m.b. wrote:corporations, like unions, are groups of like minded individuals with similar interests and ideas.
Not likely, in both instances. More to my argument though, why not just form a group of likeminded individuals sans incorporating for purposes of electioneering? What is the difference from a representation standpoint for those people, given the compelling interest everyone else has in not getting our voices drowned out by the hundreds of millions of dollars corps and unions dump into electioneering? If you can show me how corporate electioneering isnt simply a form of double-representation, where people act collectively using corp money, while they are simultaneously able to act individually, giving them a greater presence than just individuals, not to mention the huge coffers they spend from, coffers meant for specific purposes defined in the articles of incorporation, then maybe I will be sympathetic. In my view, a corporation's interests are already covered by the individuals who hold an interest in a corporation, eg shareholders, employees and customers.
m.b. wrote:if unions can do it, why should these like-minded individuals not be allowed to voice their opinions and give support to candidates who are looking out for their interests?
I think unions should be barred as well, their membership is fully capable of representing themselves too. If union members want to band together, sames as corporate employees, etc, form a group that doesnt avail itself of limited liability protections and huge coffers obtained for purposes other than electioneering, eg the purposes for which they were chartered. I doubt you will see a single business' corporate charter include lobbying or electioneering as part of the purpose for that corporation's existence. I feel corps pay taxes for the benefits and protections conferred upon those who incorporate. Those people can petition the govt on their own acct or as a group till the cows come home, they shouldnt be allowed to take money from the corp to boost their voice above all others.
m.b. wrote:and as far as foreign corporations,...if they are paying US taxes (the vast majority are), then why shouldn't they be able to influence? or is taxation without representation ok? they pay taxes but can't vote.
I suppose then you were down with the playas from dubai buying the new york port authority then? Thought bush shouldnt have intervened in the interest of national security? So, have I got this right: your down for throwing civil liberties out the window chasing dipshit terrorists who try to blow up a plane with a panty bomb (aka, who gives a shit small fry), but are willing to give up the whole ship to their "rich off our oil dependency" overlords when they show up with truckloads of cash looking to own us? Ooosh.