Classifying money as free speech.

[liberaldemocrat7]

Large companies and their Republican recipients like to classify money as free speech.

Ok Fine, then let these companies spend the money on commercials, literature and other materials to get the candidate of their choice elected and ban the direct giving of such money to the candidate himself or herself.

Let these companies pay for commercials advocating certain legislation coming before congress by themselves and not give it to the candidates.

Ban direct payment of money to candidates and legislators and governors and the president by companies and lobbyists.

Fund election campaigns from taxes paid to the government. This will eliminate lobbyists from giving money to candidates during the legislative process.

Companies and lobbyists will now have to influence by the strength of their arguments and not the size of their contributions.

How do you get this done? By financially attacking the very GOP contributors with boycotts that would oppose this reform.

Ask those companies for this reform under threat of mass consumer boycotts.

I list the GOP contributors in my signature.

[sandnsea]

1. 527's

You pretty much just described a 527. Businesses can't contribute directly to candidates. They have fundraisers and bundle contributions from their employees, or start PAC's and contribute that way. Or give to 527's and spend money on commercials, literature, etc.

[liberaldemocrat7]

2. Yes, however candidates still get money from companies and lobbyists

I'm calling for the ban of PACS giving money to candidates and officeholders too. Candidates and officeholders should not get money from anyone other than the government. Let the PACS make their own commercials, literature, etc. This way the money remains classified as free speech but you break the link between the people who give and people who get.

The people who have the money must do their own commercials, and make their own literature.

Candidates use federal money to make their own commercials, make appearances, etc.

Lobbyists cannot give any money to candidates or even parties.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. You mean, under their own names right?

Like, "This is Coca Cola and we approve this message!"

[sandnsea]

5. Here's a chart

http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp

[moondust]

4. Money is property.

It is not speech, free or otherwise. When you arbitrarily give it the status of speech you undermine the whole idea of democracy: one person = one voice/vote.

[jokerman93]

6. Great Idea and while we're at it...

Let's remove the rights of "personhood" from all corporate entities.
:beer:
I think your idea is excellent. I really like your thinking. And here's why I'm adding the personhood issue to your OP:
:rant:
<beginrant>
Corporate Personhood
Money as Speech
Once these two concepts became enshrined in law, the perfect marriage of power became possible between the owners of large corporations and the power brokers in government. When a corporation has all the rights and distinctions of personhood and billions of dollars to have their say... well, money talks and bullshit walks. Literally.

Seems to me the result of these two concepts becoming actionable was the emergence of the new super-rich class of big industry owners and their representatives in government; the people who are running the country (into the ground) and (mis)managing its resources now. I'm just positive these millionaire and billionaire elites are the "Americans" Bush is always referring to so glowingly and knowingly in his speeches.

So, what's happened to the rest of us?
We've been pacified.
I'm sure other people could add plenty of ideas to the list, but here's a just a few of mine for the sake of the argument and in no particular order:
1. the outsourcing of jobs and rise of the new minimum wage service economy. People working two jobs just to survive tends to take them out of play politically.

2. the rising cultural influence of religious movements with dogmas that encourage
--acquiescence to the political status quo either through forms of psychological disengagement or aggressive jingoistic support. (Same coin.)
--the equation of God's favor with the accumulation of wealth (just one out of a number of suspect dogmas that come to mind).

3. Then there's the whole "television as pacifier/propaganda-teat" thing that could be a forum in itself. Programming the culture to simplistic choices, black and white thinking and expectations of nothing more than the buffet of mediocrity we consume.

The corporate owners (stock holders) and officers are the new "citizen" class of America, and their money has just about the only voice in town these days. No longer citizens, Americans have been intentionally infantilized into fungible resources, perfect consumers, and trained spectators guaranteed to do nothing while just taking it all in -- until it's their time for the metaphorical meat grinder.

Corporate Personhood and Money as Speech
--Bad for children, flowers, Democracy, and other living things.

The good part is, structures tend to cave in and collapse when they become too top-heavy. And when this one does, it's probably going to be quite a show.
</endrant>
:smoke:
J

[rock]

7. Nature abhors a vacuum (up to 32 feet)

I've always had the same feeling about both these "laws". (You can only suck water a distance of 32 feet vertically). If money is free speech, should'nt you be able to give any amount to the candidates of your choice? Whay would there be a limit?