28th Amendment

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity.  All elections must be publicly financed."

*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc.  This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.   

 ----

 

Do you like this post?

Showing 1704 reactions


commented 2013-01-21 07:20:03 -0500 · Flag
Here is a PDF on FCC Regulatory History. http://www.oswego.edu/~messere/RadioReg.pdf . We can read it together. I know I will learn more on the decades long history. Enjoy.
commented 2013-01-21 05:44:00 -0500 · Flag
Rich, FCC breaking up media ownership too would just be a feeding frenzy for the highest bidders, yes? So wouldn’t equal-chance-voice be the ideal FCC rule instead? But then what’s to stop ANY FCC rule (even equal-chance-voice) being overturned in future by a supreme court citing “the freedom of the press”? Doesn’t that make the equal-chance-voice constitutional amendment the necessary measure? If you think not, why?
commented 2013-01-21 05:12:39 -0500 · Flag
Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly: I want to read the new one. First pub in 1992. See for associated books. So much more than I know. Research it. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_New_Media_Monopoly.html?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC . Enjoy the journey. Rich S.
commented 2013-01-21 04:37:51 -0500 · Flag
Rich, I couldn’t find the FCC media ownership rules of the 1960s. Was there sufficient representation of opinion back then? Would it forcibly break up existing media ownership? Isn’t that just a way for others who can afford it to purchase influence over politics? So even though there are more owners, wouldn’t it still be an unrepresentative cross-section of the population?

Even if you made the FCC rule for equal-chance voice (for representative cross-section), would it be immune from any constitutional challenge via “the freedom of the press”?
commented 2013-01-21 02:07:11 -0500 · Flag
The law resolves moral disagreements by making rules that everyone has to follow. Religion has caused more immoral actions in history than anything else. Today and all the way through history. Religious wars. Ridiculous. Too many religions and irrational assumptions. Bad law.
commented 2013-01-21 01:58:12 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, repeal FCC ownership regs to go back to restricted ownership of 50 years ago. Look it up.
commented 2013-01-21 01:56:28 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, we strongly disagree again. Morality is a bad basis for human behavior. The road to hell is paved with good moral intentions. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. You are welcome to yours. I’ll bet you cannot allow me the same courtesy.
commented 2013-01-21 01:33:11 -0500 · Flag
Rich, you’re right, not religious.

What would be the ideal FCC rule in your opinion, and would it be immune from any constitutionally challenge in light of “the freedom of the press”?
commented 2013-01-21 01:30:12 -0500 · Flag
Not only all law, but in fact all actions, discussed or not, are based on morality.

Repealing prohibition was based based on morality just as much as passing it was, because the outcome of prohibition was eventually deemed more immoral than the outcome of repealing it.

Your proposed amendment is based on morality, because it is about what you deem to be right, and wrong.

It is immoral that some have their arguments artificially heard by more people because it makes it impossible to gauge how provable/disprovable any given argument is.
commented 2013-01-21 01:26:34 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, good law is not based on religious mythology, but on good ethics. All law is based legal ethics. English case law.
commented 2013-01-21 01:23:55 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, reforming the FCC is a separate issue. Simply need to limit ownership as in the past. Fire D and R incumbents. Appoint a 99% director of the FCC.
commented 2013-01-21 01:17:52 -0500 · Flag
Rich, all law is based on morality.
commented 2013-01-21 01:16:41 -0500 · Flag
Rich, ok, let’s take the best-case scenario for your law: money is taken out of political campaigning altogether.

That leaves the existing media owners as the major deciders of the political direction of the country.

What’s your remedy?
commented 2013-01-21 01:11:29 -0500 · Flag
prohibition was the one amendment based on morality and it had to be repealed. The rule of law is the purpose of the law.
commented 2013-01-21 01:09:50 -0500 · Flag
Paul, you are ignorant of the law and history. Congress has had little or no authority to regulate money in campaigns for the past 120 years or more. Duh! Corporate Personhood. Just maybe we should stop talking now to give you some time to study the facts. Good luck.
commented 2013-01-20 18:18:37 -0500 · Flag
Rich, for someone who says we should “fire all career incumbents”, failure to follow the rule of law is not at issue. As far as I know congress has always had the authority to regulate political campaign contributions any way they like. Just look where that has gotten us.

The place of a constitutional amendment is to provide moral imperative that legislators of all stripes must abide by. An effective constitutional amendment whose purpose is to get the money out of politics therefore CANNOT LEAVE IT UP TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEIR OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS! DUH!

This is not just a difference of opinion between us. I keep backing my opinion up with arguments to support my opinions. What is the argument to support your opinion, my friend?
commented 2013-01-20 10:46:52 -0500 · Flag
Saying is not doing. Saying is just so much B.S. Only we can act to reform our political world. Participation is the price. Talk is cheap and ineffective.
commented 2013-01-20 10:44:09 -0500 · Flag
We do need to become our elected leaders to have public policy that represents the 99%. Fire all career incumbents.
commented 2013-01-20 10:36:35 -0500 · Flag
Sorry, I believe in the rule of law. We apparently disagree also. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone has one. Agreed?
commented 2013-01-20 09:27:50 -0500 · Flag
Ok, but I say that simply preventing any artificial entity from using money to influence elections is not enough to cure the problem. To cure the problem not even natural persons can be permitted to use money to influence elections.
commented 2013-01-20 09:25:00 -0500 · Flag
The problem I have with Section 2 is that it relies on congress to regulate campaign contributions to their own elections. The constitution should not permit congress to regulate itself in any way. Not sure what you mean by “cs2 28th”.

The problem is not just that money has undue influence over the election of political candidates, but under the constitution as it is presently written, all citizens are not guaranteed an equal voice in the process. This is a larger problem, but unless it is also addressed, the underlying problem will not go away. By guaranteeing everyone an equal voice the constitution will trump any effort by any party to control the political debate.
commented 2013-01-20 09:18:59 -0500 · Flag
The amendment prevents any artificial legal entity from using money to influence elections. Sections 1, 2 and 3. Together they do it.
commented 2013-01-20 08:54:38 -0500 · Flag
Section 2, [Money is not speech and can be regulated]. It does change everything you speak of. The cs2 28th solves all of the problem. Voters only. Money is no longer speech and big money interests cannot use money “to influence elections.” A Speech amendment does not even touch the problem. The law is real. It does affect justice. Judges have to follow the law. They do. They have. And they will.
commented 2013-01-20 07:34:58 -0500 · Flag
Millions of people see the damage being done by Citizen’s United. Thus the popular sentiment is for CA’s aimed at overturning this erroneous decision by the SC. So I can see why you and so many others support this movement, as do I. I support this movement, but believe that although it is a step in the right direction, it will not solve the problem. Given the enormous effort it takes to pass a new constitutional amendment, I think we should pass an amendment that solves the problem entirely rather than pass one that only address part of the problem, but still leaves plenty of ways for people with money to use their money to influence political campaigns, which is the problem that has to be stopped, imo.

I also wish Cenk Uygur would weigh into this conversation.
commented 2013-01-20 07:25:45 -0500 · Flag
So Rich, the pool of eligible voters in a national presidential election includes lots of people with varying amounts of money to use to influence political elections. If a new 28th amendment prevents any of these people from giving any substantial financial support to a candidate, wouldn’t at least some of them turn to buying advertising to either support the candidate of their choice or to criticize their opponent? Wasn’t the last presidential election cycle flooded with negative political ads bought by various groups on both sides to smear opposing candidates in many races? It was a contest to see who could drown out the other with the most ads. It was disgusting and very UNDEMOCRATIC!

I’m sorry but I still fail to see how the current text of proposals by Move-To-Amend with or without your amendments or Wolf-Pac, or any of the others would curb this behavior.
commented 2013-01-20 06:47:58 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, I don’t care if you agree or disagree. We disagree. That is the only thing we will agree upon on this subject. Time to end any discussion between us.
commented 2013-01-20 03:31:36 -0500 · Flag
Rich, I agree that a law can be simply ignored, but if implemented, the equal-chance voice amendment takes special interest money out of political campaigns. Your amendment, in the best-case scenario, cuts out the voices of non-media-owning individuals, leaving media owners to be the major deciders of the political direction of the nation, and prevents this being curtailed at any level. Can you formulate a way of preventing this, since you don’t want this outcome?
commented 2013-01-20 03:17:49 -0500 · Flag
Naveen, IMHO what you propose has no chance of having any effect if passed, and has no chance of having enough support to be ratified. 80% of everyone want to take special interest money out of political campaigns.

And by the way, the Supreme Court cannot ignore Constitutional amendments, when ratified. Chartered corps does what you want. That can happen once they are no longer persons under the law. That is my opinion.

I bet you will not pay any attention to what I said. You never have.
commented 2013-01-20 02:48:24 -0500 · Flag
Paul, it’s simply due to a lack of exposure because we don’t all have an equal-chance voice :)

Rich, what is your formulation for preventing the existing major media owners becoming the major deciders of the political direction of the nation, which, in the best case scenario, your amendment reinforces by cutting out the voices of non-media-owning wealthy individuals? You must provide one since you oppose this outcome, and your current amendment (and Wolf-PAC’s etc.) not only reinforces it, but prevents it being curtailed at any level.

In the worst-case scenario for your amendment, the supreme court continues to rule that corporations are associations of natural persons and ignores your artificial entities clause. Local, state and federal lawmakers don’t curtail campaign expenditures (even though they’re allowed to). People purchasing media outlets for year-round propaganda dissemination are not considered to be spending money to influence elections.

Your amendment (or Wolf-PAC’s, Move-To-Amend’s etc.) would produce an outcome which is on continua between these 2 outcomes. You don’t want any of them, so you, Wolf-PAC, Move-To-Amend etc. must produce a constitutional amendment and/or any other measures whose outcome isn’t.

In my opinion, the equal-chance voice constitutional amendment is the only one. What is your basis for believing that it isn’t?
commented 2013-01-20 00:20:12 -0500 · Flag
Naveen’s proposal is the tail trying to way the dog. Inside a too small doghouse. It is putting the cart before the horse. All politics are, or should be, local. Top down legislation is totally wrong.
← Previous  1  2    10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18    56  57  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition

View All