• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good news. Only individuals may donate to a campaign or vote!

that would be great if such a thing was actually true in practice. There's a difference between what the law says and what actually happens.

Thats the same with Union leaders though.

I fail to see how unions are relevant to this discussion at all. In fact, you're the only one who brought them into this.
 

Slavik81

Member
way to miss the point, you and i both know what the issue at hand is. I know that non-profits can be incorported. -_-
I didn't know that non-profits could be incorporated in the United States. I went and looked it up because your post gave me the impression that this was a difference in American and Canadian law. Hopefully I've saved someone else the trouble and provided a little more clarity.
 
citation needed
The existence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Choice quotes
Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, though they may pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union.
Under federal law, PACs are not limited in their ability to spend money independently of a candidate campaign.
The 2010 election marks the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals.

In actual practice these huge organizations can influence elections and "donate" to campaigns by running ads that never actual mention the guy they're for, but can be greatly hinted at or slander the other guy.
 

sangreal

Member
I agree that all corporations should be held accountable to any new rules, but that amendment a couple of pages back specified for-profit entities. Edit: I actually agree that all non-person entities should be forbidden from donating, but none of the legislation we've seen goes that far.

The older amendment that died in the water gives Congress a few general powers concerning these things:



Of course, that makes it easy for Congress to alter any such legislation passed should they decide to do so.

Great amendment. For the first piece of regulation, I propose we outlaw advertisements in support of conservative candidates.
 

sangreal

Member
The existence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Choice quotes




In actual practice these huge organizations can influence elections and "donate" to campaigns by running ads that never actual mention the guy they're for, but can be greatly hinted at or slander the other guy.

So when you guys say donate you actually mean "donate" and not donate?

What you actually mean is that corporations should be forbidden from expressing any political stances.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Because they are generally considered to be the same grouping

only by conservatives, who seem to think that corporations are some kind of right wing organization, since they respond to every attack on corporations by bringing up unions like they're the left wing equivalent.
 
by who? You?

Well the BCRA did for one
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President … means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election … is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93 , this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 , that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.

The bill itself
SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS
FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/campaign_finance/bcra_txt.pdf
 
What you actually mean is that corporations should be forbidden from expressing any political stances.

the better question is, why should they be allowed to express a political stance?

That law makes it a point to refer to them as two separate things that just have the same law applied to them. If they truly meant them as the same thing, the law would start off by expressing that. Instead the entire law is written where it says "corporations and unions" treating them as different things.
 

sangreal

Member
the better question is, why should they be allowed to express a political stance?

Because they represent a group of individuals acting in concert. Another reason is that most media outlets are incorporated, even blogs.

That's a fair question to ask though. A lot of people agree with you that they shouldn't.

Citizens United you'll recall was about whether a non-profit could distribute a movie that reflected negatively on a candidate
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
So when you guys say donate you actually mean "donate" and not donate?

What you actually mean is that corporations should be forbidden from expressing any political stances.

we mean things like multi-billion dollar entities shouldn't be able to mount aggressive advertising campaigns to outlaw gay marriage and treat the issue like it's about having two gay porn stars fuck each other bareback in front of a classroom of kindergarteners
 
That law makes it a point to refer to them as two separate things that just have the same law applied to them. If they truly meant them as the same thing, the law would start off by expressing that. Instead the entire law is written where it says "corporations and unions" treating them as different things.

They are still grouped the same though for the purpose of the law.
SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS
FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

They could have easily had separate sections and rules if they were felt to truly be different. As you said the same law applies, well they kind of indicates that it was felt that they were the same.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Because they represent a group of individuals acting in concert. Another reason is that most media outlets are incorporated, even blogs.

That's a fair question to ask though. A lot of people agree with you that they shouldn't.

no, they don't. otherwise they'd be treated as groups of individuals instead of corporations
 
we mean things like multi-billion dollar entities shouldn't be able to mount aggressive advertising campaigns to outlaw gay marriage and treat the issue like it's about having two gay porn stars fuck each other bareback in front of a classroom of kindergarteners

Why can they only try and outlaw gay marriage? Can't multi-billion dollar entities be able to speak for gay marriage?
 
They are still grouped the same though for the purpose of the law.


They could have easily had separate sections and rules if they were felt to truly be different. As you said the same law applies, well they kind of indicates that it was felt that they were the same.

Why doesn't the law start off with

"For the course of this bill henceforth, the term corporation will refer to both for-profit entities and unions. They are one and the same in the scope of the law."


The same animal abuse laws apply to Horses, dogs and cats. Are horses, dogs and cats the same thing? Under the law the same rules apply to all three, and yet we know just by the very fact they are different animals that this does not mean they are the same thing.

I give up.

I agree, this is just getting ridiculous now
 

Kosmo

Banned
I give up.

Good move, because you're losing on this one. It's the classic argument that liberal always play - they are all for free speech as long it's the "right kind" of free speech. You seem to fail to grasp that the reason investors in corporations get paid is because they put their money at risk to invest in the company. Unions essentially put nothing at risk so long as they can get a contract in place.

I'm not sure why we are arguing settled law any more than we should be discussing Roe vs. Wade.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Good move, because you're losing on this one. It's the classic argument that liberal always play - they are all for free speech as long it's the "right kind" of free speech. You seem to fail to grasp that the reason investors in corporations get paid is because they put their money at risk to invest in the company. Unions essentially put nothing at risk so long as they can get a contract in place.

I'm not sure why we are arguing settled law any more than we should be discussing Roe vs. Wade.


That's really not the point he was arguing.
 
Why doesn't the law start off with

"For the course of this bill henceforth, the term corporation will refer to both for-profit entities and unions. They are one and the same in the scope of the law."
Because it doesn't need to be. Intent can be read from the categorizing of them together as groups prohibited from contributions. The grouping makes them the same. Just like your example below does the same thing.


The same animal abuse laws apply to Horses, dogs and cats. Are horses, dogs and cats the same thing? Under the law the same rules apply to all three, and yet we know just by the very fact they are different animals that this does not mean they are the same thing.
They are still animals though. Meaning congress was considering them the same for the purpose of the law. So you just helped me prove my point more.


I give up.

I ask again, why can't they?

I agree, this is just getting ridiculous now
No, you just don't want to support your claim.
 

Kosmo

Banned
That's really not the point he was arguing.

He kind of was:

we mean things like multi-billion dollar entities shouldn't be able to mount aggressive advertising campaigns to outlaw gay marriage and treat the issue like it's about having two gay porn stars fuck each other bareback in front of a classroom of kindergarteners
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
He kind of was:

I can't speak for him, but I believe he means that no entity should be able to do something like that irregardless of the message. He already stated earlier on this page that he thought that neither unions or corporations should be allowed to finance politics.
 
They are still animals though. Meaning congress was considering them the same for the purpose of the law. So you just helped me prove my point more.

but they're not the same animal.

Unions and Corporations are both large groups of people with a common interest. But they are different animals.

You're arguing, essentially, that any large group is basically the same thing because one law applies to both groups equally, despite both groups being very different and having dozens of other laws that apply to one but not the other.

Because that's exactly what it seems like you're arguing. If you really want to believe every animal is the same thing, does the same thing, and is indistinguishable from any other animal because a law treats them equal, then okay. But that's just not right because I can look right behind me now and see two small animals, one is a bird and one is a hamster, and they seem to be pretty different to me, despite the law saying they are the same.
 

Zabka

Member
Someone should make a thread to discuss Occupy Wall Street. There's some cool stuff going on tonight, like the march in Oakland and Chancellor Katehi's walk past a crowd of silent protestors at UC Davis.

q7pKr.gif


Occupy Oakland stream: http://www.ustream.tv/occupyoakland (livestream is offline, it's playing a recording from earlier today)
 
I can't speak for him, but I believe he means that no entity should be able to do something like that irregardless of the message. He already stated earlier on this page that he thought that neither unions or corporations should be allowed to finance politics.

I understand I'm speaking at least more to something like this

No matter how much you and other conservatives repeat it, unions are not the same thing as corporations.

Corporations are entities which exist for the purpose of making a profit and producing a positive return for its investors. Note that a corporation makes money due to the efforts of its employees, and its profits are leftover after compensating its employees. The money brought in by the labor force's effortss goes to the company's investors.

A union is an entity which exists for the purpose of promoting its member's interests. The efforts of the members of the union go towards benefiting the members of the union. Not a separate group of persons.

Amazing that you can try to equate the two.
 
but they're not the same animal.
But they are animals.

Unions and Corporations are both large groups of people with a common interest. But they are different animals.
Why didn't Congress bother to segregate them then? They are the same meta group.

You're arguing, essentially, that any large group is basically the same thing because one law applies to both groups equally, despite both groups being very different and having dozens of other laws that apply to one but not the other.
Except we are only speaking towards this law (though the grouping often is found other places). Congress felt the two to belong to the same group it was speaking towards in this bill. That is what makes them similar.


Because that's exactly what it seems like you're arguing. If you really want to believe every animal is the same thing, does the same thing, and is indistinguishable from any other animal because a law treats them equal, then okay. But that's just not right because I can look right behind me now and see two small animals, one is a bird and one is a hamster, and they seem to be pretty different to me, despite the law saying they are the same.
They are both animals though. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Someone should make a thread to discuss Occupy Wall Street.

Maybe someone will actually update the OP then. lol
 
You said
Because they are generally considered to be the same grouping

you did NOT say
Because they are generally considered to be the same grouping, in this one specific law I am going to refer to

You're arguing they are considered the same group. That all laws apply to both, both are treated the same. The law makes no difference between the two.

And yet ironically the very law you posted makes sure to refer to both as separate entities. And then when I note that each group has their own laws, you fall back and say we're only discussing one law.

We are not, we never were.

Why didn't Congress bother to segregate them then? They are the same meta group.
They did...
did you even read the law you posted? It calls them separate through the entire thing. I says "corporations and unions" every single time something applies to both.

They are both animals though. You are missing the forest for the trees.
And you're completely lost in the woods
 
You said


you did NOT say


You're arguing they are considered the same group. That all laws apply to both, both are treated the same. The law makes no difference between the two.
I clearly meant that.


And yet ironically the very law you posted makes sure to refer to both as separate entities. And then when I note that each group has their own laws, you fall back and say we're only discussing one law.

We are not, we never were.
I clearly meant only this law, but I said other times do exist where they are viewed as the same.

They did...
did you even read the law you posted? It calls them separate through the entire thing. I says "corporations and unions" every single time something applies to both.
Except they are in the same section, which is not segregating them. Congress isn't really big on being succinct with the text of most bills, why would they put them together if they didn't feel they were similar.


And you're completely lost in the woods
And you fell off the side of the mountain five hours earlier.
 

Slavik81

Member
You know, Manos, it's kind of hard to tell if the people arguing with you quit out of embarrassment because they feel they're losing the argument, or out of frustration due to arguing with you ad nauseam.

balladofwindfishes said:
They did... did you even read the law you posted? It calls them separate through the entire thing. I says "corporations and unions" every single time something applies to both.
I've lost track of what the point of this is, but that specific thing is probably because unions are often not corporations. That said, as they are similar, they get a lot of things that apply to them similarly.
 
Why would they put them in separate sections just to copy and paste the text of the law...?

Because it's Congress and they like to be anal and complicated usually.


You know, Manos, it's kind of hard to tell if the people arguing with you quit out of embarrassed because they feel they're losing the argument, or out of frustration due to arguing with you ad nauseam.
The world may never know!
 
I'm kinda surprised at how some people are surprised at how the police are reacting. I mean haven't people been saying this stuff about the police for decades now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom