What People Think
80% For, 20% Against
63 votes cast
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
 |
For |
 |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
 |
Comment on this Bill |
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 4431, The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (8 comments ↓)
H.R. 4431 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
()
[135 views]
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
VicF
February 3, 2010, 9:31pm (report abuse)Next best thing to getting the Supreme Court to remember that it's "Government by and for the PEOPLE," NOT the corporations.
MichaelJ
February 4, 2010, 3:20am (report abuse)VicF, corporations are not run by robots or artificial intelligences. They are ran by people, so a donation by a corporation is just as much donated by a human person as one by you or I.
Instead of demonising corporations, I wish people would start remembering that corporations are a group of people working voluntarily together towards mutual goals, of which there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
noway
February 4, 2010, 9:59am (report abuse)MichaelJ, which corporation do you work for? Individual voters cannot donate billions of dollars to their candidate, who, by the way, is supposed to represent the citizens of their state. A corporation donating billions to get a representative to support the corporations wishes and against the wishes of the citizens is flat-out wrong. If a corporation is a person, then that person should be able to go to prison - meaning the executives/board of directors.
winys
February 6, 2010, 12:00am (report abuse)People are uninformed about the actual decision. That is really to bad, they would find that the decision itself is well founded. Instead they let others manipulate them and make decisions for them.
noway: the decision was about advertising, not contributions. In fact several very rich people do spend millions if not billions on political activities, as do lobbiests and special interest groups. This was about none of that, only about advertising.
Patrick J
February 9, 2010, 12:04pm (report abuse)Why are unions, the New york Times and the Washington Post exempt and have been all along for years where they can donate to whomever they want? It is obvious we have a double standard this this bill continues. It is a bad bill!
Pimp Masta G
February 9, 2010, 4:47pm (report abuse)Corporations can't donate billions of dollars to political candidates. And if corporations are only spending billions of dollars then they are still spending trillions less than our government.
Philip C. G.
February 16, 2010, 11:33am (report abuse)By the logic of the people who think that corporations are not people, shouldn't you also be arguing that there shouldn't be a tax on corporations since they are in fact not people? If people can vote to tax a corporation, then the corporation deserves to have some say in the political process, that is, "No taxation without representation." I conclude this post with "get a job you dirty hippies".
Dylan
May 11, 2010, 12:15am (report abuse)The primary issue is lack of accountability. As a couple people have noted, a corporation cannot be put in prison, therefore it's not a person. A corporation can poison a community and then pay a fine; that fine is budgeted for as a trifling consequence against their overall profits. If a person were to poison a community he/she would be imprisoned, not fined for a fraction of his/her income. Also, corporations are often exempted from paying taxes, and/or exploit tax loopholes anyway. Making a corporation pay taxes doesn't redefine them as a person by any measure. If that's the issue, then change the word from "tax" to something more suitable to your pretentious jargon-cop. Also, to the direct issue of campaigns, the worry isn't so much paying off politicians as it is leveraging against actual public interests with deluges of propaganda. Are any of you proponents of the Supreme Court decision also proponents of propaganda?