From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Hating PAC's
Organization: VTT
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:57:17 GMT

In article <ByrpK9.3H8@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1fg3uiINNmlg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>Where in the constitution does it say that people should be limited in their
>ability to contribute to political campaigns?  

The constitution give the Congress permission to set requirements for
its members.  Congress can require that its members not accept more than
a certain amount of money from individuals.

>It was these laws which gave
>rise to PACs in order to circumvent these laws.

>Where in the constitution was the government given the power to regulate
>private businesses?  

The interstate commerce clause.

>If it were not that the government spends so much
>time poking it's nose into private busines, those businesses would not 
>feel the need to have representatives in Washington.

The government is trying (although not very hard in recent years) to
protect workers from hazardous conditions communities from pollution and 
consumers from unsafe products.  This is not "private busines[s]".  If
private businesses are involved in these public activities, they need to
be regulated to protect the community.

>Lastly, business organizations are nothing more than groups of individuals.
>These groups are primarily organized for the production of goods and services
>at a profit.  Why should such groups not be allowed to appoint representatives
>to deal with the government?  

Noone is saying that they should not be allowed to do so.

>If you don't think groups such as General Motors
>should be allowed to send representatives to the government, 

I don't think there should be seats in Congress reserved for them. 8)E

>why should groups
>like The Sierra Club be allowed to do so either? 

Bribery of Congressfolk should be illegal.  Donations to a
Congressperson while pressing that representative to take a given action
on a bill should be prima face evidence of bribery, and should thus be
banned, whether by Sierra Club or GM.

>>People are the only ones who should have
>>>access to congress, and each person equal access, regardless of if they run 
>>>IBM or mop floors.

>But who makes up companies if it is not people?  You seem to have this view
>of businesses as inhuman unthinking robots without owners and without
>any human beings involved.

The people who make up the business should have the rights.
Organizations are not people.  [And the above statement is wrong: how
could you consider someone who refers to "[people who] run IBM" as
thinking of businesses "without an human beings involved"?]  This also
shows that your straw man further up was not applicable.  The poster
states that the person who runs IBM should have access to Congress,
however the person who mops his floor should have the same access.
 
>>I agree.  How about limiting contributions to natural persons residing in the
>>district where the candidate is running for office?  

>Even if those people happen to be richer than you are?  Even if they happen to
>be members of groups which act in concert?  Back when individuals could
>engage in political activity without limitations, there were no PACs, but
>people like you who hated the idea that businessmen could defend themselves
>by being actively involved in political campaigns and lobbying make it illegal.
>You get what you ask for.

How about providing free air time to all candidates (make it a
requirement for those businesses asking the govt. for monopoly use of a
section of the electromagnetic spectrum)?  This would vastly reduce the
amount of money that someone would need to spend on a campaign.  Public
financing of the rest of the campaign would obliviate the need for
almost all contributions (other than startup ones to get someone on the
ballot).

>>No PACs, no unions, no
>>corporations...just living, breathing human beings.

>What do you think PACs, Unions, and Corporations are?  Stone buildings?

Silly.  Of course they are not human beings.  They are organizations
made up of human beings.  The proposal is that contributions from the
humans should still be accepted (which I question) but that those from
the organizations should not.

>>Radical idea, I know....

>Radical indeed...but I don't think you know what you are asking for.

Contentless statement unless you think you are a mind reader.

>--Brian

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution