Alec Ruling America

[hassan1159]

Alec (The American Legislation Exchange Council) to be brief Alec claims to be a non profit organization fighting for lower taxes and a government closer to the people (for more information here is there website http://www.alec.org/).
However what does Alec actually do?
Well they write legislation's that a statesman would use to incorporate new laws into his state. That by itself is (excuse my language) ed up, many of the laws passed aren't from the statesman themselves, instead it comes from a corporation.

How do they benefit from that?
Well everybody involved with Alec benefit, that usually includes 3 parties 1) the Alec corporate legislators, 2) the corporation involved, and 3) the statesman involved. in fact the only people that don't benefit are the regular citizens of the US.
The way Alec works is this, Corporations sponsor Alec by joining the company, Alec uses part of that money and puts into a 'scholarship program" which happens to go to the statesman involved. Through that process all 3 parties involve benefit, Alec gets money from corporations, Statesmen get money from Alec, and a bill is passed that is written by the corporation itself (and obviously that bill will end up profiting the corporation). But why is that bad for the average american? Because corporations get to play with the law however they want, through that process a corporation can hypothetically release a law that could allow them to produce or retrieve a product using the fastest way necessary! Even if that includes hypothetically using a chemical that could potentially harm local workers and citizens. ( to them at the end of the day, their money is more important than your health)

Here is a link to the laws Alec have passed involving health alone (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f2...ealth_Care.pdf)
here is a link to all of the companies who were or are still involved with Alec (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...C_Corporations)

I would like to hear other opinions about this, do you also think that we're being ruled by corporations or am i just over reacting

[Big War Bird]

Damn those people, er corporations, (meh, same thing) for being opposed to the criminal prosecution of six ten year olds for running a lemonade stand.

[justicar5]

Damn those people, er corporations, (meh, same thing)

no it isn't and never should be, Corporations are not people and have no rights, they may have privileges granted to them, but zero rights, as soon as limited liability is enacted freedom of speech should be lost, and any influence at all over the politics of the state.

[Yoda Twin]

no it isn't and never should be, Corporations are not people and have no rights, they may have privileges granted to them, but zero rights, as soon as limited liability is enacted freedom of speech should be lost, and any influence at all over the politics of the state.

What is a right? What is a privilege?

Do you have an understanding of how 1st Amendment/freedom of expression laws in general operate? Here's a hint, the question 'does this person possess the right to freely express themselves' is not a relevant inquiry at any stage of the analysis.

Whenever this topic arises, I always return to this passage from A Man For All Seasons:

Margaret: Father, that man's bad.

Sir Thomas: There's no law against that.

William: There is God's law.

Sir Thomas: Then God will arrest him.

William: So you give the Devil the benefit of the law!

Sir Thomas: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not Gods! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that blow then? Yes I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake!

[justicar5]

What is a right? What is a privilege?

Do you have an understanding of how 1st Amendment/freedom of expression laws in general operate? Here's a hint, the question 'does this person possess the right to freely express themselves' is not a relevant inquiry at any stage of the analysis.

Whenever this topic arises, I always return to this passage from A Man For All Seasons:

a right is something inalienable to a living being by it's nature, a privilege is something granted by law. As non-living things, corporations can have no rights. The CEO has freedom of expression, the corporate entity does not, so if for instance Mark Zuckerburg wants to make a political speech, and does so as a private individual, that is fine, if however he was to do so as the 'spokesman' of Facebook, he would be using Facebooks privilege and should face restrictions, (ideally not being able to use company money or resources to support any partisan political cause, nor imply that facebook as an entity would respond in certain ways to certain laws, ( for instance threatening to move the company etc, he is ofc free to do that, but should not be allowed to use the threat as a political tool). I use Facebook as it sprang to mind, same should apply to any company.

I would also like to see the size of political donations limited, or if not limited the politician donated to having to wear a 'sponsored by' badge ala formula 1 or nascar.

[Yoda Twin]

a right is something inalienable to a living being by it's nature, a privilege is something granted by law. As non-living things, corporations can have no rights. The CEO has freedom of expression, the corporate entity does not, so if for instance Mark Zuckerburg wants to make a political speech, and does so as a private individual, that is fine, if however he was to do so as the 'spokesman' of Facebook, he would be using Facebooks privilege and should face restrictions, (ideally not being able to use company money or resources to support any partisan political cause, nor imply that facebook as an entity would respond in certain ways to certain laws, ( for instance threatening to move the company etc, he is ofc free to do that, but should not be allowed to use the threat as a political tool). I use Facebook as it sprang to mind, same should apply to any company.

I would also like to see the size of political donations limited, or if not limited the politician donated to having to wear a 'sponsored by' badge ala formula 1 or nascar.

You haven't answered the question. Rather than detail what rights and privileges are, you've merely defined who possesses each.

Again, you're fascinated with the question of who has a right, but why is this question relevant?

[Gaidin]

no it isn't and never should be, Corporations are not people and have no rights, they may have privileges granted to them, but zero rights, as soon as limited liability is enacted freedom of speech should be lost, and any influence at all over the politics of the state.

Let's watch justicar dive off the cliff peeps because he doesn't know what signing a contract is!

[Condottiere 40K]

1. Baldwin

2. Smart

[Simon Cashmere]

Corporations are not people and have no rights

They have the right to freedom of expression. In the US, that is. They also have the right not to have their property taken without fair compensation. They have property rights. They also have the right to be free from searches without warrant, so, you cannot do warrantless searches on a corporation just because it is not a person. Certainly, while some rights like, the right to counsel do not apply to corporations, or the right to have an attorney present during questioning - corporations still enjoy many of the rights that natural persons do. Another right - is the right to 'due process' under the law. More rights do apply to corporations than do not.

[Thorn777]

Its important to be real tender with ethical and juridic principals when it comes to cooperations. We have been to brutal already regarding such principals on every other matter imaginable.