Campaign Finance Reform

[KinshipLab]

On 2/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, tobetrained said:

Corporations, whether an individual up to conglomerate, has no need of government. If the government disappeared, the corporation remains -- whether one person as a barber or a multi-national of 1000s of employees providing banking. But they just don't have the regulations and tax from a government.

Hi @tobetrained, you may be conflating corporations, which describe the legal structure and method of recognizing profit and loss, with companies, which may or may not be organized as a corporation and which relate much more to the assets, value creation, and cost of value. This distinction may clarify why @Rillion rightly raises the inherent  connection between corporations and governments. I’m enjoying this discussion but highly confused as to why anyone would trust a government - especially the Federal Government - to champion all people’s interests equally be they rich or poor. The Federal Government was founded by the war-bond elites in alliance with the slave-owning elites to ensure that the states didn’t default on their war bonds, using the Federal Governments brute force to derisk their investments.  In all states, there were restrictions on voter eligibility to secure elite property by  confiscating (taxing) money and spending it on armies that could put down rebellions of poor taxpayers  e.g., whiskey rebellion, slave revolts, etc. certainly things have evolved, but it’s useful to remember the foundation we’re building on. 

[tobetrained]

8 hours ago, KinshipLab said:

Hi @tobetrained, you may be conflating corporations, which describe the legal structure and method of recognizing profit and loss, with companies, which may or may not be organized as a corporation and which relate much more to the assets, value creation, and cost of value. This distinction may clarify why @Rillion rightly raises the inherent  connection between corporations and governments

Possibly. I guess, in general, I'm trying to get across: people can sell/trade goods or services without a government. It was my understanding the thought was a government was required for that. That is, a person can provide barber services and cut hair without the inherent need of a government to authorize that exchange -- either a sale (exchange of service with currency) or trade (chickens and a bacon slab).

As far as the Federal government, generically, I'm not as opposed as you. This could be a bit reductionist, no?:

9 hours ago, KinshipLab said:

he Federal Government was founded by the war-bond elites in alliance with the slave-owning elites to ensure that the states didn’t default on their war bonds, using the Federal Governments brute force to derisk their investments.

There absolutely was a negotiation to connect the colonies into a greater whole. But simply put, the effort (break away from the British Monarchy) would have failed unless that happened. The knock-on effects of that failure are profound:

• Would European countries, e.g. France, made an effort with the same level belief to overthrow their monarchies? The American win sent shock waves across that continent.
• The pressure from these freedom movements spurred change even among monarchies which included ending slavery. Would those changes have still happened?
• If the wealth of the American colonies had stayed in control of the British Monarchy, would the king have established Parliament? 

So maybe all would have played out better...but maybe worse. Maybe just a different kind of stupid? haha.