice.
Until Pfizer actually gets to vote (holy f-in shit if that happens) they need to STFU when it comes to influencing legislation
If it’s so clear that “what’s best for megacorp is best for me” then surely a market-based solution would find pro-megacorp legislation being passed spontaneously?
So you think you should have more say in how drugs are regulated than the people who research and make the drugs huh?
I didn’t say anything resembling this.
yes. 100% yes. i don’t live in a fucking technocracy, only to be ruled by “those who know better”
edit: not more, merely equal, if the other “person” is an actual voter.
Yes you do, thankfully.
Corporations are made up of people.
would you care to explain this?
yes, but corporations don’t vote. employee-voters don’t vote for the corporation’s best interests, they vote for their own, which often isn’t congruous.
Prescription drug law is crafted by experts not by lay people.
And often it is. But voting is actually one of the least important aspects of a Republic. Voting is a dog and pony show, what goes on in between is the real thing. Just like corporations have lobbyists you could increase your involvement by supporting a special interest group and lobbying your representatives.
expert != those that “make the drugs…”
The US is a republic. I.e. we have people who represent us in the government, rather than directly voting on things ourselves.
The purpose of this is to make sure that those who decide issues are properly able to acquaint themselves with the issues and act on them rationally, rather than simply falling prey to the tyranny of the majority.
But there really is no official check on their acting in such a manner, besides professionalism. While as there is a motive to act according to the interests of the majority, since that’s how you get and keep the job. And, point in fact, you’ll note that legislators often do quite poorly when quizzed on the basic information they should know as part of their job (like what committees they are on.)
At current, that check comes in the form of the lobby system. They try to present the devil’s advocate position as concerns public opinion. Quite often, they probably have very good points to make–which is itself a reason to listen to them–but of course, they also have any number of other positives in their favor. But in either case, this balances the issue of public opinion and gives the legislator a balanced slate upon which to examine the issue and decide as he feels is most wise.
True
Eh, no. Workers & customers are the source of the company’s wealth, not the other way around. And sometimes corporate lobbyists don’t represent workers & customers as much as capital investors against everyone else.
But not by virtue of influence peddling by a given fellow American.
No, they’re mixed up by trained monkeys not by scientists in a lab. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’s true. It’s an imperfect system, but the idea that things that benefit Wal Mart automatically don’t benefit the rest of us is just silly. It’s a lot more nuanced than that. Trade associations are corporations too and they send lobbyists. I know because my Father is a director of a trade association for which he lobbies. I watched him do it all of his life, and he has done a lot of good for people in the state in which he resides, not just for the people he represents. He helped craft legislation that allowed Pharmacists to prescribe certain medications so that people in rural areas wouldn’t have to travel hundreds of miles to see a Doctor for common ailments. People who wouldn’t have been treated otherwise are now being treated thanks to that lobbyist and the corporation he directs.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The first amendment doesn’t seem to require that speech or views represented by the press be limited to those of a “normal person” to be protected from laws abridging their freedom. I still don’t see how Congress could make laws restricting them, particularly when their content is obviously politically motivated, which must have been the spirit in which the amendment was drafted. Obviously it would only take one single person who participated in the speech or the press to have standing to petition the court against application of such a law.