Should the Corporate Influence on Political Parties be Illegal?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Personally I think it should, voting for a candidate should be fair and balanced across the board. One person one vote and thats it. Media should never take sides as this influences peoples decisions. Any media caught in a smear campaign should pay a very heavy price involving custodial sentences.

All the media should put out is the statements and policies of the candidates. Any candidate that goes back on thier word without a decent and honest reason should also be removed from office immediately.

This is my opinion but as usual I am open to other thoughts and opinions.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Yes, as once corporations and government work together it dips into fascism.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 

I really like your goal, the next step is making it practical.

If we don't want corporations influencing elections, should we prevent Unions, too? Should every group of people be prevented from influencing the elections? That would eliminate a lot of groups that we're not suspicious of. Could I get together some friends and put together a townhall for a candidate? Would it matter if we took up a collection for him?

I think keeping media out of the picture would be tough. Besides shouting "Freedom of the Press," newspapers have been endorsing candidates for over a century. That's a hard combination to beat.

Any candidate who goes back on his word will have a decent reason, you can count on that.

As I said, like the goal but wondering about the means.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I suspect that if government stayed out of the affairs of corporations, the reverse would also be true. If politicians would not advertise that their votes were for sale and if government subsidies were not doled out to the highest bidder and if government regulations were reined in, then corporations would not benefit from influencing government.

Regardless, there remains only one vote to one person, even though that person may have been dead for a few years.

ETA: I hope you don't mean you prefer to limit the free speech of corporations and the freedom of the press?
edit on 21-12-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I don't know man, but one thing is clear, and that's if you don't have a ton of money behind you, you have no chance of being elected or even given any attention whatsoever. Politics is no longer about the most suitable presidential candidate being elected to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, it's about the slimiest scumbag being funded by the crookedest corrupt wealthy elitists in order to push their agenda. How democratic....:shk:



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


It is what the voter has let it become.

It didn't take politicians long to figure out that the masses are far more interested in baubles and advertised lip service than they are in the actual politics and policy.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well, It WAS illegal at one point!

Until the supreme court ruled corporations to be "people"....





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join