So when will they be locking up some Verizon executives for felony fraud?
Maybe when the people making those accusations can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal prosecutions under our judicial system?
and seeing these lists of small fees added on to all my bills, feeling really helpless.
A business attaching fees to your invoices is all it takes to make you feel "really helpless"? You know you could walk away from Verizon Wireless anytime you want, right? Wireless service is hardly a matter of life and death....
Verizon Wireless has 93.2 million subscribers. Let's assume (VERY conservatively) that only 5% of their customers were hit with bogus fees.
Well, not to defend Verizon, but 5% sounds about right to me. Between my family share plan (5 lines) and my corporate plan at work (46 lines) I've only seen this issue happen on two lines (2 / 51 = 3.9%).
It seems to be related to the inability of Verizon's billing system to properly determine the source of data. As an example, their backup assistant application is supposed to be completely free but I've seen it generate data charges before. Their billing system is supposed to discount very quick data sessions but I've seen phones hit with this fee when someone accidentally hit the "mobile web" button and exited out of it right away.
To Verizon's credit they never once argued with me when I called to request a refund of this fee. I did so every single time I saw it charged and received a refund every single time. In spite of those refunds I still got the credit from for this fee. Go figure.
If they increase their own salary in some kind of agreement that they will use that money for political influence, then the would still be in violation of the law
Good luck enforcing that law.
Giving corporations the right to free political speech is absolutely toxic to the political environment in this country. We're seeing the results of that already, and it's going to get worse.
You mean to say that it doesn't necessarily lead to results that YOU approve of.
The real problem is that money is equated with speech, and that gives those with the most money the biggest soap box.
Money is speech. It costs money to produce TV advertisements, fliers, lawn signs, etc.
Since the vast majority of the money in this country is concentrated in the hands of a fairly small minority of the population, we are essentially allowing them to direct the politics of the country. This, of course, gives them the ability to direct policies in their favor, which they do.
No, the voters direct politics in this country. Your entire argument is based on the premise that those voters need to be protected from corporate speech. You fear that speech because you think that people may be exposed to it and decide not to vote for the candidates that you personally would like to see win our elections. Rather than counter it with your own speech you seek to muzzle it at the source. We call that censorship where I'm from.
Your reasons don't hold water with me, for reasons I've already stated. I do have to say that it's pretty funny that you think the owners should be able to do it themselves but not the corporation. You do realize they can just increase their own salary to offset the printing and distribution costs, right? You've accomplished nothing other than to increase the paperwork burden required to exercise free speech.
Total spending by parties, campaigns and issue-advocacy groups concerning every office from county clerks to U.S. senators may reach a record $4.2 billion in this two-year cycle. That is about what Americans spend in one year on yogurt, but less than they spend on candy in two Halloween seasons. Proctor & Gamble spent $8.6 billion on advertising in its last fiscal year.
Those who are determined to reduce the quantity of political speech to what they consider the proper amount are the sort of people who know exactly how much water should come through our shower heads — no more than 2.5 gallons per minute, as stipulated by a 1992 law. Is it, however, worrisome that Americans spend on political advocacy — determining who should make and administer the laws — much less than they spend on potato chips, $7.1 billion a year?
Regular corporations would still not be permitted to donate to political influence activities.
So my local grocery store isn't allowed to publish a flier detailing how the new zoning law will impact them and their customers unless they go through the hassle of setting up a separate corporation for this purpose?
And preventing corporations, whose reason for existence is to create a profit for their shareholders
Citizens United was (is?) a non-profit corporation created specifically for the purpose of political advocacy. Under the law that was struck down they were denied the ability to release their video during the campaign. That is not compatible with free speech no matter how you try and spin it.
from directly funding political speech and activities would have absolutely no impact on the rights of all those people to exercise their free speech rights
It does when those people created the corporation for the express purpose of advocating their political position.
All of those people who own part of the corporation or are employed by it get no say in how its profits are spent
The people who own part of the corporation get to vote for the Board of Directors. The employees don't have any say in things, why would they?
Demonstrate who is committing "mass libel" and "hijacking" the democratic process. Why aren't lawsuits being filed if there's so much "mass libel" going on?
Why can't people on the left just accept the fact that we have free speech and the typical voter is smart enough to weigh that speech on it's merits (or lack thereof) when deciding how to cast his ballot?
The bill of rights is precisely about rights for the people.
No, the Bill of Rights is about making it harder for the Government to infringe on our preexisting natural law rights. It does not "grant" us anything.
Are corporations people?
Corporations are made up of people which can not be denied their free speech rights merely on the basis of grouping with others for a common cause.
However, if I go and eat at MacDonalds, it does NOT mean that I have now expressed a wish for the board of MacDonalds to spend the profit they gained from me on their personal political agenda.
I wasn't aware that you retained the right to determine how McDonalds spends "your" money after you give to them in exchange for a not-so-tasty hamburger.
BTW, there is a solution to this problem. If you don't like how McDonalds spends it's profits then you don't give them your money. See how easy that is?
There is plenty of recent evidence of how lax, dangerous and useless these systems become when they are given over to private for-profit corporations.
And yet the Democrats "fixed" our health care system by mandating that everyone purchase insurance from private for-profit corporations or else the Government will punish you.
I see no reason why that should give it the right to take actions to influence the political decisions of the country.
Show me the part of the Constitution that says Congress can make laws concerning speech when said speech originates from a corporation. You won't find such a section. The 1st amendment is clear as day, Congress shall make no law.....
The 5 right-wing judges were put in place with the explicit mandate of guiding the US along the way to complete corporate hegemony.
Those same conservative justices came out AGAINST the notion that Government can use eminent domain to seize your property for private purposes while the liberal justices said that was just fine and dandy.
The First Amendment doesn't grant the people anything. It simply states that Congress shall make no law concerning religion/free speech/assembly/etc. It does not say that Congress shall make no law concerning those things EXCEPT when the target of said law is a corporation.
No, corporations are well-defined legal entities. Their purpose is to make money, and nothing else.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Sierra Club is a corporation. The township that I live in is a corporation. Neither of them have "making money" as a goal. Money is a means to an end for both organizations but it is not the final objective.
Individuals, not Corporations, have the right to free and unencumbered speech.
What happens when individuals band together with like minded individuals under the guise of a corporation? You do realize that most political advocacy organizations are corporations, right?
Slashdot Mirror
So when will they be locking up some Verizon executives for felony fraud?
Maybe when the people making those accusations can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal prosecutions under our judicial system?
Want to donate to a politician?
Corporations can't donate money to politicians or political campaigns. That was and remains the law of the land.
and seeing these lists of small fees added on to all my bills, feeling really helpless.
A business attaching fees to your invoices is all it takes to make you feel "really helpless"? You know you could walk away from Verizon Wireless anytime you want, right? Wireless service is hardly a matter of life and death....
Here's one article, though I'm not sure if it's the one the submitter was quoting from.
Verizon Wireless has 93.2 million subscribers. Let's assume (VERY conservatively) that only 5% of their customers were hit with bogus fees.
Well, not to defend Verizon, but 5% sounds about right to me. Between my family share plan (5 lines) and my corporate plan at work (46 lines) I've only seen this issue happen on two lines (2 / 51 = 3.9%).
It seems to be related to the inability of Verizon's billing system to properly determine the source of data. As an example, their backup assistant application is supposed to be completely free but I've seen it generate data charges before. Their billing system is supposed to discount very quick data sessions but I've seen phones hit with this fee when someone accidentally hit the "mobile web" button and exited out of it right away.
To Verizon's credit they never once argued with me when I called to request a refund of this fee. I did so every single time I saw it charged and received a refund every single time. In spite of those refunds I still got the credit from for this fee. Go figure.
If they increase their own salary in some kind of agreement that they will use that money for political influence, then the would still be in violation of the law
Good luck enforcing that law.
Giving corporations the right to free political speech is absolutely toxic to the political environment in this country. We're seeing the results of that already, and it's going to get worse.
You mean to say that it doesn't necessarily lead to results that YOU approve of.
The real problem is that money is equated with speech, and that gives those with the most money the biggest soap box.
Money is speech. It costs money to produce TV advertisements, fliers, lawn signs, etc.
Since the vast majority of the money in this country is concentrated in the hands of a fairly small minority of the population, we are essentially allowing them to direct the politics of the country. This, of course, gives them the ability to direct policies in their favor, which they do.
No, the voters direct politics in this country. Your entire argument is based on the premise that those voters need to be protected from corporate speech. You fear that speech because you think that people may be exposed to it and decide not to vote for the candidates that you personally would like to see win our elections. Rather than counter it with your own speech you seek to muzzle it at the source. We call that censorship where I'm from.
They are a creation of the government and have only the rights that the government grants them. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
The First Amendment doesn't grant anybody anything. It limits what Congress can do. What part of "shall make no law" is so hard to understand?
You mean the way he labeled me as some sort of idiot that gets all his information from Fox News?
BTW, the ABA is every bit as biased as Fox News, they are just biased in the other direction.
Your reasons don't hold water with me, for reasons I've already stated. I do have to say that it's pretty funny that you think the owners should be able to do it themselves but not the corporation. You do realize they can just increase their own salary to offset the printing and distribution costs, right? You've accomplished nothing other than to increase the paperwork burden required to exercise free speech.
3 billion dollars will be spent on election ads this year.
So what? That's not really all that much money. I'll let George Will put it into perspective for you:
Total spending by parties, campaigns and issue-advocacy groups concerning every office from county clerks to U.S. senators may reach a record $4.2 billion in this two-year cycle. That is about what Americans spend in one year on yogurt, but less than they spend on candy in two Halloween seasons. Proctor & Gamble spent $8.6 billion on advertising in its last fiscal year.
Those who are determined to reduce the quantity of political speech to what they consider the proper amount are the sort of people who know exactly how much water should come through our shower heads — no more than 2.5 gallons per minute, as stipulated by a 1992 law. Is it, however, worrisome that Americans spend on political advocacy — determining who should make and administer the laws — much less than they spend on potato chips, $7.1 billion a year?
Regular corporations would still not be permitted to donate to political influence activities.
So my local grocery store isn't allowed to publish a flier detailing how the new zoning law will impact them and their customers unless they go through the hassle of setting up a separate corporation for this purpose?
And preventing corporations, whose reason for existence is to create a profit for their shareholders
Citizens United was (is?) a non-profit corporation created specifically for the purpose of political advocacy. Under the law that was struck down they were denied the ability to release their video during the campaign. That is not compatible with free speech no matter how you try and spin it.
from directly funding political speech and activities would have absolutely no impact on the rights of all those people to exercise their free speech rights
It does when those people created the corporation for the express purpose of advocating their political position.
All of those people who own part of the corporation or are employed by it get no say in how its profits are spent
The people who own part of the corporation get to vote for the Board of Directors. The employees don't have any say in things, why would they?
Not democracy (Rome gets credit)
I think you mean Greece, specifically Athens....
Demonstrate who is committing "mass libel" and "hijacking" the democratic process. Why aren't lawsuits being filed if there's so much "mass libel" going on?
Why can't people on the left just accept the fact that we have free speech and the typical voter is smart enough to weigh that speech on it's merits (or lack thereof) when deciding how to cast his ballot?
The bill of rights is precisely about rights for the people.
No, the Bill of Rights is about making it harder for the Government to infringe on our preexisting natural law rights. It does not "grant" us anything.
Are corporations people?
Corporations are made up of people which can not be denied their free speech rights merely on the basis of grouping with others for a common cause.
The common assumption, and what the 1st Am. almost certainly means, is that freedom of speech is a right of individuals, not corporations.
Except it doesn't say that. It simply says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The notion that I have free speech as an individual but not when I band together with other like-minded individuals is absurd and offensive.
However, if I go and eat at MacDonalds, it does NOT mean that I have now expressed a wish for the board of MacDonalds to spend the profit they gained from me on their personal political agenda.
I wasn't aware that you retained the right to determine how McDonalds spends "your" money after you give to them in exchange for a not-so-tasty hamburger.
BTW, there is a solution to this problem. If you don't like how McDonalds spends it's profits then you don't give them your money. See how easy that is?
There is plenty of recent evidence of how lax, dangerous and useless these systems become when they are given over to private for-profit corporations.
And yet the Democrats "fixed" our health care system by mandating that everyone purchase insurance from private for-profit corporations or else the Government will punish you.
I see no reason why that should give it the right to take actions to influence the political decisions of the country.
Show me the part of the Constitution that says Congress can make laws concerning speech when said speech originates from a corporation. You won't find such a section. The 1st amendment is clear as day, Congress shall make no law.....
So you are fine with muzzling the speech of everyday Americans that don't have the resources or time to champion their issue on an individual level?
The 5 right-wing judges were put in place with the explicit mandate of guiding the US along the way to complete corporate hegemony.
Those same conservative justices came out AGAINST the notion that Government can use eminent domain to seize your property for private purposes while the liberal justices said that was just fine and dandy.
PEOPLE have First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment doesn't grant the people anything. It simply states that Congress shall make no law concerning religion/free speech/assembly/etc. It does not say that Congress shall make no law concerning those things EXCEPT when the target of said law is a corporation.
No, corporations are well-defined legal entities. Their purpose is to make money, and nothing else.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Sierra Club is a corporation. The township that I live in is a corporation. Neither of them have "making money" as a goal. Money is a means to an end for both organizations but it is not the final objective.
Individuals, not Corporations, have the right to free and unencumbered speech.
What happens when individuals band together with like minded individuals under the guise of a corporation? You do realize that most political advocacy organizations are corporations, right?
I see no reason to allow corporations to have the ability to speak on political issues.
You do realize that the NRA, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Sierra Club, AARP, etc, are all corporations, right?