what are the principles underlining the legal limits placed on corporate funding of election & lobby?
548876
In the US corporations are not allows to provide funding to elect federal candidates. The idea is to prevent undo influence over the voter.
1071097
It depends on the nature of the organization. Non-profits must have certain provisions, charities must have the same and a few more provisions, and even for-profit organizations must by law have some provisions in their articles of organization, which must be recorded with the secretary of state or corporations division in the state of registration.\n\nBy-laws usually repeat any needed provisions, and those cannot be changed without running into legal problems, but you can make a lot of changes if they are not required by law.\n\nIt sounds like somebody needs to consult an experienced corporate lawyer.
906488
No.\nThis can not be implemented.\nNo one can ban corporate donations.\nAll corporates are run by shareholders, directors etc whi are of course human beings.\nThere is no restriction on donation by individuals. Hence corporations can donate throgh thier shareholders.
524379
Sorry until we change the way the President can campaign a honest man would have a hard chance. Right now Sponsors (called Lobbyist) pay for their campaigns-they do it for getting people on their side (their interest) Example- Exxon and Oil companies give a lot (would their candidate vote any different than for the ones putting them there and keeping them there on issues. Pharmaceutical (anougher biggie) will make sure laws do not stop their profits.  To be fair -it should be TV debates (paid by taxes maybe) no one gets more or less-just tell what they represent. This way big favors are not owed to the Lobbyist before the get in. An honest Man would have a hard time without their support money (we cannot compete to give more than the big companies-look what Exxon made in profits. )Sorry until the way changes-everyone in power owes favors.
339368
No. Labor laws vary by state, but that isn't a God-given right, the way life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.\n\nIn fact, in a worse-case scenario, if you posted pictures from the "Big Topless Babes on Big Bikes" Magazine and the corporation did nthing to stop you, a woman who was offended could sue them for a couple of hundred thousand dollars for sexual harassment.\n\nVirtually all corporations have policies about bulletin boards. Most of them don't want sex, politics, money or religion discussed in the work place or posted on their bulletin boards, so, if they have one, they don't allow tracts from competing denominations, political posters, ads for Avon products or offers from "generous" older men looking for discrete single women 18 - 25 who look good in tight tops.\n\nThe possibilities for mis-use are endless. If they let you put up a BB with cute pictures of your puppies / grandchildren / kittens / roses, they have to let me put up one with cute pictures of my new wife in a bikini, plus posters for the WatchTower warning everyone that the end of the world is coming. Then they have to have an HR person come by and argue with me.\n\nIt is just easier to say "no". Most corpoarte BB's have nothing but the OSHA warnings, position announcements and flyers about the company picnic. They are safe but dull.\n\nIn a related issue, you have the freedom of speech, but you can't spend company time trying to convert your fellow employees to your brand of politics or religion; they are paying you to be an accountant, programmer, mechanic, clerk, CEO, sales person, waiter, etc etc. They frown on you doing it on lunch breaks, too.
1072489
Raising campaign money to be elected
278587
Get a bunch of honest people in every state to run for office and actually win. Another more realistic approach would be putting term limits on senator. This would deter cronyism with corporations because usually when one first enters office they are honest and idealistic but after a while they forget why they are there and who they really answer too. However I don't think many senators would willingly vote to put a limit on there term.
665740
I'm not sure there's a set and hard limit.  Basically, as with most things like this, you have to recover hard evidence that they are maliciously ripping off the consumer or colluding.  If they're just marking it up like normal and taking profits like they've always been, I don't think that's considered gouging or else no company in the US would be making money.
662623
the lowest acceptable limit as restricted by controlling parties\n\nA floor, or bottom, is the minimum allowable limit. An example of a floor occurs in underwriting. The issuing corporation will declare a minimum acceptable amount at which the investment bank can purchase the securities. This way the corporation ensures sufficient capital acquisition.
930572
I believe for corporations or citizens to invoke Constitutional rights, there should be a legal obligation to respect the same of others affected by policies or actions.  Thus corporations would be held to the same Constitutional standards as government, since similar collective authority is being exercised that must be checked against the right of individuals.  This common standard of "Constitutional Ethics" may be enforced by legislation or by public education and social pressure of market forces by informed consumers.  Otherwise, there is a clear power imbalance if corporations freely exercise the same right as individuals, and the same collective influence as government, but no responsibility for checks and balance by due process of law to protect the interest of others to the same extent.  Such injustice violates the very nature of government and law based on "consent of the government" as the spirit of any binding social contract.
435163
YOU TELL ME!! THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE BUSH IN THERE POCKETS!!To ensure an adequate flow of cash, the Bush administration has upped the amount individual or corporate donors can contribute to the inaugural kitty—from $100,000 each, four years ago, to $250,000 today. While federal election law prohibits individual donations in excess of $2,000, no such restrictions exist here.Those donating include corporations and executives whose businesses are regulated by the federal government, or are dependent on government tax and spending policies, including military contractors, pharmaceutical companies, banking and finance concerns, technology companies and energy firms.\n\nChevronTexaco, ExxonMobile, Occidental Petroleum, the New Energy Corporation (South Bend, Indiana) and the Southern Company—concerned about threatened environmental legislation and the energy bill stalled in Congress—donated $250,000 apiece.\n\nMilitary contractors Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman—which are actively lobbying for weapons system and other military appropriations—each chipped in $100,000. Technology firms Microsoft and Oracle also contributed $100,000 each. The Washington Post Company pledged $100,000.\n\nOther corporations giving $250,000 included Bank of America Corp., Wachovia Corp., Ameriquest Capital Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer Inc., FedEx Corp., Ford Motor Co., The Home Depot, Marriot International, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., United Parcel Service and United Technologies.\n\nTexas oilman and corporate raider T. Boone Pickens individually donated $250,000. Boone was a key backer of Bush’s reelection campaign, donating $2.5 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked Democratic candidate John Kerry’s record in Vietnam, and another $2.5 million to the pro-Republican “soft-money” organization, Progress for America.\n\nBig donors are guaranteed seats and tickets to inaugural events; $250,000 contributors get 80 tickets to the 10 balls, receptions, galas and the swearing-in ceremony, while those giving $100,000 or more receive 38 tickets to these events.
1041317
Foreign equity ownership restrictions are restrictions on the amount of ownership, which is called equity in companies, which non-citizens of a country are allowed to own or control.\n\nThese restrictions are put into place in order to both encourage local ownership and control of certain businesses and industries and at the same time to prevent that control slipping into the hands of foreigners.\n\nSometimes the reasons are entirely political.  For example recently a Dubai company wanted to buy the major company that operates shipping ports.  And, while there is no restriction on that in the United States.  The politicians got very fearful that control of the ports by a foreign firm would make it easier for terrorists to get in.  So they made a big uproar and the Dubai company backed out of the deal.\n\nIn Brazil for example the powerful families that control the country's sugar supply may put pressure on the government to prevent foreign ownership of more than 40% of the equity in sugar companies.  This allows them to sell 40% at a high price to foreign investors, and at the same time keep local control.   So this would be considered protectionist.\n\nIn the United States media that is regulated by the government, radio and television licenses are covered by such restrictions.  The theory being that America values freedom of speech and only Americans can protect that freedom.  But Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy many radio and television stations and neither he nor his company could do it because he was not a US citizen.  He became a US citizen and was able to buy those properties.
507068
There are both federal and local state rules governing boards of directors, and ethical rules that imposed through case law.\n\nGenerally, if a director is receiving a benefit from the corporation, that is a conflict of interest. The corporation may have claims for unjust enrichment, disgorgement of improper gains, and breach of fiduciary duty.\n\nThe way around this, again generally, is for a director to fully disclose any benefits and recuse themselves (abstain) from any vote that might benefit them personally. That's what I do for the board that I'm on.\n\nWhen in doubt, consult an attorney in your local area to find out what your obligations and liabilities are.
701871
I am writing from the US, but if this were an American organization I would check the charter document (Certificate of Incorporation) and By-Laws regarding the percentage of vote required to propose (as opposed to approve) a merger, as well as quorum provisions.  I would guess a simple majority, of not just a motion and a seconding of the motion, would be enough.\n\nAs for the substance of the measure and voting it up or down, look through ALL the by laws, and maybe Robert's Rules of Order, and try to use them to get your way, or at least to block what you don't want.\n\nIt's like a chess game, although of course much more serious.\n\nGood luck.
835294
Corporations.  Which donate large amounts of campaign cash to Bush and his politicos.  They make decisions that bring them the most profit.  So Bush and his inner circle are actually benefiting from Bush's reluctance to send away the illegals.  Surprise, surprise.
457513
The most significant way would be to do away with lobbying groups! Lobbyists seem to have a lot more power on lawmakers than voters ever could, on most issues at least. And since lobbyists are almost always working on behalf of big business, doing away with them and their influence, would greatly reduce the power of big money in American politics.
1030754
EYes campaign finance is needed. There are many ways to do it. 1: Inforce  the Fairness Doctrine, get news departments back to doing the news...not infotainment.\n2: Take away Corporate person hood, a corporation is not a person and the should not be able to use money as political speech.\n3: Have publicly financed elections. It won't cost each taxpayer that much and we'd get the special interests out of the electoral process.\n4; Go back to paper ballots. Our right to vote should not be handles by for profit companies!\n5: Make it so ex-politicians, staff members or public officials can't join companies or firms to lobby Congress for 5 years. Family members  of current politicians, staff members or public officials(down to 10th cousin twice removed if need be) can't not be lobbyists. This is for the time the politician is in office and for 5 years after wards.. I know this will probably never happen, but we can try.