posted
It seems unfair to let companies and churches contribute to political campaigns. I never really thought about it before. Legally, companies and organizations are entities in many respects -- that's why CEOs are fine with letting their companies bankrupt -- but they aren't allowed to vote because they haven't been granted the right. Nor should they.
I vote for representation so that my voice can be heard. If a company gives my congresspeople money, doesn't that compromise objectivity? The conflict comes in the fact that this amplifies the power that certain individuals or religious ideas have. For example, couldn't a church with a lot of money outside the US (Catholic, maybe) legally funnel money into the US to contribute? Or a foreign born citizen with ill intentions become an executive and shape her own agenda by through campaign donations?
This seems to be a case of misaligned incentives that would create pandering to business or religious interests. I have no idea how the courts find this to be legal. Maybe no one has filed suit?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... a foreign born citizen with ill intentions become an executive and shape her own agenda by through campaign donations?
Why single out female foreign born citizens?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... a foreign born citizen with ill intentions become an executive and shape her own agenda by through campaign donations?
Why single out female foreign born citizens?
This is why I like the singular they/their. I'll take a little ambiguity through my pronouns disagreeing with their antecedents.
But to the question, to vote you must be a citizen. While we recognize corporations as people, they can't become registered voters because they're not citizens. You don't have to be a registered voter to contribute to campaigns, but I think you need to be a permanent resident, over the age of 18, and affirm that the money you contribute was not given to you by some other person for the purpose of contributing. I wonder if an argument can be made that a corporation younger than 18 years old cannot legally contribute? (Granting, of course, that current law mandates that corporations, unions, PACs, etc. all do independent expenditures.)
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It seems unfair to let companies and churches contribute to political campaigns.
Each of the individuals who the organization represents can contribute individually. Why should they not have the right to do so as a group?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that necessarily true? I was under the impression that I couldn't contribute to election related activity in the US directly.
However, Goldman Sachs is supposed to, in part, represent my interests as a shareholder and I see it has contributed to Romney's PAC.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... a foreign born citizen with ill intentions become an executive and shape her own agenda by through campaign donations?
Why single out female foreign born citizens?
This is why I like the singular they/their. I'll take a little ambiguity through my pronouns disagreeing with their antecedents.
But to the question, to vote you must be a citizen ...
Not sure if this is a response to me, but foreign born citizens, even when female, are citizens and can vote.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... a foreign born citizen with ill intentions become an executive and shape her own agenda by through campaign donations?
Why single out female foreign born citizens?
This is why I like the singular they/their. I'll take a little ambiguity through my pronouns disagreeing with their antecedents.
But to the question, to vote you must be a citizen ...
Not sure if this is a response to me, but foreign born citizens, even when female, are citizens and can vote.
Oh, absolutely. I thought you were asking why of the foreign born citizens, we single out female foreign born citizens. My point was that I'd just rather punt "her" for "they" to keep it clear it doesn't matter the sex of the citizen at the cost of grammatical ambiguity. I think we're on the same page about it being weird to single out foreign born citizens when they are, in fact, citizens.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It seems unfair to let companies and churches contribute to political campaigns.
Would you also include other organizations, like trade unions, special interest groups, professional organizations and so forth? Or is there something specific about churches and companies that bothers you?
With respect to non-US influences, there was a kerfuffle in 2010 about whether money from foreign-owned corporations was being funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce into political advertisements, which would be illegal. Here is a fact checker on the issue along with useful additional information on foreign campaign spending (short story: not allowed, at all). While the issue came up over the Chamber of Commerce, it seems transnational interest groups, churches, or labor organizations would run into identical difficulties. I don't know, and the fact checker doesn't make clear, what level of reporting is required by the FEC to verify that foreign funds don't pollute political speech activities, thereby rendering them illegal under current law.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churches cannot contribute to political campaigns* without losing their tax-exempt status.
*they can advocate for issues, but not candidates. Since the title of the thread references voting for president, I assume the campaigns in question are for candidates, not referendums.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
