8 ms·

Financial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the co

Financial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. What I find more interesting is Schmidt's new interpretation of the Google motto "Don't be evil": "The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line." "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line. At the same time, Schmidt envisions a future where we embrace a larger role for machines and technology. "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches," he said. "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."

gregory80 16y ago
> We can more or less now what you're thinking about. i really hope he doesn't know what we're thinking, this must be a freudian slip for google instant.
kiba 16y ago
Finnancial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. I am sure that there will be loopholes to exploit.
- akkartik 16y ago
  It's better than nothing. A heck of a lot better.
  - danielnicollet 16y ago
    Of course it's better and again, the experience of other democracies (say in Scandinavia for instance) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
dctoedt 16y ago
> Financial lobbying should be outlawed. From the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Suppose we posited that corporations per se have no rights, only people do. Even so, the individuals who work for a corporation, or own shares in it, would still have that First Amendment right.
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  Corporations are not people - that's commons sense - and by allowing them the rights enjoyed by human beings, it gives shareholders a compounded right to influence government: - through their own human vote, - through the power lobbying, which allows them to not only influence votes in congress but even to initiate legislative cycles with laws which are usually written by a lobbyist or a former lobbyist in the staff of a congressman. Excuse my tone, but please wake up people! I am ready to do something about it beyond voting (some sort of activism). Are you?
  - rosser 16y ago
    Corporations are not people The US Supreme Court has a slightly different opinion on that question.
    - danielnicollet 16y ago
      So what? The supreme court sometimes doesn't agree with me. And sometimes the supreme court changes its mind. Do you take all the supreme court says for an absolute and intangible truth. The supreme court hears cases because it does think it needs to be consulted and it does think it desserves to keep building common law on the basis of new cases. I made mine above. My case, that is ;-)
  - dctoedt 16y ago
    Try a thought experiment: Imagine that "Google Inc." had no legal meaning except as a convenient identifier for a collection of individuals -- viz., Google's stockholders -- acting in concert. A) Should Congress be able to restrict the right of those people to hire professional advocates to petition Congress for the redress of their (real or imagined) grievances? How would a "no" answer be reconciled with the First Amendment passage quoted above? B) If yes, should the shareholders have the right to vote to designate some of their number -- viz., Google's board of directors -- to decide what specific policies will be advocated on behalf of the shareholders?

gregory80 16y ago

> We can more or less now what you're thinking about. i really hope he doesn't know what we're thinking, this must be a freudian slip for google instant.

kiba 16y ago

Finnancial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. I am sure that there will be loopholes to exploit.

akkartik 16y ago
It's better than nothing. A heck of a lot better.
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  Of course it's better and again, the experience of other democracies (say in Scandinavia for instance) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

dctoedt 16y ago

> Financial lobbying should be outlawed. From the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Suppose we posited that corporations per se have no rights, only people do. Even so, the individuals who work for a corporation, or own shares in it, would still have that First Amendment right.

danielnicollet 16y ago
Corporations are not people - that's commons sense - and by allowing them the rights enjoyed by human beings, it gives shareholders a compounded right to influence government: - through their own human vote, - through the power lobbying, which allows them to not only influence votes in congress but even to initiate legislative cycles with laws which are usually written by a lobbyist or a former lobbyist in the staff of a congressman. Excuse my tone, but please wake up people! I am ready to do something about it beyond voting (some sort of activism). Are you?
- rosser 16y ago
  Corporations are not people The US Supreme Court has a slightly different opinion on that question.
  - danielnicollet 16y ago
    So what? The supreme court sometimes doesn't agree with me. And sometimes the supreme court changes its mind. Do you take all the supreme court says for an absolute and intangible truth. The supreme court hears cases because it does think it needs to be consulted and it does think it desserves to keep building common law on the basis of new cases. I made mine above. My case, that is ;-)
- dctoedt 16y ago
  Try a thought experiment: Imagine that "Google Inc." had no legal meaning except as a convenient identifier for a collection of individuals -- viz., Google's stockholders -- acting in concert. A) Should Congress be able to restrict the right of those people to hire professional advocates to petition Congress for the redress of their (real or imagined) grievances? How would a "no" answer be reconciled with the First Amendment passage quoted above? B) If yes, should the shareholders have the right to vote to designate some of their number -- viz., Google's board of directors -- to decide what specific policies will be advocated on behalf of the shareholders?