Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

Keystone XL extension project. Despite having 4-years of the neccessary presidential permit to build it out under Trump, construction failed to proceed due to lawsuits from farmers, landowners, and other interested parties as a direct result of the idiotic route chosen thru a large section of the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest freshwater aquifers, used for irrigation and drinking water across several states. As I stated before, there's a reason why thousands of miles of new Canadian-U.S. pipelines were completed under both the Obama and Biden administrations, including the Keystone pipeline and the new Enbridge pipeline, but the XL extension remained just a plan on paper for a decade, even with Trump's permit approval. Understanding that reason is up to you.

This stale baloney can be put out again and again for consumption by the willfully blind. Those that want to eat it up are welcome to it.

[Alan Klein]

Keystone XL extension project. Despite having 4-years of the neccessary presidential permit to build it out under Trump, construction failed to proceed due to lawsuits from farmers, landowners, and other interested parties as a direct result of the idiotic route chosen thru a large section of the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest freshwater aquifers, used for irrigation and drinking water across several states. As I stated before, there's a reason why thousands of miles of new Canadian-U.S. pipelines were completed under both the Obama and Biden administrations, including the Keystone pipeline and the new Enbridge pipeline, but the XL extension remained just a plan on paper for a decade, even with Trump's permit approval. Understanding that reason is up to you.

This stale baloney can be put out again and again for consumption by the willfully blind. Those that want to eat it up are welcome to it.

Democrat Senator Manchin thinks it's a good idea and has called for Biden to restart it.  Biden won't have to beg the Arabs to up their production or waste 50 million barrels of critical American oil reserves he just released.  Those reserves are there for war, not to help him politically as gasoline prices skyrocket.

[Peter McLennan]

Peter, Can't you make a point without an obnoxious and personal insult?  Why not address my points and explain why the US Supreme Court agrees with me...

Those "points" have been assessed and addressed here ad nauseum, with no changes evident.  They don't bear repeated discussion.

My point was that you are intentionally, recreationally ignorant of corruption in America.

The extent of that corruption is clearly documented in the link I sent.
.

[Alan Klein]

Those "points" have been assessed and addressed here ad nauseum, with no changes evident.  They don't bear repeated discussion.

My point was that you are intentionally, recreationally ignorant of corruption in America.

The extent of that corruption is clearly documented in the link I sent.
.

The US Supreme Court felt that whatever corruption exists does not override the rights of organizations to petition the government and fund campaigns similarly to individuals.  You can make the same argument about rich individuals denying them the same rights. That their money corrupts the government.  Then no one could petition the government or support candidates of their choice.  That's all against our constitution.  The court has overruled your arguments. 

[Peter McLennan]

The US Supreme Court felt that whatever corruption exists does not override the rights of organizations to petition the government and fund campaigns similarly to individuals.

That doesn't make it a morally correct decision.  Legalizing corruption is itself a corrupt action.

In the past, it was illegal to give politicians money.  Bribery, it was called.

The corporations hired lots of lawyers to gradually erode this precedent. The result is what we see today.  Corrupt governance.

[Alan Klein]

That doesn't make it a morally correct decision.  Legalizing corruption is itself a corrupt action.

In the past, it was illegal to give politicians money.  Bribery, it was called.

The corporations hired lots of lawyers to gradually erode this precedent. The result is what we see today.  Corrupt governance.

I understand your argument.  However giving money to a politician for his campaign isn't corruption per se unless there's an agreement a quid pro quo that he will vote a certain way for the money. That's what happened to the Democrat Governor I think it was in Illinois a few years back. But supporting a candidate whose policies agree with yours and who you wish to support is not corruption. By the way, it's not only corporations that give money to candidates and support certain PACs, but individuals like Soros and other rich individuals. Is that also corruption?
How does Canada handle this issue?

[James Clark]

I understand your argument.  However giving money to a politician for his campaign isn't corruption per se unless there's an agreement a quid pro quo that he will vote a certain way for the money. That's what happened to the Democrat Governor I think it was in Illinois a few years back. But supporting a candidate whose policies agree with yours and who you wish to support is not corruption. By the way, it's not only corporations that give money to candidates and support certain PACs, but individuals like Soros and other rich individuals. Is that also corruption?
How does Canada handle this issue?

I'm having real trouble squaring your defense of unlimited corporate spending on elections with your previous insistence that giving water away to voters close to a polling place was a danger to democracy.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm having real trouble squaring your defense of unlimited corporate spending on elections with your previous insistence that giving water away to voters close to a polling place was a danger to democracy.

Small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. The real story is in Chinese "smart" thermostats, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4KIJ1yXA. Jonathan Karl's latest book unearths some high comedy from the previous administration. Be careful how you set your temperature, people.

[Peter McLennan]

... giving money to a politician for his campaign isn't corruption per se unless there's an agreement a quid pro quo that he will vote a certain way for the money.

And how do you enforce that "agreement" ?  Demonstrably, you can't and it isn't.  That's why it was illegal in the past.

America is supposed to be the land of "One man, one vote".  Corporations can spend far more money lobbying governments than individuals. The new rule is "One dollar, one vote." Are you okay with that?

Citizens United basically says the corporations are people, but with far more rights than any other citizen. Worse, they're relatively immune to the responsibilities of actual, real, biological citizens.  Does this seem fair to you?  Good governance? A responsible means of government?

Why is any of this controversial?

The embarrassing corruption index shown in the Wikipedia item posted isn't a debatable fact. Notice in the Wikipedia item the change in America's corruption index over time.  In particular, note the recent changes in the index.

[Alan Klein]

And how do you enforce that "agreement" ?  Demonstrably, you can't and it isn't.  That's why it was illegal in the past.

America is supposed to be the land of "One man, one vote".  Corporations can spend far more money lobbying governments than individuals. The new rule is "One dollar, one vote." Are you okay with that?

Citizens United basically says the corporations are people, but with far more rights than any other citizen. Worse, they're relatively immune to the responsibilities of actual, real, biological citizens.  Does this seem fair to you?  Good governance? A responsible means of government?

Why is any of this controversial?

The embarrassing corruption index shown in the Wikipedia item posted isn't a debatable fact. Notice in the Wikipedia item the change in America's corruption index over time.  In particular, note the recent changes in the index.

First off, the Supreme Court reviewed all your arguments and disagreed. They said that corporations are constitutionally protected to contribute as individuals are.  Keep in mind, those are limited for everyone. That's why PACs have grown where organizations campaign on a particular idea but cannot support any particular candidate.  Since there are groups on all sides of an issue, the public gets information on different sides, so it sort of balances out.  Frankly, because the media is liberal, the public gets more leftish and Democrat ideas more frequently.  But that's another topic. 

Second off, we're not a one-man-one-vote country.  For example, we have two senators per state regardless of the state's population. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote but rather by electoral vote which is not equally distributed by population. 


Also, corporations are not voting in an election.  That they don't do.  However, when they contribute, they are representing not one person but millions of stockholders, tens of thousands of employees, and millions of purchasers of their product, at least for the larger corporations.  All of these people have a right to representation which organizations like corporations have.  That's why they are considered groups of people.

The other issue is you can't just eliminate corporations by claiming they aren't people.  Neither are unions, the Catholic archdiocese, the American Medical Association, and the thousands of other non-corporate organizations or products PACS that contribute to politicians and lobby them as well.  If you exclude corporations by claiming they're not people, you'd have to exclude unions and these other organizations as well.  Our constitution requires everyone to be treated equally. 

Regarding corruption, as I said, direct campaign contributions are limited for people and organizations including corporations.  Most candidates get money from all sides anyway.  I agree that this may produce more corruption.  But if you shut down contributions and PACs for organizations, then you take freedom away from millions of people to be represented and to lobby the government.  So on balance, freedom overrules the potential for corruption.  And of course, there's always the secret bribe that rules will ever stop. 

You didn't tell us how they do it in Canada.  Can corps contribute, start PACs?  What about unions and other non=-orporate organizations? 

[Peter McLennan]

First off, the Supreme Court reviewed all your arguments and disagreed. They said that corporations are constitutionally protected to contribute as individuals are.

"The law is an ass", someone said long ago.  Rulings can be appealed and changed.  I suggest change is necessary.  Corporations should NOT be people, especially if they are offered individuals' rights, yet are protected from liability for their actions.

What you didn't do is answer my questions about "are you okay with this?"

Keep in mind, those are limited for everyone.

That rule is, as I said, unenforced and unenforceable.

Frankly, because the media is liberal, the public gets more leftish and Democrat ideas more frequently. 

Truth has a liberal bias.

Second off, we're not a one-man-one-vote country.  For example, we have two senators per state regardless of the state's population. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote but rather by electoral vote which is not equally distributed by population. 

A red herring and deflection unworthy of comment, except for "You know what I meant"

Also, corporations are not voting in an election.  That they don't do.  However, when they contribute, they are representing not one person but millions of stockholders, tens of thousands of employees, and millions of purchasers of their product, at least for the larger corporations.  All of these people have a right to representation which organizations like corporations have.  That's why they are considered groups of people.

Always, when confronted with facts, you emit torrents of obvious, yet irrelevant data.  Sorta like the politicians.  As long as you keep talking, however irrelevantly, people can't argue or discuss. 

I do understand that you're a senior, apparently confined to your residence and bored to tears so you resort to the keyboard as a distraction.  In fact, that's the only reason I'm here, now, on your screen.  I labour under no misapprehensions that I'll change your mind about anything, ever.  It's snowing outside and I can't go for a walk.

The other issue is you can't just eliminate corporations by claiming they aren't people.  Neither are unions, the Catholic archdiocese, the American Medical Association, and the thousands of other non-corporate organizations or products PACS that contribute to politicians and lobby them as well.  If you exclude corporations by claiming they're not people, you'd have to exclude unions and these other organizations as well.  Our constitution requires everyone to be treated equally. 

Organizations should not be  people.  They should not be due the same rights as individuals, especially if they don't have the same responsibilities as individuals.

If they were, the shareholders of the fossil fuel companies would be held jointly and severally responsible for, say, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, or Exxon Valdez, or knowingly fucking up the entire planet's ecosystems

Regarding corruption, as I said, direct campaign contributions are limited for people and organizations including corporations.  Most candidates get money from all sides anyway.  I agree that this may produce more corruption.  But if you shut down contributions and PACs for organizations, then you take freedom away from millions of people to be represented and to lobby the government.  So on balance, freedom overrules the potential for corruption.  And of course, there's always the secret bribe that rules will ever stop. 

If you say that "freedom overrules the potential for corruption, then that explains the increase in corruption in America.  Misguided, selfish loudmouths are increasingly misappropriating public life and good governance.  That's why your highways are in such poor condition.

You didn't tell us how they do it in Canada.  Can corps contribute, start PACs?  What about unions and other non=-orporate organizations?

I'm not about to attempt to educate you on Canadian Politics, Alan.  That would be a waste of time.  Even though it's snowing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Elections_Act

By the way, in the UK, elections much more responsibly run

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2021-0121/

[Alan Klein]

Yes, I'm OK with these rights.  Corporations, non-profits, unions, and other organizations should have a right to free speech.  They have a right to spend money for the cost to petition the government to protect their interests which represent people's interests. 

By your accounting, the Sierra Club would not be allowed to argue before Congress or the president or the Interior Department to stop drilling for oil in US national parks.  That unions would not be allowed to argue for unionists' rights before the National Labor Relations Board. That non-profits like churches and the Red Cross could not argue to extend the rule that makes them tax-exempt. That pharmaceutical companies could not argue to bring new drugs to market quicker. That LuLa could not argue to congress to eliminate tariffs on imported film and cameras, etc. 

Mind you that organizations are not allowed to contribute to individual candidates.  So corruption by that avenue is reduced.  They're allowed to contribute to PACs that advertise policy.  PACs however are not allowed to advertise or support or oppose individual candidates. 

It's not a perfect system - nothing ever is.  But it balances the constitutional rights of organizations against the concerns of corruption and undue influence in government.

My biggest complaint about American elections is that they never seem to end.  Before one campaign ends, they're already arguing about the next.

[Robert Roaldi]

...
By your accounting, the Sierra Club would not be allowed to argue before Congress or the president or the Interior Department to stop drilling for oil in US national parks.  That unions would not be allowed to argue for unionists' rights before the National Labor Relations Board. That non-profits like churches and the Red Cross could not argue to extend the rule that makes them tax-exempt. That pharmaceutical companies could not argue to bring new drugs to market quicker. That LuLa could not argue to congress to eliminate tariffs on imported film and cameras, etc. 
...

I'm not certain if these analogies apply or not. Are the Supreme Court rulings limited to incorporated companies or do they also apply to other types of organization? I don't know enough about it to say.

In any case, it never seemed to me that corporations ever had trouble making their feelings known in political circles. Why did they need to be endowed with rights of people? Wasn't the ruling only a way for them to contribute moneys more directly to politicians. What held them back from doing the things you talk about before Citizens United.


I was reading about a couple of recent whistleblower cases recently that are interesting w.r.t. rights and obligations of citizens. Company employees are obliged to report criminal activity to the authorities as citizens, but non-disclosure agreements leave them open to crippling lawsuits if they do. That imbalance seems wrong to me. Why should NDAs shield companies from criminal prosecution. That's an advantage that the average person doesn't have and that seems to me to be a protection that corporations should not have. It would be an easy thing for the law to shield NDA-related lawsuits in cases of criminal investigation. The fact that it may not be the case is already an issue. I think some legal reforms are needed or the signal you send is obviously bad.

[Alan Klein]

I'm not certain if these analogies apply or not. Are the Supreme Court rulings limited to incorporated companies or do they also apply to other types of organization? I don't know enough about it to say.

In any case, it never seemed to me that corporations ever had trouble making their feelings known in political circles. Why did they need to be endowed with rights of people? Wasn't the ruling only a way for them to contribute moneys more directly to politicians. What held them back from doing the things you talk about before Citizens United.


I was reading about a couple of recent whistleblower cases recently that are interesting w.r.t. rights and obligations of citizens. Company employees are obliged to report criminal activity to the authorities as citizens, but non-disclosure agreements leave them open to crippling lawsuits if they do. That imbalance seems wrong to me. Why should NDAs shield companies from criminal prosecution. That's an advantage that the average person doesn't have and that seems to me to be a protection that corporations should not have. It would be an easy thing for the law to shield NDA-related lawsuits in cases of criminal investigation. The fact that it may not be the case is already an issue. I think some legal reforms are needed or the signal you send is obviously bad.

My understanding of the argument is that unions, non-profits, tax-exempts, and other organizations are no more people than for-profit corporations.  To argue corporations aren't people means that these other organizations aren't people either. The Supreme Court ruled that in all these cases, people are the ultimate representatives and beneficiaries of these entities.  To deny these organizations freedom of speech is a constitutional violation of people's right to free speech.

Corporations and unions cannot contribute directly to candidates or parties, only to PACs. But PACs cannot endorse or oppose a specific candidate.  They may be used to propose policies.  So LuLa Corp could hire a lobbyist to speak to congressmen to convince them to vote against tariffs on film and cameras.  But it cannot contribute money to a particular candidate. 

NDA's cannot shield a perpetrator in a criminal case.

[Peter McLennan]

By your accounting, the Sierra Club would not be allowed to argue before Congress or the president or the Interior Department to stop drilling for oil in US national parks.

With all due respect, horse poo.  Nobody has suggested that The Sierra Club has been muzzled in any way.  In fact, the reverse is true.  The Sierra Club's intentions have recently been thwarted as a direct result of corrupt political contributions.  Ever been to The Colorado Plateau?  Corrupt campaign donations by the fossil fuel industry caused your ex-president to substantially shrink the size of this protected area. (see attachment)
Are you okay with this, too?

Mind you that organizations are not allowed to contribute to individual candidates.  So corruption by that avenue is reduced.  They're allowed to contribute to PACs that advertise policy.  PACs however are not allowed to advertise or support or oppose individual candidates. 

If you actually believe that's the case, then you are once again practicing recreational ignorance. 
Corruption has NOT been reduced.  It has (you'd know, if you read my link) recently increased substantially.

[Alan Klein]

With all due respect, horse poo.  Nobody has suggested that The Sierra Club has been muzzled in any way.  In fact, the reverse is true.  The Sierra Club's intentions have recently been thwarted as a direct result of corrupt political contributions.  Ever been to The Colorado Plateau?  Corrupt campaign donations by the fossil fuel industry caused your ex-president to substantially shrink the size of this protected area.
Are you okay with this, too?If you actually believe that's the case, then you are once again practicing recreational ignorance. 
Corruption has NOT been reduced.  It has (if you'd know, if you read my link) recently increased substantially.

Why should the Sierra CLub which is not a person be allowed to petition congress but corporations are not allowed?  Both represent people who have rights.  The constitution requires equal protection under the law.

I don't know enough about the Colorado Plateau specifically.  However, presidents are not kings and should not be making huge declarations like this. The people living there should have more to say through their representatives in Congress.   Congress, which represents the people, should legislate these things.  From a practical standpoint, it would prevent presidents from reversing these declarations when the presidency changes hands.  Once congress sets aside land as a national monument or reserve or park, presidents can't overrule them.  it would require another act of Congress to change it. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Why should the Sierra CLub which is not a person be allowed to petition congress but corporations are not allowed?  ...

Since when have corporations ever been hampered in their access to politicians?

[Chris Kern]

PACs cannot endorse or oppose a specific candidate.

Of course they can.

[Alan Klein]

Since when have corporations ever been hampered in their access to politicians?

But that's what many people wanted to do.   To restrict corporations.  The Supreme Court said you can't do that. 

[Alan Klein]

Of course they can.

The article is not clear to me which and how much corporations can contribute.  Which type of PAC that can support a candidate can accept contributions from corporations unions and other organizations and how much maximum can they accept if they can?