Latest Breaking News

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)

63. Organizations should be able to make political contributions.

Mon Sep 8, 2014, 07:53 PM

Sep 2014

By this formula (PA)=C

P=number of persons in organization whom choose to contribute
A=The amount each person personally chooses to contribute (with full documentation, up to but not exceeding the legal limit for personal contribution)
C=combined contribution donated as a block from the people who make up a particular organization.

As one of the reasons corporations exist is to enable legal contracts and obligations to extend beyond the normal life span of humans; any momentary expression of opinion, morals, political leanings, religious affiliation, or personal endorsement is not a statement by the corporation itself, rather those things are expressions of the temporary holders of corporate offices. The legal entity that is a corporation is incapable of having opinions, morals, political leanings, religious affiliation, or endorsing any person in favor of another.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

150 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate Votes 79-18 To Advance a Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United [View all] minivan2 Sep 2014 OP

That was unexpected. BumRushDaShow Sep 2014 #1

I think the Republicans that voted for it are counting on the HoR to vote it down. nm rhett o rick Sep 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author JimDandy Sep 2014 #51

Repubs can't vote it down without some Vichy Dems. It passed the cloture vote. riqster Sep 2014 #55

Dems need a 2/3rds majority vote JimDandy Sep 2014 #87

Pretty sure Bartlet Sep 2014 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author JimDandy Sep 2014 #89

It's the press doing their best to make republicans look good. gtar100 Sep 2014 #120

This message was self-deleted by its author JimDandy Sep 2014 #122

Check the post again minivan2 Sep 2014 #121

Aww. Good for you! JimDandy Sep 2014 #126

Oh stop with the baby talk BS minivan2 Sep 2014 #127

Was being sincere JimDandy Sep 2014 #128

Well why did you delete it? minivan2 Sep 2014 #129

No. It's a courtesy thing. JimDandy Sep 2014 #130

Apology accepted minivan2 Sep 2014 #131

Was that a cloture vote... YvonneCa Sep 2014 #19

Yes. Thanks for helping to clarify that! n/t JimDandy Sep 2014 #90

Shit, Orange Man won't even allow a vote on it! Archae Sep 2014 #2

Feinstein voted for it. minivan2 Sep 2014 #7

SOP for DiFi RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #14

Good ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #13

Obama said that, yes. Also that a concerted citizens movement could overturn CU. Let's see if GOP freshwest Sep 2014 #91

Wow. I wouldn't have expected so many GOP votes. SunSeeker Sep 2014 #3

Let's see if those same GOPers JimDandy Sep 2014 #92

So if this ever became law.. Elmergantry Sep 2014 #5

I ask for public financing and a $100 personal donation cap. arcane1 Sep 2014 #18

This would level the playing field in favor of the unions more than anything imo. cstanleytech Sep 2014 #22

I don't get it. Dyedinthewoolliberal Sep 2014 #33

Not really marym625 Sep 2014 #94

"Congress could prevent Unions and other Democratic-leaning organizations from funding their causes" Veilex Sep 2014 #35

Organizations should be able to make political contributions. Half-Century Man Sep 2014 #63

Sorry but... Veilex Sep 2014 #72

I'm not arguing with you. Half-Century Man Sep 2014 #83

A "collective unit" is an organization. Veilex Sep 2014 #93

Might be okay IF FlaGranny Sep 2014 #134

Legislate that only living things have opinions. Half-Century Man Sep 2014 #140

Your belief in the incorruptible power of legislation is quaint. n/t Psephos Sep 2014 #145

I would have no issue with that. eggplant Sep 2014 #61

I'm fine with across the board strict limits. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #84

+1 Veilex Sep 2014 #125

Okay by me. JimDandy Sep 2014 #95

Thank you Senators Udall and Heinrich. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #6

They can stomach anything. I've seen it. nt DocMac Sep 2014 #57

Even under seige JimDandy Sep 2014 #74

No Weh, No Way! Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #119

wow,total shock randys1 Sep 2014 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author JimDandy Sep 2014 #9

So are the GoP doing this because they're... Lobo27 Sep 2014 #10

Probably/possibly the idiot factor that thought this was a grand idea have realized they have RKP5637 Sep 2014 #16

I think they did it more for show than because they had a change of heart. nt cstanleytech Sep 2014 #24

I hope this really stupid ruling is over turned somehow. n/t RKP5637 Sep 2014 #26

This! Liberalynn Sep 2014 #80

Plus even if congress votes yes the states themselves have to ratify amendments cstanleytech Sep 2014 #109

No. It simply means that there are other issues they don't want to talk about hack89 Sep 2014 #137

I'm amazed! I never thought it would gain any traction with republicans. n/t RKP5637 Sep 2014 #11

The cynic in me JimDandy Sep 2014 #73

I agree. A lot of members want to cut off debate. Doesn't... YvonneCa Sep 2014 #106

79-18? Arkana Sep 2014 #12

Here are the 24 aisle-crossers RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #21

Thanks for the vote list Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #27

Roll Call demwing Sep 2014 #30

figures Burf-_- Sep 2014 #54

Wonder why Gilibrand didn't vote? Liberalynn Sep 2014 #81

Thanks underpants Sep 2014 #135

Not surprised about POStman Ohio rbrnmw Sep 2014 #144

The only one I would have predicted is McCain. Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #82

I think he's JimDandy Sep 2014 #108

WOW! Is This For Real?? ChiciB1 Sep 2014 #15

I think it is much more likely that they've realized that Veilex Sep 2014 #46

Which shows even a majority of Republican senators know people want this muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #17

I think the Repubs will JimDandy Sep 2014 #68

Great point. suffragette Sep 2014 #85

I think it is simply a tactical political move before the election hack89 Sep 2014 #138

I'm shocked! eom sheshe2 Sep 2014 #20

Well it has to pass the Senate still JimDandy Sep 2014 #62

Hopefully voters are paying attention to this...if they house shoots it down, C Moon Sep 2014 #23

They might pay attention JimDandy Sep 2014 #70

I'm not sure that it won't be voted on in the House karynnj Sep 2014 #25

Our Senator Dumbass voted against it, like I thought. Archae Sep 2014 #34

Another business drone who moved into politics. Half-Century Man Sep 2014 #76

this will never come to the floor of the house ..... nt littlewolf Sep 2014 #28

While they're at it, they can get rid of that stupid 2nd amendment too 951-Riverside Sep 2014 #29

"they can get rid of that stupid 2nd amendment too" Veilex Sep 2014 #47

the republiclowns calld their bluff leftyohiolib Sep 2014 #31

Called whose bluff? What was the bluff? n/t JimDandy Sep 2014 #118

Regarding Reid's quote... C Moon Sep 2014 #32

I think the results did fall exactly as GOP thought at first. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #36

Will it get thru the House? Probably not but Nevada Blue Sep 2014 #37

"I am hopeful" Veilex Sep 2014 #48

Two faced McConnell voted for it, while publicly smearing any kind of reform that might pass soon. Fred Sanders Sep 2014 #38

I'm glad it passed, but don't we need an amendment to the Constitution? JDPriestly Sep 2014 #39

This is an amendment that is up for consideration... Veilex Sep 2014 #52

Umm! This is the cloture vote for a Constitutional amendment. longship Sep 2014 #53

I don't agree with spending limits on candidates bluestateguy Sep 2014 #40

I'm a little concerned about the wording of the amendment. drm604 Sep 2014 #41

It's good! marym625 Sep 2014 #96

Can you specifically address my objection? drm604 Sep 2014 #123

I want to understand you correctly marym625 Sep 2014 #133

House Representatives are even more leashed than Senators AZ Progressive Sep 2014 #42

I worked in the House briefly. amandabeech Sep 2014 #60

This amendment is worthless as written... TheProgressive Sep 2014 #43

The same can be said about 13th-15th Amendments bluestateguy Sep 2014 #58

Imagine a law passed by Congress that made it illegal to spend any money to criticize a congressman. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #71

It specifically carves out freedom of the press. Warren Stupidity Sep 2014 #86

So Rupert Murdoch could spend unlimited amounts of money getting his message out, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #99

and who defines what constitutes "the press" and how is it defined? onenote Sep 2014 #124

Thank you for the post. oldandhappy Sep 2014 #44

Cloture is good JimDandy Sep 2014 #64

Good News AC_Mem Sep 2014 #45

GOTV is certainly more important than this cloture vote. JimDandy Sep 2014 #65

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #49

Five Bucks says Boehner doesn't let it go to the House Floor for a vote. TrollBuster9090 Sep 2014 #50

What are you betting JimDandy Sep 2014 #66

What Senate is this ? Surely not the folks in DC.....n/t jaysunb Sep 2014 #59

Now the repubs JimDandy Sep 2014 #104

Like the ACLU, I oppose this effort to partially repeal the First Amendment. (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #67

SOME of the ACLU marym625 Sep 2014 #100

I think the incumbent R's are scared of what people like the Koch's might fund if LiberalArkie Sep 2014 #69

Eh, don't get too excited WhoIsNumberNone Sep 2014 #75

True. tavernier Sep 2014 #79

It's a tough call JimDandy Sep 2014 #97

Even if this passed in the House and the President signed it .... Scuba Sep 2014 #77

K & R !!! WillyT Sep 2014 #78

I'm glad the Senate seems to be listening to their constituents, BUT there's something missing! napi21 Sep 2014 #88

At least the Senate JimDandy Sep 2014 #101

Won't fly unless it gets to... ReRe Sep 2014 #98

I think the President JimDandy Sep 2014 #105

Presidents are not involved in the Constitutional Amendment process. ieoeja Sep 2014 #139

OK! ReRe Sep 2014 #147

Damn, they don't write sentences like that any more. DavidDvorkin Sep 2014 #148

Very good news. Keep calling! grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #102

Just sad you beat me to the post marym625 Sep 2014 #103

Aww I'm sorry marym! minivan2 Sep 2014 #111

I'm teasing marym625 Sep 2014 #117

Please do not put party first. dotymed Sep 2014 #107

Wow locks Sep 2014 #110

I sent... TheVisitor Sep 2014 #113

check it out... TheVisitor Sep 2014 #115

good first step djnicadress Sep 2014 #112

This Was Just The Vote To End A Filibuster DallasNE Sep 2014 #114

All likely true, unfortunately. n/t JimDandy Sep 2014 #116

Wouldn't the state legislatures have to approve the amendment as well? madville Sep 2014 #132

Oops! demwing Sep 2014 #142

It's not "either/or" but "and". After a proposed amendment is passed by 2/3 of both the Hose and 24601 Sep 2014 #149

You're right, I'm confusing two separate steps in a constitutional amendment demwing Sep 2014 #150

The fact that the repukes want to talk about this before an election hack89 Sep 2014 #136

Maybe the Senate will vote for this 50 times like the House does valerief Sep 2014 #141

Even if it doesn't make it through this time, voters can see which yurbud Sep 2014 #143

try this: find some headlines on this on MSM. I've searched NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC... yurbud Sep 2014 #146