5 ms·

Okay, so if citizens decide to band together to petition their representatives, that isn't allowed? Also, in the United States, you do not need shareholders to

Okay, so if citizens decide to band together to petition their representatives, that isn't allowed? Also, in the United States, you do not need shareholders to form a corporation. You are already a corporation in and of yourself. If you want to fund your activities via your own money, you do not technically even need any corporate body to conduct in business. Business is an individual right.

infogulch 7y ago
Can that band not have some reasonable restrictions? Some random examples: the band must be a nonprofit, it may not be funded by corporations, limits on the type and amount of spending, they're required to publish sources and destination of income, etc, etc.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > the band must be a nonprofit Sure! So, I'll start a software company, let's call it Maxisoft. Then, I'll start a non-profit, "the Maxisoft benefactor's mutual benefit corporation" (A non-profit producing body) who just happens to share officers with Maxisoft (after all, since we're all in business together, it makes sense that we're all friends, right). > limits on the type and amount of spending Why? Don't individuauls have an unlimited right to spend as much as they want seeking redress of grievances? Board members could just vote officers a higher salary and then the officers can simply use the corporation's assets (now their own via the magic of payroll) to do the same lobbying, and certainly, you cannot be against the right of an individual (in this case an officer of the corporation) from asking his/her representative for change? > they're required to publish sources and destination of income I fail to see how this isn't a massive breach of an individual's right to privacy, but either way, for the most part, donations to a political campaign are public. Ultimately, IMO, your regulations fall flat, because they all get in the way of an individual right to seek redress. In every case, there is a straightforwards way around the regulation, and there is no way to stop what you are trying to stop without stripping some people of their individual right to petition their government. Thus, we ought to reject all the regulation as an unnecessary overreach.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I agree that no restriction will be perfect; however, I think that it's likely that restrictions could be crafted that are better than what we have now. For example, maybe something like: - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. - There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). That being said, what's your solution if you are opposed to campaign finance regulations?
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I agree, but money is going to buy influence whether you believe in some sense of noble politics or not. Without severely and arbitrary restricting even more rights it's impossible to get around this. Those with more money can make friends with influencers, buy advertising space, produce media, etc, at far greater rates. Even without direct lobbying, they're going to be more influential > There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). No there isn't. There's just taxes on contributions if you give more. > - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. I already gave a few ways around this legislation above.
      - harimau777 7y ago
        I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Nothing stopping say the CEO of Exxon, solo entrepreneur or self employed window cleaner writing to their local (I'm assuming it's usual to contact your local representative, rather than any and all?) congressman as an elector. Seems reasonable to write to the departments dealing with tax and business too, who will also have input to representatives as part of the machinery of government. Seems less reasonable to petition as a full time role, and get everyone's representative on board with unduly supporting a particular company or cause, or get undue weight because can throw $10m at the issue. That's not really representing the people any more, even if it is understandable how it happens. Citizens banding together in a cause? Already happens, and no doubt representatives who receive 500 letters or emails that could be copies of each other are treated as less weighty than 500 individuals writing individual emails on the same cause.
- tathougies 7y ago
  I guess I fail to see the difference between the CEO of Exxon writing and Exxon itself. Of course, the real issue at hand is that of money being spent to lobby. Individuals also have a right to spend their money to lobby. Individuals with more money have an outsized influence, kind of by nature. Corporations of course have more money than individuals, but corporations can simply give their money to officers that they know are going to lobby on behalf of it anyway, so it's all a matter of money shuffling. I prefer things to be transparent rather than obfuscated on purpose.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I favour regulation that tries to minimise that outsize influence. One elector one vote and all that. Hence trying to limit opportunity for professional and full time lobbyists, the permanent presence near to government constantly trying to influence, create and ruin policy. Sure, the CEO is probably only ever going to sign rather than write, and their money will always bring extra influence. I'd hope to find a balance that keeps it transparent but minimises gaming the system with money. As is, lobbying is bending most governments around the world badly out of shape, and seems to have got far out of hand. Of course getting a better system, whatever it may be, through the current system is another matter entirely... :)
jacques_chester 7y ago
This is a misleading argument. If I operate as a sole trader, I am the legal person responsible. If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities. An unincorporated association is the individuals it is composed of and has very little recognition in law. An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court. The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. Courts distinguish between natural and artificial legal personality all the time. Corporations are a legislative creature. People aren't.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities. Perhaps, but probably not. The ease of corporate veil piercing is inversely proportional to the number of involved parties. > An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court. which means that it is easier to sue as an entity. > The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. I never made that argument. Stop with the strawmanning. I said that there is no way to limit the ability of companies to petition the government without simultaneously limiting the ability of individuals to do so as well. The previous regulations we had were easily bypassed.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    > I never made that argument. Stop with the strawmanning. What you said was: > Okay, so if citizens decide to band together to petition their representatives, that isn't allowed? Implying that these were inseparable. They are not. That enforcement is difficult and imperfect is different from whether it is possible or desirable.

infogulch 7y ago

Can that band not have some reasonable restrictions? Some random examples: the band must be a nonprofit, it may not be funded by corporations, limits on the type and amount of spending, they're required to publish sources and destination of income, etc, etc.

tathougies 7y ago
> the band must be a nonprofit Sure! So, I'll start a software company, let's call it Maxisoft. Then, I'll start a non-profit, "the Maxisoft benefactor's mutual benefit corporation" (A non-profit producing body) who just happens to share officers with Maxisoft (after all, since we're all in business together, it makes sense that we're all friends, right). > limits on the type and amount of spending Why? Don't individuauls have an unlimited right to spend as much as they want seeking redress of grievances? Board members could just vote officers a higher salary and then the officers can simply use the corporation's assets (now their own via the magic of payroll) to do the same lobbying, and certainly, you cannot be against the right of an individual (in this case an officer of the corporation) from asking his/her representative for change? > they're required to publish sources and destination of income I fail to see how this isn't a massive breach of an individual's right to privacy, but either way, for the most part, donations to a political campaign are public. Ultimately, IMO, your regulations fall flat, because they all get in the way of an individual right to seek redress. In every case, there is a straightforwards way around the regulation, and there is no way to stop what you are trying to stop without stripping some people of their individual right to petition their government. Thus, we ought to reject all the regulation as an unnecessary overreach.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I agree that no restriction will be perfect; however, I think that it's likely that restrictions could be crafted that are better than what we have now. For example, maybe something like: - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. - There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). That being said, what's your solution if you are opposed to campaign finance regulations?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I agree, but money is going to buy influence whether you believe in some sense of noble politics or not. Without severely and arbitrary restricting even more rights it's impossible to get around this. Those with more money can make friends with influencers, buy advertising space, produce media, etc, at far greater rates. Even without direct lobbying, they're going to be more influential > There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). No there isn't. There's just taxes on contributions if you give more. > - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. I already gave a few ways around this legislation above.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Nothing stopping say the CEO of Exxon, solo entrepreneur or self employed window cleaner writing to their local (I'm assuming it's usual to contact your local representative, rather than any and all?) congressman as an elector. Seems reasonable to write to the departments dealing with tax and business too, who will also have input to representatives as part of the machinery of government. Seems less reasonable to petition as a full time role, and get everyone's representative on board with unduly supporting a particular company or cause, or get undue weight because can throw $10m at the issue. That's not really representing the people any more, even if it is understandable how it happens. Citizens banding together in a cause? Already happens, and no doubt representatives who receive 500 letters or emails that could be copies of each other are treated as less weighty than 500 individuals writing individual emails on the same cause.

tathougies 7y ago
I guess I fail to see the difference between the CEO of Exxon writing and Exxon itself. Of course, the real issue at hand is that of money being spent to lobby. Individuals also have a right to spend their money to lobby. Individuals with more money have an outsized influence, kind of by nature. Corporations of course have more money than individuals, but corporations can simply give their money to officers that they know are going to lobby on behalf of it anyway, so it's all a matter of money shuffling. I prefer things to be transparent rather than obfuscated on purpose.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I favour regulation that tries to minimise that outsize influence. One elector one vote and all that. Hence trying to limit opportunity for professional and full time lobbyists, the permanent presence near to government constantly trying to influence, create and ruin policy. Sure, the CEO is probably only ever going to sign rather than write, and their money will always bring extra influence. I'd hope to find a balance that keeps it transparent but minimises gaming the system with money. As is, lobbying is bending most governments around the world badly out of shape, and seems to have got far out of hand. Of course getting a better system, whatever it may be, through the current system is another matter entirely... :)

jacques_chester 7y ago

This is a misleading argument. If I operate as a sole trader, I am the legal person responsible. If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities. An unincorporated association is the individuals it is composed of and has very little recognition in law. An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court. The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. Courts distinguish between natural and artificial legal personality all the time. Corporations are a legislative creature. People aren't.

tathougies 7y ago
> If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities. Perhaps, but probably not. The ease of corporate veil piercing is inversely proportional to the number of involved parties. > An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court. which means that it is easier to sue as an entity. > The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. I never made that argument. Stop with the strawmanning. I said that there is no way to limit the ability of companies to petition the government without simultaneously limiting the ability of individuals to do so as well. The previous regulations we had were easily bypassed.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  > I never made that argument. Stop with the strawmanning. What you said was: > Okay, so if citizens decide to band together to petition their representatives, that isn't allowed? Implying that these were inseparable. They are not. That enforcement is difficult and imperfect is different from whether it is possible or desirable.