Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,631

    California Prop C

    this Prop is dangerous because no opposing view was submitted!

    "Now , therefore be it resolved"

    this prop wants to make it so,
    1) Corporations do not have the rights of human beings. (when independently supporting or opposing candidates)
    (it is already illegal for corporations to directly give money in exchange for favors, even though it happens every day)
    2) Corporations do not engage constitutionally protected speech when spending corporate money to influence the electoral process. (but unions do)
    3) limits on political spending that promote the First Amendment, by insuring that all citizens regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their views heard are permissible.
    (this statement is worthless because the prop and Amendment will do nothing to change the fact you need money in a big election to be heard)






    In its 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the United States Supreme Court overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political expenditures in political campaigns.[5] Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns.[6] [7] Organizations seeking to contribute directly to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.[8]
    the Prop says nothing about unions, so if we remove corporate influence, then political campaigns will be more union controlled.
    For Example
    let's say you are Jewish and you run a massive corporation, then you find out Hitler is running for President.
    this prop/Amendment would stop you, even on a completely independent level, from using any corporate money to oppose his election.
    only if you paid yourself enough money to fund a 50 million dollar ad would you be able to say anything.
    or, you would have to collect from an organization or something similar.

    even though the previous language says "corporation and unions" , this prop leaves out the union restrictions, so they would still have "First Amendment rights" to independently influence elections.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,631
    a corporation in itself is set up so a business has the rights of humans, this prop does nothing to change that.

    what they want to do is completely silence anyone using corporate money.
    we're not talking about corporation funding politicians, we're talking about people using corporate money who are completely independent from the politician.

    the original language says "corporations and unions", but the prop says nothing about limiting unions.

    if the amendment passes, independent unions will be able to support or attack politicians, but independent corporations will not.





    everyone should be highly suspicious that they did not submit any rebuttal to this, they are commanding everyone to vote for it

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event