• Brazil's Supreme Court has banned corporate contributions to political campaigns and parties
    26 replies, posted
[t]http://www.cearaagora.com.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/stf1.jpg[/t] [QUOTE]RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Brazil's Supreme Court on Thursday banned corporate contributions to political campaigns and parties, a hot issue as investigators in the nation's biggest corruption scandal say such financing was used by businesses to win lucrative contracts with state-run oil company Petrobras. The court ruled 8-3 to block such campaign financing — which in the most recent presidential elections represented well over 90 percent of the funding for leading candidates and eventual presidents. Brazil's bar association brought the case to the top court, which first took it up in 2013 but saw a conservative justice block a final vote until now. "The influence of economic power culminates by turning the electoral process into a political game of marked cards, an odious pantomime that turns the voter into a puppet, crumbling in one blow citizenship and democracy," said Justice Rosa Weber in voting to strike down the financing. [/QUOTE] Source: [URL]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d13f4042158e4c7ba5718194d4866eb9/brazils-top-court-bans-corporate-political-financing[/URL]
While this'll not stop the rampant corruption in the Brazilian government, it's certainly a step in the right direction. Now there's just hoping they can actually enforce this.
Shitbasket AKA Craptasket/basket EnCt275a06b4871acab8ff269d031b7e8277fb62f077175a06b4871acab8ff269d031E6o4N9p/BAL D4QL++lVSAyudKr9A9rmZQ5E/6aAUNt2yrkqPnCQNdQSVFP3D31znT5rajMVItYT9LkcXGZUq2V3UsZe tjXq/OCjb+X+LfeUZET1tCj01kzW/dBlUZkBd1f3MXrtP4ObUqaD2bToYo753Jq/s10tzDyL0lY+kv7L e0+TqWK34nlEuUEwRO27uGf+EEd0CENxgj7ek7MIFYdNYlh4DswSxVRTG2opYGUGg8Nxpw+EZnzslqc2 4C0SPnE3MOsMRAl+wER50kgXPQVKlMpRYFNmx89MGRK+oUg==IwEmS Love you :) CANT STOP THE FUCK YOU TRAIN! Bitch.
YOU CAN SUCK MY COCK I WILL CONSISTENTLY SHIT ON YOUR FORUMS FOR BEING WANKER CRAPTASKET Shitbasket AKA Craptasket/basket EnCt275a06b4871acab8ff269d031b7e8277fb62f077175a06 b4871acab8ff269d031E6o4N9p/BAL D4QL++lVSAyudKr9A9rmZQ5E/6aAUNt2yrkqPnCQNdQSVFP3D31znT5rajMVItYT9LkcXGZUq2V 3UsZe tjXq/OCjb+X+LfeUZET1tCj01kzW/dBlUZkBd1f3MXrtP4ObUqaD2bToYo753Jq/s10tzDyL0lY+kv7L e0+TqWK34nlEuUEwRO27uGf+EEd0CENxgj7ek7MIFYdNYlh4Ds wSxVRTG2opYGUGg8Nxpw+EZnzslqc2 4C0SPnE3MOsMRAl+wER50kgXPQVKlMpRYFNmx89MGRK+oUg==I wEmS Love you :) CANT STOP THE FUCK YOU TRAIN! Bitch.
If only everybody had the balls to do this. Good on you, Brazil.
Unless it is in a big brown envelope, passed [I]under[/I] the table.
If only we could do something similar...
[QUOTE=adamsz;48710334]If only we could do something similar...[/QUOTE] Too bad, you'd have to amend the first amendment.
And also increased public funding! Yay :D You go Brazil! :suicide: Private funding isn't bad. Public funding is. Why am i paying for the lying propaganda of a party i want nothing to do with? The state has too much power to help corporations and build monopolies, that's where the bad of private funding is (and will continue full steam even if it's illegal). The state shouldn't have so much power to favor corporations.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;48711289]And also increased public funding! Yay :D You go Brazil! :suicide: Private funding isn't bad. Public funding is. Why am i paying for the lying propaganda of a party i want nothing to do with?[/QUOTE] Because you don't want unlimited sums from private donors to pay for that, public funding means that political campaign spending can't go too overboard, you don't want the US system where 1B+ will be spent in this election
[QUOTE=Sableye;48711308]Because you don't want unlimited sums from private donors to pay for that, public funding means that political campaign spending can't go too overboard, you don't want the US system where 1B+ will be spent in this election[/QUOTE] The public funding has been tripled! Political campaigns are still overboard and will go further with more illegal funding.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48710637]Too bad, you'd have to amend the first amendment.[/QUOTE] Ehhhh how is that covered under the 1st amendment? [quote="The First Amendment"] 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. [/quote]
[QUOTE=mralexs;48712078]Ehhhh how is that covered under the 1st amendment?[/QUOTE] The citizens united ruling p much said that donations to a political campaign is an extension of your freedom of speech
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48712156]The citizens united ruling p much said that donations to a political campaign is an extension of your freedom of speech[/QUOTE] Hopefully we'll soon realize that money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48712988]Hopefully we'll soon realize that money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people.[/QUOTE] Just wanted to write the same comment. My mind was blown when some people here literally put money and freedom of speech in the same basket, saying stuff like companies lobbying and financing someones campaign is freedom of speech. No it isn't, they are paying someone to work for their corporate interest.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48713087]Just wanted to write the same comment. My mind was blown when some people here literally put money and freedom of speech in the same basket, saying stuff like companies lobbying and financing someones campaign is freedom of speech. No it isn't, they are paying someone to work for their corporate interest.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that financial gifts are free speech? For example, would you hold a complete government ban of all monetary gifts as a constitutional issue? Also, quid-pro-quo gifts are already illegal. Big money, from any group, is only a problem because voters are generally apathetic and/or ignorant.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48712988]Hopefully we'll soon realize that money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people.[/QUOTE] Corporations are associations of people, and speech is a very broad term in the first amendment that's not restricted to literally just speech.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48713659]Corporations are associations of people, and speech is a very broad term in the first amendment that's not restricted to literally just speech.[/QUOTE] Good to know they have the freedom to buy federal favors from here on out.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48715634]Good to know they have the freedom to buy federal favors from here on out.[/QUOTE] How would it be any different from an individual providing political donations?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48712156]The citizens united ruling p much said that donations to a political campaign is an extension of your freedom of speech[/QUOTE] Citizens united is an interpretation of the law, congress can pass a law explicitly outling the personhood rights of corporations and they should, they have been judicially held to a lower standard of personhood for 150 years with regards to religious rights, freedom of speech, and such until the current court overturned that
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48715649]How would it be any different from an individual providing political donations?[/QUOTE] FFS, you know what I mean.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48715649]How would it be any different from an individual providing political donations?[/QUOTE] If the individual provided hundreds of thousands of dollars with the implicit agreement that the recipient would adjust policies to protect that individual's interests, then you'd have a point.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;48716568]If the individual provided hundreds of thousands of dollars with the implicit agreement that the recipient would adjust policies to protect that individual's interests, then you'd have a point.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if this is a good way to explain it, but I'll give it a shot. If one person donates money to a politician in order to gain favors for their own personal agendas, that's fucked up. But in essence, the way you worded your statement could also be applied to Berni's campaign when it receives donations from the common man. After all, Bernie says what he'll do to protect your interests, and people support him because of his ideas to protect their interests. But that would be the fundamental difference: Large groups of people supporting a candidate because the candidate is going to protect their interests, as opposed to singular, larger entities supporting candidates on the condition that the candidate returns the favor by means of enacting policies that benefit their donors despite the moral implications. It puts more emphasis on one person's freedom of speech than the others, essentially making it "more right", which isn't what democracy is.
It is an incredibly grey area, but you nailed my main distinction there. Walt and Martha and all their friends might be among the thousands thinning their wallets to support the election of a candidate whose decisions they already trust, whereas Goldman-Sachs and four other investment bankers will give $700k each as a friendly reminder that they own the candidate's decisions. I favor the former, but even then there's the danger that the candidate does what the masses want out of fear rather than belief, which is a whole big can of worms unto itself, depending upon whether the people demand civil rights or public crucifixions of the unorthodox. I apologise if I'm not as clear as I should be, but the involvement of large sums of money in ostensibly democratic politics is vague at best and only gets worse from there. As evidenced by Brazil, where the elected are still likely to be controlled by corporations even though it's illegal.
A fantastic effort, but I highly doubt it will put an end to the corruption. There are always workarounds.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48715649]How would it be any different from an individual providing political donations?[/QUOTE] A candidate is more likely to listen to a 100k donation from Big Oil Co. than a 10 dollar donation from Honest Uncle July, let's think about that for a second cannot believe people would defend Citizens United, any politician worth their salt (Republican OR Democrat) is against the ruling and thinks it was the worst ruling the Supreme Court has ever committed. Campaign donations were limited on individuals previously as well.
I think people are forgetting that we could just place the amount of money to can donate to one campaign at some small amount of money like $250. After all, you are still able to exercise your right to free speech by donating, it's just everyone has the chance to express their right equally.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.