Good counter arguments

[hillbillybuddha]

I think we should start a thread (hence this thread) that discuses the different arguments we hear against this movement and how to counter those arguments.

Case: I was discussing the "Money does not equal free speech" aspect of this movement with a very conservative fellow. He argued that, if one business could afford all of the billboard signs (or any other ad space) in a city and his competitor could not afford any. Isn't this a form of "Money DOES equal free speech" To which I countered that the amendment would only effect money and speech where Politics and Public Policy were concerned. He then stated that he believed that politics have become brands and therefore, businesses. I agreed with him and said that is why we are trying to get this this amendment passed. I went on and assuming, as he seemed well read, that he might be a fan of Ayn Rand, discussed Atlas Shrugged, and the case she made against the main antagonist James Taggart and Taggart Railroads. I brought up that his main "sin" in the book was using lobbyists to influence Washington DC. It is much in the same way that we wish to limit Money's influence in politics.

I'm sure we have all heard arguments against the movement, I am hoping that we can get together here and discuss effective counter points.

[Lam]

Honestly, the only ones I've heard against common campaign finance reforms involved limiting free speech or costing too much money. The former I've always countered with the "yelling 'fire' in a theater" analogy. The asshole yeller abuses his freedom of speech and puts people in danger, hence why that freedom is limited. Corporations (or anyone or anything else) using their massive treasuries to push legislation or an agenda detrimental to the public welfare of the American people should be seen and dealt with the same way.

I haven't heard any arguments in favor of corporate personhood, at least not from real people in person. And I only recall Mitt Romney coming out in support of such a stupid concept. Both my liberal and conservative friends think it's a problem and that they should not be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political agendas. I did google it though so you may want to check this out:

debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Corporate_personhood

[Slavatron]

I have heard a few arguments against this movement, looking for your responses to them:

1. Campaigns are too expensive to run without corporate sponsorship

2. Corporations ARE people in these that they're made up of human beings who just happen to organize themselves around a common goal

3. If we succeed in passing this Amendment, wealthy private interests will just find other ways of buying power and influence

[rustyhoundog]

Jan 17, 2012 17:45:09 GMT -6 @Slavatron said:

I have heard a few arguments against this movement, looking for your responses to them:

1. Campaigns are too expensive to run without corporate sponsorship

See an edit of the proposed amendment at;

tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=83

When political contributions are restricted to citizens, politicians will find a less expensive, and less embarrassing, mode of campaigning.

2. Corporations ARE people in these that they're made up of human beings who just happen to organize themselves around a common goal

An army is human beings organized around a common goal. Does that criterion make an army a person? The argument is spurious; a time waster and distraction. Does the fact some people have organized themselves give those people the right to use unlimited cash to run roughshod over us citizens who are not in that organization?

Then there's foreign corporations, corporate automatic control programs...

Humans only, and only citizens individually can contribute to political purposes.

3. If we succeed in passing this Amendment, wealthy private interests will just find other ways of buying power and influence

When the amendment restricts political contributors to citizens, and the Congress sets real limits, as they have done in the past, everyone will have the same limits.

Also, having every contribution made completely public will act as a brake on our tendency to corruption. We, as citizens, have ultimate control through the ballot.

Any briber is already subject to jail. There are Laws now to punish those creeps. Open campaigns and financing will change and remove much of the corruption we suffer from now.

[vxweers]

What is the amendment that you are trying to defend?

Is it just that corporations are not people?

Is it Dylan Ratigan's where no person or corporation can contribute to a campaign?

Is it to restrict all donations regardless of corporate or personal?