Why ban anyone from giving whatever money he wishes to what ever cause he supports?

Mr. Schwartz;

Because a corporation isn't "anyone". Prohibiting corporate donations doesn't prevent any citizen from giving money to politicians. Heck, I'd support banning political contributions from all organziations. If you want your money used in a campaign, send it in yourself.

My campaign finance reform plan:

1) Only individual citizens can donate. No unions, corporations, PACs, etc., though they may do fundraising events at which individual citizens may donate.

2) Full online disclosure of all individual donations.

3) No contribution limits.

The sad part is that Delay was just a little too sloppy. All it takes is a clever accountant to funnel money from any source to any political campaign. Which is why both parties have become more spokespersons for major corporate interests, than actual policymakers themselves.
If you actually believe that whats in the best interest for the corporation trickles down to the best interests of the individual, then I really don't know what to say....

Corporations don't exist. "Corporation" is simply a convenient name for a bunch of legal rights given to a group of people acting in concert, some supplying capital and some supplying labor. Corporations have no natural rights, so it's not oppressive not to allow corporate contributions to candidates, but the ban accomplishes nothing substantive and, to some small extent, adds to the impression that business and profit are disreputable.

Papaya,

There are plenty of ways to get around not allowing corporation or pacs to donate.

My campaign finance reform plan:

1) Get rid of all parties.
2) Allow for contributions from both corporations and individuals to publically managed election funds that are available to candidates, and new arenas of public access to those candidates.
As long as campaign finace remains how it is, we will forever suffer from the corruption of both parties, and the real policymakers will continue to run the system through the act of writing checks.

PapayaSF: I agree and would add one more: No out-of-district contributions.

Posted by: jd watson at September 29, 2005 4:13 PM

David Cohen:

Corporations do exist; not like a tree exists, but I don't see how you can deny their inexistence. Saying the corporation doesn't exist is like saying the US doesn't exist; or any abstract political entity.

If they have no rights (which is not true) then how can we allow them to donate to campaigns? How can we allow lawyers to argue on their behalf against citizens?

Profits aren't always good for the majority. Do you think its fair that profits from slave labor be allowed to influence a political system into the maintenance of the slaves labor?

I think your right that the ban accomplishes little substance, because there are plenty of ways around it, especially when the means of investigating its legality are secured (well, almost secured).

Corporations are a bundle of rights; they have no existence other than through human beings. You can not see them or touch them. They have no thoughts or feelings. You can not have a conversation with them. Profits are always good for the majority of people. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of slavery and our opposition to it. It wouldn't be any better if it lost money. Do you really think that slaveholders should not have had free speech rights to argue for their pecular institution?

Wow. Robby's idea is among the more totalitarian measures ever put forth in the comments here, and that's saying something.

I disagree about "out-of-district" restrictions. If you insist on sending a clown like Patty Murray or Teddy Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi (or for you Leftists out there, Tom Delay), where their actions can affect me and the country, I should be able to do what I can to pursuade you to stop voting for them, or to vote for someone else.

On the other hand, with full, open disclosure, there's nothing that says that someone so targeted can't (and shouldn't) use that as a point in their favor...

Robby:

Corporations, groups, and individuals donate to those candidates who ALREADY appear to be likely to support issues that the donors like.

It's not common for a politician to change her spots, and votes, to support the causes of donors simply because they gave her some money, despite the popular and cynical idea that such is so.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 30, 2005 12:42 AM

Robby: excesive state involvement. Go the other way allow all contributions to the parties on a fully disclosed basis.

Robby;

Presuming your system was in existence, I am running for President on the Anarcho-Libertarian Extropian ticket (our motto: "Engineering Utopia via Disruptive Trans-Human Technology"). How much of that managed fund can I have?

Mr. Cohen;

I must agree with your critics. One of the actually useful insights of post-modernism is that things like "corporations" do exist, but at a different level of reality. You might find this book an interesting introduction. My doctoral work was essentially creating a collaborative system framework based on Speech Act Theory, which is the theory of how social realities are created and manipulated. The post-modernist mistake was to lose sight of the layeredness of reality and come to believe that since some layers of reality can be modified by speech alone, all layers can be.