Edwards Would Ban Lobbyists' Donations

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/13/edwards_sharpens_view_on_lobby.html?hpid=topnews


John Edwards
Edwards Would Ban Lobbyists' Donations

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards (D) proposed Saturday banning lobbyists from contributing to federal campaigns, part of his growing effort to cast himself as the candidate to clean up the election system. He also said he would expand public financing of elections.

Describing the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), as "the poster child for what's wrong in American politics today," Edwards said, "They talk about changing the system, then they conduct business as usual." He added that in the next election, "we're not going to have an auction, we're going to actually have an election."........

He also said...................

Desperate times way down there in fourth place...

and courageous to bring it out in the open.

Our political system is awash in dirty money like this. It must be stopped if we ever want to have a fair electoral process.

I'm not an Edwards supporter but he's definitely earned my respect on this one. He's taking a huge risk, but a noble one to make this a campaign issue.

Or is your dislike of the candidate getting in the way?

Or is your dislike of the other candidate getting in the way of you understanding how his wording is negative?

his competitiveness.

He's polling fourth, behind someone who isn't even running. :eyes:

No , he isn't


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

eom

I'm not surprised. There's no denying Edwards beats the Republican in any matchup, no matter how hard the media tries to cram the other two top-tier Dems down our throats.

we have the right to free assembly and association (forming groups). We have the right to petition our government (lobbyig). We have the right to free speech (including giving money to candidates, as ruled by the USSC.)

Why shouldn't Planned Parenthood or the HRC be allowed to be part of the system?

Money is not speech - it's property.

it's to advocacy groups, running TV or print ads on your own, etc. etc.

And yes, the Supreme Court ruled that using money for political purposes IS free speech.

and with hindsight and the release of previously classified documents, it appears quite an error.

Supposedly the SC ruled that corporations are "persons", but some have claimed that was a clerical error.

It appears there are a few key decisions that need some legislative tweaking to bring government of, by, and for the people, back to the people.

and no, the Supreme Court has never ruled that corporations are persons. They can't vote, wed, etc.

And if you believe "legislative tweaking" is all that's required to "fix" a Supreme Court decision, you're woefully ignorant of what's needed. It begins with "constitutional" and ends with "amendment".

Using the google HTML link option:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:OUxdJmMReQ8J:reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf+corporate+personhood+supreme+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

It seems that they did rule on Corporate Personhood in a series of cases. (hint, focus in on "Railroad" and "1800s" to find quickly)

that's a footnote. It's mentioned a few times. They did rule that corporations have the rights of personhood for equal protection and due process issues. That's a good decision.

But still, corporations do not have the same rights as people.

and it's not limited to just marrying one other corporate entity.

Oh, did I use the wrong word? Substitute merger for marry.

So it seems they are superior to humans in some ways.

no matter how wrong.

Do you think corporations should NOT be subject to equal protection and due process?

It's clear to me corporations have a superior form of "due process" versus that offered to common citizens.

I have yet to read in the news a single incident where cops busted in the wrong corporate front door and shot and killed innocent people inside. Generally, cops, through prosecutors and or investigators, write letters to corporations. It's a kinder and gentler world for them.

If only people had the same "equal protection" and "due process" rights that corporations had, I'd perceive a much more Just world.

do you think corporations should not have equal protection and due process?

They tend not to bust down doors that often (although it DOES happen) and shoot people because corporations are unlikely to be be considered armed and dangerous to law enforcement. That doesn't excuse the errors when they do it to individuals, but it's not an answer to my question.

Should due process and equal protection not be afforded to corporations?

Should the government be able to seize a corporation's property on a whim?

As I outlined above, in extreme brevity. Some corporations apparently feel that it's okay to forget that U.S. citizens have 4th Amendment rights, so they cough up some phone related records and give those away to the Executive Branch of government without the presentment of a court-ordered warrant, or on the Executive Branch's whim.

If a corporation doesn't think I should have constitutional rights, why should I think they should have equivalent rights?

However, it seems to me corporations should have some rights, but not necessarily the same rights humans have, further, that in most respects, humans should have a superior set of rights, and corporations should be highly-regulated and have a charter that strictly limits their purpose for existence, perhaps even time-limited. They need to be prevented from denying liberty and pursuit of happiness to citizens, which they have done routinely, including the ability to mess with the political process of selecting candidates. Currently, they seem to be highly superior to citizens in many regards, except they don't seem to be able to vote (but they can build counting machines that count the vote wrong).

people whose job is to lobby congress for friendly legislation for the people who pay their salaries wouldn't be a stretch.

I'd like to see Congress try to control this since it is threatening our democracy.

about limiting money to congresspeople by people who lobby congress. It refers to FEDERAL campaigns. That means running for President.

If you write a letter to your Senator, you're "lobbying". Should you be restricted from donating to him or her because of that?

Monkeyfunk wrote: "But the restriction being discussed isn't about limiting money to congresspeople by people who lobby congress. It refers to FEDERAL campaigns. That means running for President."



Curious how you craft a carefully parsed partial sentence that seems essentially correct, then tell us incorrectly what it means.

what was posted in the OP.

If the OP misrepresented what Edwards said take it up with him.

But the fact is, you're going to have a helluva constitutional hurdle to overcome to tell people they cannot support a candidate if they also petition the government.

or self-referencing logic. Petition for redress is increased with increased disposable dollars. The only way that can be fair is if everyone has the same amont of disposable dollars.

Looking at the top 0.0003% of the population that has incomes in excess of 160 million $, IOW, the Top 400 families, it's clear that when the standard is Money = Speech, the democratic aspect of the republic is undermined.

Bill Gates and I can give a candidate the same exact amount of money; $4,600.

They simply don't have it in their budgets. Some can't give $3. This article mentioned the current limit is $2,300, not 4,600.

I believe that the only way ideas can compete fairly is if there are no contributions allowed from any source other than public funding of candidates. Take a donation or give a donation, then go directly to jail, (after your court hearing.)

This proposal of John Edwards moves incrementally in that direction, but like his health plan, is flawed.

wouldn't be restricted, unless that's their job.

This is similar to closing the revolving door through rules that prevent people who leave government to work as lobbyists right away. They can write all the letters they want to their Senator, but they can't be a registered federal lobbyist, who gets paid money by people to influence votes.

Unless he plans on ruling by decree.

I don't think there's anyone running for president who could do a better job of putting this issue before the jury of the American people and convincing them to ask their representatives to do this or lose their jobs.

It's lobbyist money and gifts after they get elected that should be banned.

I know several lobbyists who work for US: Environmental groups, choice groups, human and civil rights, why should they be excluded? It would be silly if it weren't so gratuitous, shallow, and... I need a new word, lobbyistphobia? They're not all evil. The same thing we accuse the right of- they hate ALL brown people. Well, we seem to hate ALL lobbyists. Same brush, different canvas.

Yikes. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I don't know if I'd go that far. That's a label I'd give to every single Republican before I got to Hillary.

He is talking about her financing the vast bulk of her campaign from Lobbyist funds -- something she not only embraces, but stumps on (as Lobbyists represent "real people").

Must be that corporation "peoplehood" thing....

The "vast bulk"? I believe there are only about 50,000 federally registered lobbyists in total. She's supposedly got over a million contributors.

of her campaign with lobbyist money?

Oh right... it's clinton we're talking about. "Just Making Shit Up" is acceptable in that case.

:toast:

Go John!! :bounce:

Keep on with the rhetoric -- it is resonating and it is waking people up. :applause:

Recommending. :hi:

Supremes will come down on the side of Free Speech. Which is what those sleazebags hide behind.

does edwards accept money from trial lawyers? wil edwards ban unions from any involvement in campiagns? what an idiot.