NationStates

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

REALIZING that both international and national politics are plagued by many kinds of lobbying especially Corporate Lobbying
RECOGNIZING that currently no resolution deals with these problems including and especially noting GAR #248 : Against Corruption
DECLARING for the purpose of this resolution, any business that is the government, or is part of the government, will not be considered a business from here on out
DEFINING Corporate Lobbying as the act of influencing a politician or government with the promise of any reward, namely money or a position, for helping further business interests in the political world
DEFINING Corporate Heads as those who are currently the owner or hold a position of power that allows access to the financial budgeting in a business excluding stock holders that are not the majority stock holder
MANDATING:

1. That Corporate Lobbying be immeaditely made illegal in all member countries
2. Any business found to be funneling money any political candidate with the purpose of corporate gain shall be fined
3. Any business found to be expressing it's corporate interests under the name of their business in any way to a political candidate in the hopes that they may vote a certain way on a political matter shall be fined
4. That Corporate Heads donating money from their corporation's funds to a politician be immediately made illegal in all member countries

RE-ESTABLISHING that a person, Corporate Head or not, still has the right to ask a politician to vote a certain way on a bill as long as money doesn't change hands
HOPING that the World Assembly will eventually be able to fully remove corporations from politics

"Why is the inclusion or exclusion of corporate entities in the political system of national governments in any way an international issue? If a nation wishes to allow corporate influence, it's really their call. Likewise with banning corporate influence, honestly. This glosses nicely over nations who's governments are corporations themselves, such as incorporated cities, for-profit governments, etc."

Clause E effectively bans donations to political campaigns you agree with or to politicians you've ever spoken to.
Voter: "I want lower taxes"
Politician: "I'll lower taxes!"
Voter: "Great, I'll give you money so you can lower taxes"

The focus on corporations really shows a failure to understand the problem. Not all businesses are corporations. I'm not sure you know what a corporation actually is other than an ambiguous evil entity.

Defwa wrote:Clause E effectively bans donations to political campaigns you agree with or to politicians you've ever spoken to.
Voter: "I want lower taxes"
Politician: "I'll lower taxes!"
Voter: "Great, I'll give you money so you can lower taxes"

The focus on corporations really shows a failure to understand the problem. Not all businesses are corporations. I'm not sure you know what a corporation actually is other than an ambiguous evil entity.

A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees, shareholders,[1] and members, and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit.

- Wikipedia

Copy+pasting a definition really does not demonstrate that you understand it, especially when the definition you've copied explicitly includes non-profits. Given the penultimate clause of your proposal, it's not clear that you understand the concept of corporate personhood, either.

Replacing Against Corruption is not a bad idea, at all, but this is not a good start.

Mr. Friday, I'd suggest limiting the use of the words "corporation," "corporate," and related constructions, and focus your energies on finding ways to limit the money flow from private donors that isn't so obvious as the tit-for-tat you're currently describing. Many nations love having monetary interests control their peoples' destiny, and wouldn't support the separation of their governments' puppet strings from the hands of private power that you seem keen on; but even they would want to keep things like campaign donations aboveboard rather than invisible. No intelligent lobbyist is going to admit outright that he supports Candidate A with obscene amounts of money because Company B wants a change in regulatory policy. Instead focus on things like revolving door policies (no politician may assume an executive position at any campaign donor's company within 10 or so years of leaving office), "complementary vacations" and "fact-finding trips," and maybe (if you can get away with it) limiting the annual donations from any person or entity to any politician to something like 1.5*(the cost of feeding and sheltering a family of four for a week) (oh yeah, and limiting the number of donor entities one person or company can actually own).

Simply railing against corporations, however satisfying it is and no matter how true the accusations, has no effect. And is arguably counterproductive.

Good luck.

Hmm... I am confused to redraft or not. If this is something that would not be looked upon favorably or pass, I'd rather spend my time finding another resolution.

Friday Freshman wrote:Hmm... I am confused to redraft or not. If this is something that would not be looked upon favorably or pass, I'd rather spend my time finding another resolution.

A new anti corruption resolution would be welcome. But this fashion just doesn't access the problem

Sorry, we just don't buy into the whole "lobbying is evil" idea.

"Out of curiosity, how would this affect nations where the corporations are the government?"

"Political Freedoms should be expanded to all. What would be best is a limit, or a Cap, on donations from Corporate Entities. Not a hard limit though, but allowing Nations to limit the amount of the donation on their own."
Unnamed Shazbotdom Civilian

Shazbotdom wrote:"What would be best is a limit, or a Cap, on donations from Corporate Entities. Not a hard limit though, but allowing Nations to limit the amount of the donation on their own."

In the current absence of any resolution to the contrary, nations already are allowed to set such limits if they wish to do so.

Bears Armed wrote:

Shazbotdom wrote:"What would be best is a limit, or a Cap, on donations from Corporate Entities. Not a hard limit though, but allowing Nations to limit the amount of the donation on their own."

In the current absence of any resolution to the contrary, nations already are allowed to set such limits if they wish to do so.

A resolution would put an end to nonsense like this "Lobbying Act".

Three Weasels wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:
In the current absence of any resolution to the contrary, nations already are allowed to set such limits if they wish to do so.

A resolution would put an end to nonsense like this "Lobbying Act".

"Ambassador, I don't think its the Act itself that is the source of the nonsense..."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Three Weasels wrote:A resolution would put an end to nonsense like this "Lobbying Act".

"Ambassador, I don't think its the Act itself that is the source of the nonsense..."

Oh! I get it! We'll steal his writing implements and bury them all over the WA headquarters! Neyer!

Normlpeople wrote:"Out of curiosity, how would this affect nations where the corporations are the government?"

Yeah there are nations out there that either are business entities or heavily incorporate business entities into their government. For instance, my nation, where the only elected politicians sit on a council on economic issues that is directly linked to Conglomorates, Corporations, and etc. So I guess if this is passed I will just have to switch to an absolute monarchy.

"While I agree that corporate power should have no place in election, I am also a realist," Sia argues putting aside her political ideas for a brief moment. "There are many, if not a majority of democratic countries in this Assembly work off of a money backed election campaigning process with elections running much like a business. In other words, while I may agree with the idea, it is simply ... too politically leftist to pass."

Three Weasels wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ambassador, I don't think its the Act itself that is the source of the nonsense..."

Oh! I get it! We'll steal his writing implements and bury them all over the WA headquarters! Neyer!

I have seemed to misplaced my stapler. HAS ANYONE SEEN MY SWINLINE STAPLER?

Friday Freshman wrote:

Three Weasels wrote:Oh! I get it! We'll steal his writing implements and bury them all over the WA headquarters! Neyer!

I have seemed to misplaced my stapler. HAS ANYONE SEEN MY SWINLINE STAPLER?

*The head of the delegation, Ambassador Val blinks innocently.* No, we haven't. Why would we know about such things?

*A member of the Weaslian delegation runs by, holding a stapler in its mouth. It scurries around a nearby corner and tosses it into one of many lakes on the WA HQ property.*

Friday Freshman wrote:I have seemed to misplaced my stapler. HAS ANYONE SEEN MY SWINLINE STAPLER?

Clover looked at Ambassador Friday with a puzzled look "It wasn't the red one was it? I saw some gnome borrow something like that.... anyway, you still haven't addressed how this would affect corporate governments...."

Friday Freshman wrote:

Three Weasels wrote:Oh! I get it! We'll steal his writing implements and bury them all over the WA headquarters! Neyer!

I have seemed to misplaced my stapler. HAS ANYONE SEEN MY SWINLINE STAPLER?

Please don't set the building on fire.

Any business found to be funneling money any political candidate for any purpose shall be fined

What?A company's worker gets an official candidate for any political position. The company pays the wages- and gets fined.
Do you really think that that is a good idea?

Normlpeople wrote:

Friday Freshman wrote:I have seemed to misplaced my stapler. HAS ANYONE SEEN MY SWINLINE STAPLER?

Clover looked at Ambassador Friday with a puzzled look "It wasn't the red one was it? I saw some gnome borrow something like that.... anyway, you still haven't addressed how this would affect corporate governments...."

Could I change it to be non-government corporate entities?

"Some governments, while not corporate themselves, still involve companies heavily in their various processes. I'm still not sure why it's necessary to prevent that. It's hardly an international issue if a nation does so."

Friday Freshman wrote:

Normlpeople wrote:
Clover looked at Ambassador Friday with a puzzled look "It wasn't the red one was it? I saw some gnome borrow something like that.... anyway, you still haven't addressed how this would affect corporate governments...."

Could I change it to be non-government corporate entities?

Why exclude businesses that aren't corporations?