To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[Valmy]

The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.

I guess I think you have it backwards.  How can we limit the power of a corrupt system?  Seems to me we would need to reform the way elections are held, get some real small government conservatives elected, and then reduce the size and power of the Feds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.

The key phrase in this passage is "when considering the investors".  The investors do have constitutional rights and those rights are implicated if the value of their property (shares) is extinguished by government action.  The last sentence does not follow because extra-statutory rights for corps are not necessary for that purpose.

Consider another clause of the 5th amendment - the privilege against self-incrimination.  Even though corporations can be indicted or convicted of crimes as entities, they cannot themselves invoke the right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify.

A state legislature could also effectively dispossess a corporation in the sense that it could require the dissolution of all corporations registered in that state if it wished.

[grumbler]

How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?

I propose no restrictions for corporations that I don't propose for individuals, so no problems there.

[DGuller]

He has identified the cause.

What is the cause?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Otto, you fundamentally misunderstand the law.  Joan doesnt just think corporations are subject to the structures of statute.  Corporations only exist because of the statute that defines the powers that corporations may have.

I don't see where anything I said relates to what you said. In fact did you see where I used the term "creature of statute" to describe corporations? What do you suppose I meant when I said that?

Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses? Particularly ones of due process, equality under the law etc? I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what I said, or unable to read what I wrote.

How many people here actually have incorporated, and actually operate a corporation? I have. Trust me I know from what fount corporations spring.

[Berkut]

Stop engaging with him on this - it is a total red herring.

[Valmy]

Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?

[crazy canuck]

Stop engaging with him on this - it is a total red herring.

I am beginning to think he has been trolling us.  At least I hope that is the explanation.

[The Minsky Moment]

Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?

The people who hold drivers licenses have various rights.
The actual licenses themselves don't.

[garbon]

Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?

The people who hold drivers licenses have various rights.
The actual licenses themselves don't.

My license has the right to have a picture on it of me "looking" like a thug.

[Ideologue]

Maybe you shouldn't have gotten those teardrop tattoos in the pen.

[Hansmeister]

I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations. Corporate donations are not particular influential for two reasons: they are not that significant in total, and they have limited goals.  Corporations usually give money to either protect themselves from the avarice of government or to create small legal or regulatory changes to favor them over their competitors. To do that they usually give money to likely in direct proportion to their likelihood of winning since you don't get a ROI on a loser.  In the end corporations have no impact on election outcomes.

I also find it funny when Berkut rails against Super-PACs favoring the GOP, when in fact the opposite is true.  This year, for example, the Dems so far have raised $87 million in Super-PAC money vs $42 million for the GOP.  Similarly funny is Berkut's belief that rich people are Republicans when they are mostly Democrats.

[grumbler]

I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Hansmeister]

I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. 

[Valmy]

I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. 

The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo.  Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking?  Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?