Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's just get rid of political contributions 100%. If you want to run for office, you must get X number of signatures (which would vary depending upon office and number of constituents) and the government give you a set amount of money for political materials and such.
What is in bold is insane. Why should government pay for campaigns? If anything, the candidate should foot the bill rather than special interests. That alone would level the playing field overnight.
With candidates only spending their own money, you'd essentially set up the system so only rich people would hold office. We kind of already have that system, to an extent, and it's not working very well.
I'm not too sure what is so insane about it? Right now the public essentially already pays for it through costs added into goods, union memberships and even taxes. My county PAYS via my tax dollars to be part of an association that then lobbies and makes political contributions.
BTW, you do realize that we already have federal matching funds for the presidential race?
I'd much rather use tax money and have the transparency and have a more equitable opportunity.
Sole proprietorships shouldn't have to be neutral, since they are one person's business; likewise, privately held companies are owned by a group of individuals and should not be unnecessarily encumbered.
But publicly held companies (open to private investment) are fundamentally different. Anyone with a 401K/retirement plan, pension fund, or mutual fund could potentially be a shareholder without even knowing it--and all those owners don't even get a vote when the company decides not to sell firearms, Confederate flags, etc. And even if they did, I don't think a vote of 51% in favor should allow the company to make a decision against their own financial interest, when 99% of shareholders invested for financial benefit, not social engineering.
Besides that, there's a much bigger problem: thanks to our beyond-corrupt Supreme Court (Citizens United decision), since 2010 there's no limit to campaign spending by corporations(Republican Party) and large labor unions (Democrat Party). In English, "Since 2010 your Washington politicians have been bought by the highest Big Business/Labor Union bidders." This totalitarian elite upper class exists to serve its own interests (unlimited power, and all the wealth in the nation), and it couldn't be more obvious when Obama forced virtually ALL Americans to PURCHASE insurance from ultra-expensive, for-profit, Big Business middlemen.
The issue of not selling firearms is critical to the future of our nation: an armed citizenry can RESIST when Big Government/Big Business gets to the point of taking away ALL your rights, freedoms, and money[/b]. Obama already used Big Business to in Phase I of rendering the citizenry helpless, by using taxpayer's dollars to buy up the nation's entire manufacturing capacity of most ammunition (while blaming the endless shortage on "excess demand," as if manufacturing couldn't ramp up in 3 years). It's a tiny step to use Big Business's power over the market (a perversion of capitalism that should not be legal) to similarly not produce or sell many firearms. Ta Da! The 2nd Amendment is circumvented and now irrelevant.
I think generally a business should be able to run as it sees fit, but yes business should be political neutral and not enforce their PC and their progressive politics on others. Also judges should be politically neutral.
Progressive corporations and judges are doing the lion share of enforcing PC and progressivism. While they try to enforce a one-world view, they are actually increasing sectarianism and it's getting to the point where if we want freedom and liberty something is going to have to be done about politically progressive corporations and political activist judiciary dictating policy.
Businesses are led, managed and operated by people - people with political opinions. So I think it is only logical that a business leader, manager, and/or operator's politics will "creep" into their business decisions.
A lot of misinformation here. Every, and I mean every, decision made by a large corporation is designed to maximize profit, either over the short-run or long-run. That's because corporations are required by state law to maximize profits. So, any decision to not sell a product in light of public opinion, is made to earn the goodwill of the majority of their customers which will, they hope, translate into more sales down the road. They are not being PC, the decision makers at the corporation are not all liberals/progressives, afterall. So, you can say corporations are political neutral, but politically aware, to make money. They only mirror the public sentiment to please the most number of people so they can buy more stuff from them. That's the reality and the law.
Mick
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
