Lobbying is straight up legalized bribery

Citizens united fucking suckss


Citizens united fucking suckss


I turned my dad onto citizens united and now he talks about how much he hates it whenever corruption comes up. Get more people on board with that hate train


Corporations donating to campaigns and lobbiest taking out governers and directors for bug fancy lunches is also a problem. The public gets a mere suggestion on the matter and then they vote or do whatever anyway. When the law was purposed corporations can privately donate to a political campaign that was the time to say no. Once that boat sails turning back is very hard and politicians have no incentive to do so when their pockets ans being filled. And corporations also put their own ex executives in places too like the fcc. Comcast put one of their executives there so they could get away with shit. At the end of the day people need to be more proactive on this stuff. Otherwise fighting them after the fact is a uphill battle. For clarification I'm not saying don't expose this stuff. Definitely do, but things got this way because they knew the people weren't paying attention.




True. Worker rights and benefits have declined steeply. Education has declined, healthcare has declined, and I'm sure you know the rest. The reality is people hating on capitalism is misdirection from the real issue. Getting rid of capitalism isn't going to solve shit. When the people who rig the system to their favor are still in power and control, the next system will be the same. All charades and theater. Huge corporations are definitely bad and some corporations (a huge online store starting a ending with z) has dam near dipped it's hand in every large market in America. Capitalism regulated so a single group cannot branch out like this and dip it's hands into so many markets is in desperate need. I'm also sure many people have seen the large graphs of how one company holds so many brands that people would never think were related. Beware of misdirection, social media, including reddit is filled with it more then you realize.


This is your mind on capitalist realism.


Amanoz? Jk, but yeah I agree with you.




The problem with and the best thing about every economic system: humans.




Except that some systems actively reward bad actors and breed them while others don't.


I feel like we are feeling the effects more and more of always putting the dollar over people in this country.




Also true.


Yeah it's a revolving door. Industry execs end up as regulators then go back to the industry they regulated.


There should be a way to curtail that too. Maybe have like a 5 - 10 year waiting period before allowing the jump before each job switch.


The flip side of that is putting people in positions of power to regulate an area for which they have no background. Which is also a problem. I'm starting to think the position of power itself is the problem, not just the person in the position.


> I'm starting to think the position of power itself is the problem, not just the person in the position. This. P


It’s the wealth possessed by the person seeking the position of power.


Yup and their kids get those positions while they’re in office. The rich people are our enemy.


Yep. Companies pay big bucks for access. If you are a congressman that means you probably have some drinking buddies who are also congressmen and they’ll pick up your phonecall. If a group is trying to get something passed or change a law having someone on staff who can call up their drinking buddies and get it done goes a long way.


its not quite that easy though. Politicians have so many people with so many agendas including their own, trying to get favors that it really comes down to which favor benefits the most... which often means the most money involved.


The revolving door of politics.


Go see who is on the board of these Fortune 500 companies. Majority ex-politicians, usually high ranking who have a lot of influence in the government still.


Lobby groups are legalized corruption. I don't understand how they don't see that.


I wish that worked for my dad. I told him all about things like this, but he just twisted it into evidence for how the Deep State is against Trump because he's a True Patriot and the only uncorrupted politician. Sometimes casting pearls before swine results in something more monstrous than a loss of jewelry.


Not all heroes wear capes. Thanks for spreading the word around. I wish more people did the same.


But corporations are people! I will never understand that ruling, what a joke




You mean like calling 4th Amendment violations "The Patriot Act"? It's only temporary, they said, but 20 years later, still doing it


And both parties support it! It's a complete mockery of privacy protections and its completely criminal that nobody was jailed for creating it


lol we elected the author of it president.


It’s kind of funny how well the media spun Biden into these savior of the country when he’s always been a deeply entrenched corporatist. Now granted he was a much better option then Trump but the amount of people I see shilling for him is ridiculous. Reddit eats it up like free candy. Biden is everything wrong with long term archaic dinosaurs in the highest positions of government. He tows the party line and has been part of enacted horrific policies that we still feel today. There’s a reason why the democratic establishment put Biden in place. Any decent democrat could have beat Trump. Majority of the country was done with him at that point. Technology is advancing quickly and has become an integral part of our society. These people barely know how to work a cell phone and don’t even understand basic data sec 101. Both sides of government are bought and controlled by corporate interests. The corporate owned media convinces both sides of the country to go for each other’s throats while the .01% and politicians laugh all the way to the bank. It’s all smoke and mirrors.


I think your assessment is accurate for the politician Biden has shown himself to be in the past, but not who he has displayed himself as in the present; in policy or politics. I think a lot of people don't give politicians as much opportunity to change as they do regular people, and most people give very little room for regular people to start with.


Smoke and mirrors. You’ll see a lot of headlines on what he plans to do and what he’s in the process of doing. By the end of the 4 years you’ll be shocked on how much didn’t get done. I can guarantee anything anti-establishment will not be implemented while he’s in office He’ll be praised for repealing Trumps stupid executive orders and undoing some Trump era policies while not changing anything drastic in this country.


You're saying you don't support the Patriot act, what are you, not a PATRIOT?!?


The Fox News in the henhouse...all started with Regan and truth in advertising removed..then trickle down bullshit ..


The 1971 Powell Memo to the US chamber of commerce suggested the rich apply their wealth to propaganda purposes. It’s been incredibly successful, esp on poor red states.


Lewis Powell was a fucking monster When the epitaph for the United States is written he needs to be named as one of the murderers of our democracy.


What the fuck is wrong with people named Powell? lol Enoch, Lewis Thornton, Lewis Franklin (which I wouldn't be surprised if he was named after Lewis Thornton), Colin, Dina...


My ex girlfriend Amanda!


Fucking Amanda, what a cunt!


In those states they gladly welcome it.....kinda like Boeing SC and their workforce turning down union representation and a decent wage. Good ole southern pride.


Actually, the idea that corporations are people comes from SCOTUS decisions in the lpost civil war era, using the 14th amendment. Judges have expanded the idea since then.


Citizen's United is frustratingly not what people thought it was. Thanks for commenting this.


> I'm pretty sure our countries foundation was suppose to prevent this Sort of. The Founders didn’t really even want to have political parties and for a long time the candidates themselves would never actually campaign. During early elections there was no designated election day, no national newspapers, electors were typically just chosen by state legislators and when people would vote it was often done publicly so everyone could see who everyone else was voting for. Our elections today look absolutely nothing like what they did in the 1790s and early 1800s and that’s probably a very good thing. We’ve expanded the right to vote to people who don’t own land as well as to women, minorities, American Indians and teenagers. We’ve gone from a closed knit bunch of aristocrats just picking things to a flawed but somewhat representative democracy. Personally I respect the founders but our current system resembles their envisioned system about as much as Frankenstein’s monster resembles a man and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. What the founders envisioned is highly speculative and best and should probably not be our benchmark for what makes a good system.




Both sides use PACs. Both sides are bought and paid for by corporate interests. Both sides use the media to divide the country while corporations whittle away at the middle class in the name of profits. Biden wouldn’t have been put in place if he didn’t tow the corporate line. Look at Bernie, he literally had the entire establishment trying to undermine his campaign. Taking money out of politics is the single biggest thing we need done to start fixing this country. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.


Watch or read The Corporation. Gives a pretty good outline. (However, it still defies logic.)


If corporations are actually persons they should be eligible for the death penalty. Wouldn't be hard to amend the law to include juridicial executions.


Instead of fines for breaking laws, put them in jail and ban selling, advertising, producing, etc. Make guilty companies make license plates for 0.01cent per hour


Corporations only have a subset of the rights and responsibilities of natural people. A corporation cannot vote, for example. We definitely want them to have some personlike qualities, so that they can enter contracts and be sued if necessary. Allowing them to make campaign contributions is a bit much, though.


The issue comes down in the end to wording. Writing legislature is scarily similar to designing YuGiOh card text wherein both are confusing as fuck and allow for a lot of messed up stuff when done improperly.


CU isn’t a ruling that “corporations are people.”


I agree it'd be good to get money out of politics but can someone explain why this has any affect? If a corporation wasn't allowed to donate $50,000 the CEO would just write himself a check for $50,000 and donate it at as an individual right? If you want corporations to be unable to donate we can't let people donate either.


AFAIK actual human citizens can only donate up to a certain amount and I’m pretty sure it’s far below 50k. Corporations and PACs don’t have that limit, though.


You're wrong about corporations. Corporations are prohibited from donating to political campaigns.


Those sweet unlimited donations to super pacs sure come in handy though.


And we had allowed groups such a Unions the ability to donate large sums before citizens united. Thing is, we should either let all groups donate or no groups. Allow any individual to donate (up to whatever max) or not let anyone. Allow people to make and post movies about candidates at any time or forbid it all together (you know, the actual Citizens United case that went to the SC)


The maximum donation you can give to one candidate in a cycle is 2800 dollars for federal races so the CEO wouldn’t be able to do that. Getting money out of politics is a lot more complicated than just removing citizens united but it would be a start.


Corporate lobbyists often write legislation. The politician that has gotten a donation from that corporation then gets that passed. It's legal bribery any way you look at it


Thanks John Roberts.


Who actually likes Robert's? Besides neocons/neolibs same bs different paint. Almost all conservatives and progressives and actual liberals I know hate him.


I love how it’s called Citizens United


Can someone ELI5 Citizens United for a Canadian pls?


The response you got is a joke. Super PACs are CLEAR about who and what they are supporting. Therefore corporations know exactly who they are donating to. It's amazing people could think these companies are just donating blindly and don't know what their supporting. In addition to this super PACs provide the corporation with anonymity. Walmart doesn't want their big donation to a campaign covered? Just give it to a super PAC that's supporting that candidate or those positions and now no one knows where this money came from. I truly can't fathom why people are simping for corporations and defending citizens united.


But "citizens united" *sounds like* a good thing!


I'm going to need some more context. Idk what this comment is supposed to mean


It does but it's not what allowed corporate donations in the first place. It just removed the caps. I agree with OP, there should be 0 corporate donations.


This isn't true no one in this thread seems to understand what that ruling did. This ruling said that the FCC can not stop private corporations from publishing media regarding elections. It wasnt about lobbying.


No, you're mistaken. It allows unlimited corporate contributions to political action committees. Google it. Perhaps you were thinking of a different ruling?


You're both sort of talking about the same thing. Citizens United was a conservative group that wanted to publish a book (or a movie?) denigrating Hillary Clinton in the runup to the election. Old campaign finance laws prohibited this as "electioneering" and would have prohibited it within so many days of the election. SCOTUS struck that down as an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech. So the Citizens United ruling said there are both no time, or financial, limits on political speech, whether by individuals, corporations, or unions. Super PACs arose out of this but the important point is Super PACs cannot donate to candidates. Super PACs collect money (and don't have to disclose where it came from) and then spend it on ads for their issues or candidates--but legally they cannot give money to any candidates edit: and the Super PACs cannot legally coordinate with a candidate.


Not really, it allowed an organization to make a documentary about Hillary Clinton


I hate Citizens United 👿🤑


Emphasis on #SUCKSS


Hey, "Corporations are people too, my friend." - Some dumb fuck


More like Corporations United.


Lobbying is a PR fluff term to disguise what we all know is outright shitbag bribery. $5000 a plate dinners are payoffs. Corporations buy our masters to become their servants and we fluff it up to, “well that’s politics!” It’s not politics. It’s fucking bullshit.


Agreed. If the people who own corporations acted in a way that was beneficial to the whole, rather than being greedy bastards who overcharge customers while underpaying their workers, capitalism might work. As it is, our political system of so-called "freedom" through capitalalist ideals results in an ever increasing divide between rich and poor. Regulation of the system is presented as an attack on people's (i.e. corporations) freedom, yet the reality is, that without financial balance and equality for all, a select few are free to dictate their agenda on the majority.


Not saying it's perfect but I've always felt like the concepts put forth by libertarian socialism might contain the answer to capitalism working for the people as a whole.


Without lobbying Germany would have nowadays one of the World best Internet infrastructures. Cancelor Schmidt wanted to go all in with Fibre optic. His Conservative successor Kohl was a corrupt PoS and now we have one of the slowest in global scale.


Pretty much the same in Australia with Murdoch.


Wait, this shit is legal in the EU countries as well??


It's different, but yea, still a huge problem. Germany is actually especially bad compared to countries like France. Unless a politician is directly given money for something, they aren't breaking any law. So basically impossible for a politician to be convicted for corruption unless they are complete idiots about it


How do you define lobbying in order to ban it? At its core it’s just telling a politician about something that you believe will aid their constituency. I agree on banning corporations from making political donations, but lobbying is much more broad and comprehensive than just that.


This needs to be up top. Corporate donations to political parties/campaigns are already banned in... Acceptable democracies. However, this does not stop lobbying from being a concern (corporations are definitely more vocal than other advocates), but it's a necessary starting point


You're conflating campaign finance with lobbying aka speaking to your member of Congress on an issue you'd like them to act on. Lobbying is actually written into the Constitution. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, **and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.** That being said, how campaigns are financed needs to be reformed and Congress needs to pass legislation overturning recent Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to donate endless amounts of anonymous money to super pacs.


~~Man....imagine that, though. What a life!~~ ~~I could have maybe gone to school a little longer and got a law degree, or just maybe a political science/public policy postgrad degree, and sat around the office of the local Republican party headquarters, lying. I might be a shoe in as a black Republican candidate for a House position in the right market, sit back as a Junior House member for maybe two to six years, doing what they tell me to do, and then getting a job as a lobbyist afterward, to petition my former collegues. Dishing out bribes over expensive dinners I'm not paying for, maybe a little golf on the weekends, that'd be AWESOME!!! Cant be a lot of work or talent that goes into that. Worse comes to worse, I could get a job at Fox News just absolutely lying to dumb people about obvious things.~~ Yeah man, it's a shame that our "democracy" is really just a corporate oligarchy.


Lobbying has practical reasons politicians can't be experts on everything, so you need someone to explain what the impact of a bill would have.


This is why term limits are a double edged sword. State legislators are termed out just as they’re really grasping the policy so lobbyists and staff have outsized influence when the new people come in.


I'm fine with them donating to a campaign, as long as they are capped at what a person is capped at...its a few 1000 bucks iirc and I believe that they are limited the same way actual people are limited. The problem isn't those donations, its the entire dark money infrastructure that was set up by Citizens United, that fucking shit needs to go imo because the donations aren't capped and these fucking companies are just pouring money into these 501c's that don't have to disclose or state anything because the dumb fucking scotus was like "oh, err, they won't coordinate with the politicians so ok derpaderp" Fucking kill that shit and things will start to immediately improve imo They tried to say money equals speech and if that's true than these corporations and wealthy people have WAY WAY WAYYYYYYYYY more speech than a regular person and that's a problem


Man, if I had big corporation money I’d give you an award, couldn’t agree more


If companies were to still donate to politics but under a couple thousand dollar cap they would just make a bunch of satellite companies to donate through.


>they would just make a bunch of satellite companies to donate through. There's really no way to do that tbh because any company say some big conglomerate like J&J would be owned by J&J, where is this new company getting the money to make a donation? Same with some wealthy person, sure, they can call their accountant and have them file a dozen new LLCs but they are still the person attached to that company and this paper shell company has no money, it has to get the money from the founder and at that point you're just washing your donations over your personal cap through a shell company and that's illegal as fuck, people have and do go to jail for that.....A real person's name goes on the checks from a private LLC The only way to truly just "start a new company" and not have it attached to your existing company or yourself personally in regards to this cap is for them to be public companies and that's not at all trivial to do, plus, again, where is it getting its money from? Imo it would be super easy to catch people skirting the caps that way


Unfortunately, changing CU will take an amendment, but the easier path is to just extend the current political donation caps to apply to ALL political donations from any person or entity, instead of just single candidates. That law already passes constitutional muster. Just say a per campaign cap of $2700 like we have now, with a total political donation cap of $10K per year. So if you want to donate $2500 to your congressman, senator, presidential candidate, and governor race, go for it, and if you want to just donate the full $10K to some super PAC that's also fine. This would cover over 99.9% of all political donations made in the US. There's less than 100,000 total donors that exceeded $10K in the US, I think it's fine to block donations over that level. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/donor-demographics




Nobody should be allowed to donate to political groups. We pay taxes. That should be their only funding.


I don’t hate this idea. Publicly funded elections do have a nice ring to them.


That's what we do in Germany. Of course there are still donations, and there is still corruption. But parties are at least not *as* deep in the pockets of corporations. It's not perfect, but it's better.


Americans are categorically programmed in school to believe that our government and country is the best. Very few Americans will ever look at any foreign governmental system or institution and take a single lesson from it, they will blindly state that America is better. Healthcare, elections, taxation, benefits, criminal prosecution, privatization. It doesn't matter the statistics... America is #1. Oh but look at public health outcomes in Norway... oh but they're so small, oh but look at the explosive economic growth jn China, oh but that's all a shame.... blah blah blah excuses. I say oh but look at the State of Mississippi. We Americans are steaming away on a mighty ship, when the torpedoes and blind idiot captain in the wheelhouse finally cause the ship to sink, every single American will proudly go down with the ship.


> Americans are categorically programmed in school to believe that our government and country is the best. It’s more nuanced than that, at least for conservatives. They believe America is the best country, but that the government sucks and should be systematically dismantled and sold for parts (except for the military and police of course [but also private paramilitary forces are cool too]).


They hate the government until the government makes abortions illegal or rounds up immigrants and puts them in cages. Conservatives only want the government to stay out of things when it benefits them and their beliefs.


I'm sure it's more complicated but as I see it, the government shouldn't be influenced by money. Donations are simply bribes to favour some over others.


Exactly correct


I guess the concern is how do they get the money for advertising to tell people about themselves? Do we give every single person who says they are trying to run a ten million dollar budget? (We can't poll to find the top people or we run into the same issue as before aka only rich/famous people are well known and get all the polling). As if we don't do that, and expect them to use their own money, we will only have millionaires and billionaires as president who can out spend normal people who can't fundraise. It's not a simple solution, but putting some limits is probably good.


I'd like to see each politicians getting one identical lump sum. Then they compete to see who can use those funds more effectively and efficiently, which is something politicians on both sides need more experience. Victory won't go to who fundraises the most. It goes to who is most clever and appealing. Not too shabby if you ask me!


That would be amazing! Hell, make it a million apiece. We can find it by closing tax loopholes, lower the military budget, and actually tax the 1% the same tax rate as someone making 50 grand a year.


How do we decide that. Does every fucker who decides he wants to run get an equal proportion of funding? And campaigning is *very* expensive, I'd be fine cutting a lot of the current fluff but there's still nationwide travel costs, advertising, etc.


Some countries have a set amount of free ad time given to political campaigns. Usually to qualify for things like that, you need some existing level of support. In the US, I would say qualifying for the national ballot would be a good requirement.


It is expensive but the idea would be everyone gets the same time and funding - perhaps a very early phone/mail vote to get 50 names. Then those 50 get equal time and exposure to be heard via PBS and NPR as well as a major print or create one then it really wouldn’t matter - everyone would get equal exposure


But then the candidates need a support base to into that group of 50, so either A. only well known or heavily party supported politicians get any attention or B. They campaign to get their name out there and you run into the original issue.


I hear you - you’re not wrong. But isn’t what I proposed still better than the current setup? How do we even get the people we choose from now? Your point is still valid and would need to be addressed but is our original approach still a step in the right direction at least?


So then effectively the rich who can afford to leave a job to campaign, may already be known and feels confident in their ability to just go back to a good job, and that doesn't even get into using their own money directly, are the only ones who stand much of a chance of being elected? This could go very wrong.


The problem with federally funded campaigns is that they create entirely new problems- is everyone and every political party entitled to this money? If people aren't legally allowed to contribute to political campaigns, how will people get elected when the government doesn't want to advertise for them? If the Nazi party gets popular again, what if I don't want my tax dollars to fund their campaign? I'm not suggesting that the current system is great, but there isn't a simple & perfect alternative.


> how will people get elected when the government doesn't want to advertise for them? Also, how do incumbents get voted out? The incumbent politician will be able to have all kinds of press conferences that are legitimately part of their job but that function like campaign ads. As annoying as negative ads can be, if you ban them completely (or ban their funding), nobody ever hears bad things about the incumbents, which gives them a massive edge against the unknown challenger. The challenger remains unknown because there's no advertising budget to introduce them to the voters. As bad as the Citizen's United decision was, there is some truth to the idea that money is free speech. If you absolutely love Bernie Sanders and want him to be elected, you have a few options. You could independently try to tell people how great he is. But, what if you're a terrible communicator or public speaker? You could also help pay for an ad so he can introduce himself to voters. The real problem with citizens united, etc. is that decisions like that mean that people with more money get more speech, which means they get more influence. If all votes should be equal, then that's not fair.


Then random ‘totally not affiliated group’ would advocate for and take donations for the candidate.


Too bad the only people that can kill citizens united are the ones reaping the benefits from it. Lol you think congress is EVER going to vote to overturn that shit against their own self interest? No way.


Bernie would have


Oh absolutely, but Bernie alone isn't enough unfortunately ☹️


Sometimes I think Congress would have to be held hostage with guns pointed to their head in order for them to do the right thing. Not saying people should actually do it of course, I’m just venting my frustration.


Totally understand, I feel like even the most passioned peaceful demonstration can be easily ignored or dispursed via means of police. At what point is it considered tyranny when the government doesn't even listen to the people


It just feels like another revolution is needed.


I think the revolution will come from within. To me the most damaging thing is the thing that has brought us a lot of convenience as well. We exchange freedoms for securities. Whether they're financial, physical, etc. We have governments to look out for us in those ways but almost always it becomes corrupt. If we valued the permanence of goods (as in building and creating things that aren't indended to be endlessly replaced) and sustainable practices that would be ideal to me. Putting all the cummulative power of science and survival in the hands of individuals would require a society that also had high moral expectations and places high value on education and continual personal growth. I think somewhere theres a crossroads to all schools of though and political ideologies where this could be accomplished but personal and national interest get in the way of the world working together. I believe we have the means as it is to automate almost any menial job and create a world where the pursuit of life is the ultimate goal. I believe we've reached a pint where war isn't necessary and could be eradicated if it weren't for greed. I wish I had an idea of what would replace the current system but right now my ideas are borderline nihilist. There's a better way I just haven't thought of it yet. I most certainly won't be doing it alone.


Citizens United is a SCOTUS case. It could be overturned with another SCOTUS case. SCOTUS doesn't have the issues with political campaign contributions that Congress has.


Ooh, do churches next!!


Churches pay so much in taxes that they should get a say in who represents them! *Insert sarcasm font*


The real story is they didn’t have to come out and do this - let’s give credit where credit is due. Large corporations normally donate to *both* side so they win either way. This is Toyota sticking their neck out. I hope the entire auto industry does this -


Corporations are people? They don’t vote. They don’t get arrested. Screw Citizens United.


This is the thing I always think of when I hear about some super underhanded corporate maneuver. For example when it was found that GlaxoSmithKline knowingly caused the death of children and they were found guilty why do they still exist? If they were a person they would be in jail still. There are a million examples, but that's one that I heard of today. The only consequences are fiscal, and it obviously wasn't an existential fine for them. I get that they would probably just re-group or sell and be the same entity under a different name (especially because the execs coming up with the policy don't ever get time). It's frustrating though. There should be a death penalty for corporations.


No corporation has ever been executed, even the ones that killed people.


*That* part.


If we banned companies from making political donations, wouldn't the company just give the board a bonus and encourage them to donate it? They still have the same interests, increasing shareholder value.


Individuals are limited in the amt they can donate


That's already what happens. In federal elections (states have their own laws), companies may not make political donations, only individuals. Toyota has a PAC that is funded through individual, voluntary contributions only. It's not Toyota's corporate profits going into the PAC and then going into a campaign.


Dejoy is being investigated precisely for this


Citizens United was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time :(


Yeah but corporations are people and money is speech. Thank the conservatives on the supreme court.


A good chunk of the Founding Fathers led corporations that produced cotton and other raw materials with enslaved labor. What else is a slave plantation but a corporation!? The guy who wrote the constitution thought it was okay to rape their wife's sister bc she was legally property. The more you learn about the Founding Father's, the more you realize that the US bowing to corporations is a core part of the country's design.


Period !


Rich people always find a way to rename illegal activity.


Indeed 👏 👏 👏 don't call a fucking Zebra a horse with stripes or a pack mule a donkey. Bribery is Bribery and the SEC accepts the Bribery of Vladimir Tenev ceo of Robinhood


Corporations should have a degree lower than animal personhood rights. no donating to politics just as pups can't.


Our government is s complete joke


Lobbying directly undermines democracy. It is on par with treason in terms of threatening the will of the people.


Lobbying is politics lol... This bullshit needs to stop... As soon as you talk to you local politician to build a new football court you are lobbying him... The important thing is to make it as transparent as possible! Force politicians to state who they met and who affected the legislation in what way... In some countries you need to transparently state what words in a new law come from which lobby etc


Nothing will meaningfully change until lobbying is outlawed.


The only issue is that citizens do have the right to air their grievances with the government. We have to find a system that keeps money out of politics though.


Someone has to lobby to outlaw lobbying!!! …. Wait a second


Politics doesn't work without lobbying... The only problem is intransparent lobbying


This has nothing to do with lobbying. Also lobbying isn't the boogeyman people think it is. They only hate it when their opponent has more money than them to hire more and better lobbyists.


What bothers me most about normie liberals is that they bitch about corporations donating to the "bad guys" but will cheer and celebrate when they donate to Democrats. The left wants to stop these donations altogether because they are bribes. There are no good donations. There are no good corporations. You can't be against citizens united and cheer when corporations and super pacs donate to politicians or candidates you like. That just makes you a partisan hack. It's pathetic and r/politics is notorious for attacking people who point this fact out. I got banned for calling out someone's hypocrisy when they said they were boycotting them now.


In Canada that maximum contribution to a politician is $9,000. There's all sorts of shady ways to contribute more but it still greatly reduces corporate influence on our government


capping the amount and making it all more transparent seems a better route than just a blanket ban


[That's higher than the U.S. limit for federal candidates.](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/) And U.S. law prohibits corporate contributions completely.


It should also be illegal to volunteer or donate to candidates that you are not eligible to vote for. Since corporations are not eligible to vote at all, they shouldn’t be able to donate or volunteer time or resources.


Above the table bribes allows anyone to do it and make under the table ones less of a temptation.


This is not Toyota (the company) giving money directly to political campaigns. It's simply the Toyota Corporate PAC, [i.e. a connected PAC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee). The original report even states this: >https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/this-sedition-is-brought-to-you-by/ >**While corporations cannot give directly to traditional political committees like campaigns and party committees**, they can form PACs that give generously to these groups in the name of the company. The sponsor company can also cover most of its PAC’s administrative expenses and use corporate funds to create incentives — such as charitable “matching” programs — to entice employees to contribute to the PAC. The PAC’s contributions can serve as a way for corporations and their lobbyists to get access to lawmakers in order to talk about legislation and regulations that are important to them. That bit about giving generously means individuals contributing to the PAC in order to combine their donations, in essence. This is no way avoids the [campaign donation limits in the law](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/). Citizens United had nothing to do with this.


This point is so obvious it stunning and yet according to the supreme court this is simply speech. That Citizens United ruling effectively ended dimocracy in the US and made it an Oligarchy. Sucks!


I've never agreed with any post in this subreddit before but I do agree with this 👌


How about just vote for people who don’t take campaign donations? oh wait nobody gives a shit about preliminary elections and that’s why only the people who accept massive campaign contributions get noticed. Both the game and the players are to blame here.


The problem is not with companies buying politicians, the problem is that buying politicians is a thing. The political system or "democracy" as some people want to call it should work only on votes, if you can obtain votes with money thats fine, let corporations pay a chunk of the population to vote for their interest if they want but something is very wrong when they can just pay a few politicians to get the same result. If we are going to allow politicians to say anything to obtain votes and then do whatever they want we need a way to unvote them or just do not allow it.


It’s forbidden in French law.


Lobbying and Citizen United are two powerful pieces of evidence proving that the rich people are society’s greatest enemy.


No it's not, it's free speech. /sssssssssssssssssssssssss


Prisons are legalized slavery Money handouts to corporations are legalized tax theft Police are a legalized mob The war on drugs is legalized racism. I could go on and on


Fuck it...I'm not white but I'm joining White People's Twitter. This group is on fucking point!!!!!!!


He ain’t wrong


Good luck with politicians making giving money to politicians illegal. 😆🤣😂😹😆


Hold on, all along, lobbying wasn't illegal? What the everloving fuck are y'all doing over there?


"Lobbying" is and should be legal. It's a gathering of people asking for change in laws. Unfortunately, loopholes allow for corporations and conglomerates to qualify as "lobbyists", and protect their practically unlimited political spending.


Corporations donate to political campaigns? You mean like bribery?


All corporations are giving money to campaigns. Usually both of them.


I’m a Republican and I agree. Big tech should also halt donating and being partisan IRT to politics.


AND the other side of this coin is politicians should not be allowed to own or trade stock.


Corporate personhood is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. This is the reason we are facing climate crisis.


This is capitalism. Ruling by those who have the capital. Capital is wealth sufficient to fund production. Wage earners are not capitalists, even though many of them think they are. Don't say you like capitalism if you're not willing to be ruled by those with the most capital.


Pretty sure what you're describing is actually an oligarchy, which the US is not (officially).


It's both. The US is a capitalist oligarchy.


Capitalism has nothing to do with how politics is set up. You can have a totally capitalist monarchy, republic, dictatorship, or democracy. The problem is not capitalism, but the fact that our politicians have used the law to turn us into an oligarchy.


I agree, and what your saying isn't even a new argument, as far back a Teddy Roosevelt people have been pointing out the problems with capitalism when in a sufficiently developed economy stops rewarding innovation and risk but instead rewards optimized capital growth that locks up huge amounts of funds into strictly large and successful businesses and corporations. Much like other economic systems capitalism is just a rough outline. What we actually have is much more complex the Republicans never cry foul when billions of tax payer dollars go to corporate welfare, they're only mad that millions are going to actual people, and even then primarily children. They are more than fine with socialism as long as it is helping the right people and hurting the wrong people.


“Corporations are people, my friend”- Mittens Romney, 2011




Thank the John Roberts Supreme Court for that lovely bit of BS.


And all the leftists who couldn’t be bothered to vote for Hillary who was positioned to sign already drafted legislation reversing it


Yeah, and it's great that they've stopped, but it fucking sucks knowing that they would've kept being the biggest (by far) corporate donor to those fuckwits if the story hadn't gained traction. IOW, they've only stopped because of the public pressure... if not for that they'd still be funding hate and ignorance.


Anyone funding the Dems or Reps are killing this country.


We should make it so no one in office or running for office can get donations or spend money on campaigns. No campaigns anymore, no political advertising, nothing. There’s plenty of information available online and elsewhere. Voters just do their own research and make their decision. Have some debates and town halls, and politicians can go around and talk to people. That’d do at least something to get money out of politics.


I figure we get rid of the party system in the first place, like the founders intended... make all them fools run based on their own merit


Lobbying in and of itself must be allowed in a pluralistic society. You and I, every company, every environmental, human rights, animal rights, whateverthefuck group, must have a way to voice their opinions on matters of policy. The donations and the outright bribery are the problem. But that's not the same as lobbying. Edit: autocorrect-correct


>You and I, every company, every environmental, human rights, animal rights, whateverthefuck group, People vote, so they have the right to donate or lobby since both impact their choice in voting. Companies and other groups do not vote, therefore they should not be allowed to affect the system. Each individual within a company already has that right, so granting it to a literal non-person makes no sense. Besides, this allows the wealthy to donate twice--once as an individual and once more as a company's leader--which goes against "one person, one vote" that lies at the heart of democracy. And while I get what you're trying to say about donations being the problem and not lobbying, donating is the main method in lobbying. Sure, citizens can reach out and state their minds, but there's zero incentive for a politician to respect that. But someone who owns a company can donate twice the cash, so politicians need to worry about them more than others.


I explicitly wrote donations and bribes are the problem. Money must not change hands. But I'm all for any group of people to inform politicians about the ramifications of a decision they'll have to make. Those groups should be heard, and what they have to say should be public. After all, what is being discussed in politics is a public affair. A *res publica*. But again: money must not change hands.


>Companies and other groups do not vote, therefore they should not be allowed to affect the system. That's what this is. Federal law prohibits companies from donating to candidates. Toyota's *PAC,* which is what is at issue here, is funded through individual contributors, not corporate profits. The PAC board then decides where to spend that money [(while still subject to the same contribution limits as everyone else).](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/)


Not sure how this is controversial. Lobbying has a very valid purpose. If there's a bill on the table, both sides should be allowed to make their case and gather support. They just shouldn't be allowed to give money to the people making the choices. I can't give a senator more money than Purdue, so they're not going to do shit about their horrendous farming practices. Maybe they would if they just listened to a bunch of scientists giving them hard evidence about the dangers of it arguing with a bunch of corporate fucks saying "profits..?" without anyone giving them money.