FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court

No.
If the Brady Campaign donated $$ to my campaign for political office,
I might well accept the cash, but FOR SURE, I 'd continue to everything in my power
to extirpate & annihilate any vestige of gun control.

( I am not implying any breach of contract. )

What we are left with is an obvious problem which simply lacks an accurate term to describe it. But the fact that many politicians ARE influenced by financial contributions is the key issue we are discussing.

If you take a thousand people and offer them money to vote the way you want, then some of them will do as you do and take the money and stick to their own ideas, but others will take the money and vote as they are influenced to vote. As that cycle repeats, only the ones who are influenced will continue to receive money and remain in the system. People like you will be filtered out very quickly and your viewpoint will no longer be represented.

What we are left with is an obvious problem which simply lacks an accurate term to describe it. But the fact that many politicians ARE influenced by financial contributions is the key issue we are discussing.

If you take a thousand people and offer them money to vote the way you want, then some of them will do as you do and take the money and stick to their own ideas, but others will take the money and vote as they are influenced to vote. As that cycle repeats, only the ones who are influenced will continue to receive money and remain in the system. People like you will be filtered out very quickly and your viewpoint will no longer be represented.

Not really.

You are assuming that the person whose votes cannot be influenced by money does not already represent the position of a large number of the electorate, and/or will be unable to raise campaign donations.

If everyone in David's district strongly supports gun control, and he spends two years casting votes in congress that are meant to defeat gun control, the chances are good that he will not be re-elected...irrespective of the amounts of money he has raised for his campaign.

If, however, his constituents agree with David and approve of his votes, the chances are very good that he will win re-election, no matter how much gun-control groups donate to his opponent.

Money is a very important element of any campaign's chances of success but it doesn't assure victory

It is also quite possible and ethical to take money from the NRA and then vote in such way that their interests are advanced, if their interests are not in conflict with the interests of his constituents.

The NRA doesn't need to buy David's vote, but David needs the money to get elected and the NRA wants him to be in a position to influence gun-control laws. It works out fine for both of them. As long as David doesn't allow the donations to cause him to vote against what he considers to be the best interests of his constituents, it's fine for everyone.

It's certainly possible that David and the majority of his constituents will disagree on what the best interests of the latter may be. Our system is a republic though and until a majority of constituents recognize the disagreement and vote David out of office, he can ethically vote in accordance with the interest of the NRA, while believing he is also voting in accordance with the interests of his constituents.

Candidates who accept campaign donations may eventually remove those who do not from the playing field, if only because of the importance of money in a modern campaign, but it certainly doesn't follow that candidates who are influenced by donations will remove those who are not.

It's also important to understand that corporations are not the only parties seeking to influence policy with their support.

All special interest groups seek influence. To the degree that influence creates a dilemma, the dilemma is not greater if the special interest is corporate as opposed to labor or a company as opposed to an organization.

The interests of The Teamsters do not automatically align with those of David's constituents; nor do the interests of the Sierra Club. The risk of him allowing their donations to influence him to vote against the interests of his constituents is just as great as if the donations were coming from corporations.

Prohibit corporate donations alone and you've created a very lopsided playing field.

An argument that corporate interests are only reflective of a very small group of otherwise powerful individual efforts, while Unions and Organizations represent a much broader base doesn't wash.

First because Fat Cats are Fat Cats no matter where they establish their offices and secondly because corporate employees have no less a personal stake in the interests of the Corp Fat Cat than union members have in the interests of the Union Fat Cat. The NRA as an organization no less represents the interests of its membership than does the Sierra Club.

Legal issues such as freedom of speech provide for yet another way to view and decide the matter, but if you are looking for a level playing field, you can't focus on corporations alone.

It wasent necessary to tell us you belong to several special interest groups.

The fact you think there is no such thing as bribery in politics shows where your loyalty lies.

The supreme court long ago negated bribery laws when they made it legal to give large sums of money to politicians and called it political contributions.

the system was going the wrong way long before the citizens united decision, but that was a watershed.

we need a constitutional amendment to reinstitute the natural, real distinction between real persons and fictitious persons.

I see the memo is making the rounds.

that's what it will take. that might be the best place to start - for the occupiers - its simple, easy to understand, would have a major effect on law, values, and perceptions of same amongst the people at large.

What about rights granted to corporations under the constitution that have nothing to do with campaign finance (e.g. contractual)?

Do Labor Unions, Churches and other organizations (ACLU, NRA, The Lions Club etc) join corporations for the same treatment?

I'm assuming you don't believe that the collective identity represented by a group of individuals operating in a cooperative manner to achieve common ends has any rights nor is there a compelling reason, based on advancing the common good, to consider such collectives as deserving of the legally protected rights of individuals?

What societal values have been negatively impacted by decisions that grant collectives certain rights of the individual?

by the way, can corporations now vote? i assume they now may. and if not, why not?

it is not a fair interpretation that because someone supports distintions being made in the law between individuals and groups, that it follows that the groups should have no rights.

the memo i have is that corporate power is out of bounds & controls, and we need to re-think fundamentally the laws that should bind them. not that they should be abolished or impared from a useful functioning.