The ability to acquire loopholes or special treatment for industries x, y, or z, namely in terms of taxation or trade duties, provide the main incentive for these companies to seek influence in the first place. If all exceptions to tax payments are pushed off the table, then it would reduce the desire of corporations to lobby or try to gain influence.

If you cannot influence candidates or get tax breaks, why lobby?

The only points of government intervention i'd leave in are the possibilities for subsidies in emerging industries with a strict definition of what qualifies as an emerging industry

Also a constitutional amendment enshrining certain environmental regulations as untouchable

And there's the anti-capitalist statement. In by doing so, you've already prevented businesses from certain activities and industries. The only regulations that must be 'untouched' is when an entity actively endangers or destroys another's property in a tangible way. In such a case, its already codified and does not need additional regulation.

I would hardly think that making sure future energy bills cannot subvert the Clean Water and Clean Air acts (as those damn Marcellus Shale companies can) would qualify as damaging to trade or commerce. At least not more than the public health damage they would create would ultimately offset the market (like families that, due to marcellus shale drilling, have to buy barrelled water since their water can catch on fire, and surely that barrelled water money could go towards something more productive?)

It is the job of regulation to guarantee a level playing field, make sure that business only has to bother with business and can't dick around in other sectors, and to deal with nonmarket externalities that businesses have no immediate incentive to address

All i have to say is USA USA USA.

Occupy the Fed would be a good idea.  To help shape the Occupy movement to make a major focus on the global banking system being broken, would help a lot.  That won't happen so long as no one bothers to go out and engage constructively.

The stupid commie got Keynes and Adam Smith mixed up and then tries to make Peter look the fool.

Since the entire "corporate personhood" debate these days revolves around political speech, how do you go about revoking it without abridging freedom of the press?

OT: Did this nitwit seriously just say that we would have slavery without minimum wage laws? Peter Schiff is a fucking saint for not piledriving him on the sidewalk.

Except that really isn't the case.

Publically funded elections actually increase corruption because the funding guidelines are generally so strict so as only the main establishment candidates of the two parties can every fufill the requirements.

In primaries, those shocking outsider non-comformists never get their chance to speak... or you allow private funding of primaries, and then you've solved nothing.

With no one but the establishment able to get into power, it's easier then ever to accept "hard" bribes and get away with it and there are no reprecussions as our choices become even more divided in the future then they are now.

Instead of Obama or Romney, you have Rush Limbaugh vs Keith Olberman.

But if the government is forcing companies to limit their activities in the name of clean air, at the cost of certain processes, you are essentially forcing the market to react to their demands. This happens all the time in various industries, and causes major issues in terms of cost and research, as the government, not the business, dictates the practices.

Why do they feel the need to continually add and supplement codes to the laws? Their regulatory structure is not static. They continually add new codes to the act, which continues to restrict business and innovation. If it were a simple act that was static, I could potentially understand it, but when they undermine business after business, I have to believe the motive isn't as beneficial as you might believe.