How could they possibly raise more funds with rich people able to write million and billion dollar checks to mainstream candidates?
Can you live on minimum wage? (Calculator)
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
would they still bother to clean up the river to avoid the bad PR if people don't know it's them polluting the river?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It's cheaper to use lobbyists to get contribution limits passed into law than to write huge checks every election.
How can the corporation get bad PR if people don't know the corporation was responsible...?
So the ruling class has intentionally limited its ability to financially influence every election in order to prevent a hypothetical scenario where a lack of contribution limits enables the rise of a third party candidate? Bullshit. They stand to gain far more having unlimited financial influence in every election until the threat actually arises, at which point they could write the checks to defeat the candidate in question and then change the law to prevent such future problems, assuming that the benefit of unlimited influence in every election didn't exceed the cost of defeating an occasional problematic candidate.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You must not know what a super pac is. You must also be unaware that the majority of campaign expenditures are for advertising.
They have only limited everyone else's influence.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
exactly. no incentive to clean it up. what then?
You must not know that super PACs were created by a recent judicial decision while contribution limits were enacted 30+ years before they came into existence. If contribution limits + super PACs were the result of a concerted plan intended to limit average people while empowering the ruling class, why was there such a huge temporal disconnection?
If no one is going to know the corporation is responsible it's not going to clean the pollution up on its own initiate or create a regulatory regime. The corporation will do nothing and spend no money on the matter.
perhaps you didn't get the memo?..it's not about the money.
It's not about the money for the corporation?
oh my dear god
The thesis was that corporations/the ruling class created regulatory regimes to make nice with the public. My assertion is that creating such regimes is far more expensive than the corporation itself merely tackling the problem the regulatory regimes are intended to cure. What are they gaining from the extra expense that makes them not care about it? Instead of banging your head, why don't you tell me?oh my dear god
something your party keeps missing time and again:
businesses and employers historically abuse the system, hence the need for regulatory..
sure it's cheaper, but they think they can get away with it which is why they don't do it in the first place.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The threat of campaign contributions is also foreign, that's why.
I think you're confused. Abandonconflict's argument is that the corporations created the regulatory system to benefit themselves. Here you seem to be saying we need a regulatory system because corporations won't clean up after themselves without one.
Let me rephrase the question I was asking in the post you originally quoted: why would corporations create regulatory regimes that will cost them more money than simply resolving their potential problems on their own?
I'm sorry?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
to translate their position to federal or state regulatory ie; representation
No, I don't understand your point.