Daniel, that’s exactly the point of Wolf-PAC. We don’t think it will ever get through Congress, at least not without a really substantial push. Wolf-PAC isn’t going through Congress. We are going through the States for a Conventions. That is still incredibly difficult, but slow, incremental progress is possible and it can get us there.

If we get 34 States to call for a Convention, Congress is then limited to choosing a time and a place. They don’t get to decide whether or not the Convention happens.

How to get such a thing through a Congress that has been consumed by the exact corporate interests we’re trying to eliminate? Great idea, but that’s a big ol’ Catch-22 standing in the way of having it actually happen…

I agree with you Anthony: the 28th amendment needs to define the social responsibilities of public corporations, not just stop them from throwing money at politicians.

and while were at it how about chaining the charter for corporations so they are not so short sighted (only looking at making moey for shareholders). – there should be a social statement in there as well

Another approach that would not only take care of this but also the funding of government might be that legislators can pass any bills they want. All programs are available and taxpayers individually decide what gets funded. Big menu of government programs and individuals decide where the money goes. If something doesn’t get funded then that program languishes. If a program gets more money than it needs it is held for future needs by that program (like defense programs). People could be able to see the balance sheet on line through personal computers or public computers in libraries or other locations. This way the corporate money does not need to just change the minds of individual politicians but all the people who fund the actions of government. Maybe the corporations will become more socially responsive to communities.

not sure bout the public financing part but I think making so no electioneering can happen prior to 2moths before the election would go a long way to help reduce the amount of time politicians run to win the next election

not sure bout the public financing part but I think making so no electioneering can happen prior to 2moths before the election would go a long way to help reduce the amount of time politicians run to win the next election

28th Amendment http://t.co/A4NgwJvC

Super Pacs - The Devil in the Details: Time to STOP the criminals from "buying" our Government: http://t.co/yWZE4VO5 & http://t.co/daCbFfgh

28th Amendment: Fix the systemic financial corruption of our democracy. http://t.co/ChJEhQqh (via @LivelyIvy @maxmare)

28th Amendment http://t.co/pHFhefK4

28th Amendment http://t.co/ookSsqu6

Well, of course, neither do we. And ours is working about as well, for that matter.

Samuel Fieldman.

“That’s what they did in ancient Athens, essentially, the first democracy.” Except it didn’t work; they based their economy completely on slavery, so the democracy thing is a modern myth.

Ancient Greece did NOT have a true democracy, no even close.

I agree re : competency testing introduces an outside control over who gets in and who does not… and thus defeats the whole purpose. and also re voluntary being better than compulsory. Term of 6-mos- 1 year might be unrealistically short, but a single term limit would certainly be appropriate.

Does any other country do this?

No competency test is justifiable, especially since reasoning would be the key resolution mechanism within the legislature anyway, if its rules hone this to maximum effect. Voluntary-only may induce a greater likelihood good faith participation and clearer ideas even, and/or may yield better results, even with a small number, than mandatorily including even unwilling participants.

It would address 2 issues of election-based systems, however perfectly conducted they may otherwise be: irrelevant barriers to electoral success (whatever they might be), and the potential of election by misinformation. Party-based systems add an even greater layer of disconnect as party priorities may, over time, diverge from the prevalent priorities of the nation’s citizens. As soon as getting elected itself depends on private wealth than that is a nail in the coffin. The random citizen legislature guarantees, at minimum, true representativeness at least at the very beginning of each term (which should probably be about 6 months – 1yr). If the rules governing their conduct are optimal, then it could be even better.

Naveen, your idea sounds a little like the way we handle jury duty. Not sure if they’d get enough volunteers to apply tho, if the pool were only supplied by voluntary applicants. Might have to be random and obligatory, and would anyone picked have to pass a competency test? That could be sticky.

Wow, what a quantum shift that would be!

Naveen, That’s what they did in ancient Athens, essentially, the first democracy.

Thinkin’ about democracy made me invent a new type of democracy – one where the legislature is not elected, but is a random selection of citizens who apply to be there, selected at random by computer. You cannot get more representative than that. No more political parties etc. There would have to be strict rules about how legislation is passed – exhaustive reasoned discussion until resolution on each and every matter raised by each and every legislator. No corruption, bribery, force, intimidation. Mandatory attendance to all debate sessions on a bill to be able to vote on any particular bill, based on a solemn duty for all legislators to hear each and every argument made. There’d have to be rules governing transperency vs privacy to maintain their security but still allow their intentions to be properly scrutinized.

“Congress shall comprise a random selection of willing citizens, selected at random by a neutral process.” is an example of how this amendment begins. The rest is equally crucial.

Adam,

I agree with Naveen re Fox misrepresentation of conservatives. The evidence I have for this is the town where I live (for the past 20 years). Historically, a small, VERY Republican farming town in southern New England—slowly losing it’s agricultural base to wealthy horse-owners and Yuppies who buy whatever new houses there are and commute out of town to work.

However, I often chat with several of the old Republican farmers, who are almost universally dismayed at the present direction of the Republican Party. They feel disenfranchised, like it no longer represents their views, and the biggest sticking point is the dominance big business has gained over their lives. They resent it as much as the rest of us 99%, because they, like us, are part of 99% who feel like our lives are being increasingly controlled by business, who at the end of the day just want our money! And they are very confused right now about who to vote for in the fall.

Fox does not represent conservatives. In my view, Fox represents BUSINESS INTERESTS.