28th Amendment

The Wolf-PAC Resolution does not contain specific amendment language because we truly want to hear all sides and solutions at the amendments convention.  We think the amendment should contain these core values: 

"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 legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.

 ----

 

Do you like this post?

Showing 1719 reactions

commented 2011-10-20 07:50:17 -0400 · Flag
The core issue is NOT how much and who pays for expensive campaigns. The issue is why campaigns are expensive in the first place. We need to scrap our campaign/election process and create a 21st system where anyone with a website can be a candidate on the ballot. The advantage still goes to the one with the most marketing/advertising money, but that’s not always an advantage – just ask Ross Perot, Steve Forbes and Mitt Romney.

“We need a Constitutional revolution to get unlimited corporate money out of politics”

There is another way to have a Constitutional VOTED revolution: http://www.JeffBlock2012.com (and I seek no more than $5 from each contributor!)
commented 2011-10-20 07:48:49 -0400 · Flag
commented 2011-10-20 07:46:32 -0400 · Flag
How will this stop them buying our politicians if an individual in support of corporation donates instead?
@maarten073 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 07:44:32 -0400
commented 2011-10-20 07:27:34 -0400 · Flag
From where does the need for all this money come?

You must find out, and eliminate that need, before you can demand it’s removal.

You can no more now do this, than demand the removal of money from grocery stores.

The short answer- TV air time, for political ads.

So, isn’t this an FCC issue at heart?

Isn’t the protector of the nation’s airwaves, the tip of the spear in this fight?

Why isn’t support for a free speech/political channel a condition of broadcast license, for our own airwaves?

Wouldn’t that go a long way to removing the need for money in politics?

If you do not remove the need, nothing will change.

One foot nailed to the floor, circling, saying, ‘Ouch! That hurts!’, ‘Ouch! That hurts!’ “Ouch…”
@MaldonadoAV tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 07:27:18 -0400
28th Amendment Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings.... http://t.co/HEJoHMfz
@WasBornOfLight tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 07:24:47 -0400
@tamikenn57 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 07:04:21 -0400
28th Amendment http://t.co/yTKHjitw Corporations are DEFINITELY not people!
commented 2011-10-20 07:01:07 -0400 · Flag
Why not consolidate all of our actions with the Move to Amend, and the Dylan Ratigan people?
commented 2011-10-20 06:50:01 -0400 · Flag
@Jay

You are absolutely right!!

I wrote earlier "I am not so much concerned with district x to district y but I am with you on what you’re saying. I may have misinterpreted what you said and for that I apologize.

More I am concerned with states rights, I.E if I were to send money to say Scott Brown against your Elizabeth Warren (HYPOTHETICALLY, I am very much pro-Warren) even if I am a registered Virginia voter.

If Bill O’Reilly got on T.V and told his audience to donate 10 dollars to Scott Brown, then the voters in his state would have their voice diminished.

Completely agree with what you said about North Dakota, though I do feel that when it comes to internal state politics it should be the right of the state to write such rules. I am more concerned with Senators and Congressmen.

Now, if I wanted to donate to a PAC that supports say a cause that is aligned with Elizabeth Warren who promotes her ideas without financially supporting her directly, that could be legal provided the PAC operates with the proper guidelines."
commented 2011-10-20 06:48:09 -0400 · Flag
I’d like to see contributions allowed only from people who can vote for the candidate. No more national efforts to “red-map” local governments.
commented 2011-10-20 06:36:29 -0400 · Flag
What we have so far for the draft: (Thanks to LAM NGUYEN who gets major props)

Sec 1. No corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, hereafter referred to as ‘entity’, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any candidate for, or holder of, any elected office, hereafter referred to as ‘candidate’; or those appointed, hereafter referred to as ‘appointee’, to such an office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for office.

Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sec 3. Congress shall set forth a two day long minimum federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for office.

Sec 4. No appointee to, or candidate for, or holder of, any office of any government body shall be permitted to receive any form of gift or compensation from any entities or citizen of the United States of America save their duly awarded salary from said government body.

Sec 5. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more than one half of one percent of the average income of the bottom fifty percent of all citizens of the United States of America twenty-one years old or older in contributions of any form, excluding volunteer hours, for any purpose, from any singular citizen of the United States of America during the same election cycle; and all contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source.

Sec 6. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted for any purpose to receive or spend contributions totaling a value of more than twenty-five thousand percent of the median income of households in the United States of America at the Municipal level of government; fifty thousand percent at the State level; and one hundred thousand percent at the Federal level during the same election cycle.

Sec 7. Failure of any candidate for, or appointee to, any governmental office to comply with these constraints and regulations shall be punishable by forbiddance from holding any form of governmental office in the United States of America for life.

Sec 8. Nothing in this Amendment or in the U.S. Constitution shall be construed to deny the rights or obligations of any entity to sue and be sued, or to buy, sell, own or dispose of property, or to be taxed.

Sec 9. No candidates shall spend any amount of private wealth on his or her own campaign; all campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign donations both public and private.
@ZJDSumo tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 06:21:18 -0400
@Kintar1900 tweeted link to this page. 2011-10-20 06:19:06 -0400
Their presentation is a little raw, but I think they're right; it's time for a new amendment. http://t.co/g7vlAjta
commented 2011-10-20 06:12:43 -0400 · Flag
Polish Election Code if it comes to – Financing the campaign

http://lex.pl/serwis/du/2011/0112.htm

The thing that interest You is in CHAPTER 15 – Financing the campaign

We have different law than You but some things could be helpful.

Parties get money from budget to avoid corporate influence but they can also receive donations from PEOPLE (real not corporations)

But in Our law if corp gives money to politician = corruption :P
commented 2011-10-20 06:10:15 -0400 · Flag
@Jacob

perhaps you are correct, I will do more homework, if only for my own benefit of understanding thank you for relaying this information to me :)

@Tim

Thank you sir, you are awesome and I hope to have further correspondence in the future (maybe in a better forum for Wolf-PAC) koff koff Aaron can you hear me? lol I sincerely hope Wolf-PAC leadership will allow those of us willing to get directly involved as any one of us may be an up and coming leader in this nation.

@Lam

You kick ass, looking forward to getting some contact info from you on there (I figured its easier then asking you to post your private email in here).
commented 2011-10-20 06:05:17 -0400 · Flag
@Jacob: Before I go to bed, I wanted to thank you for your participation from Poland. @Lam, @Christopher: Thank you for staying up all night to work on this. I hope our leaders have a good process for considering your fine work. @Everybody: Let’s kick butt, or kick the bucket trying!
commented 2011-10-20 06:03:00 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Lol, yeah, this is something I’m very passionate about, as are most people here.

If I understand you correctly, you think we should allow inter-district donations, but not inter-state with the exception of PAC money. I agree here. Given this and the restrictions outlined earlier on PACs (or whatever we decide to call them and related things in the amendment), I think it’s a good provision.

I’ll get back to you on FB soon. I have it blocked at this time (part of my self-regulation. I’m a procrastinator.) Then we’ll send a draft to TYT and get their critique.
commented 2011-10-20 05:59:45 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher Jannette

Yes the price of gold can be manipulated by to what level ?

if in 28 amendment it will be 10% of gold price on the 1 of January

Lets say 31 December price is 2000 $ so donations must be 200$ or less
If they manipulate the price on 1 of January to 2500 – donations 250 $ – for all.

So the manipulation don’t give them nothing and how much $ You loose by this manipulation :P – go ahead manipulate :P

this % of Gold price is only a mechanism to make 28n Amend.. flexible – and up to date with economy and power of $.
100$ in 1990 had different power than today also 100$ will have other power in 2030 – so You understand it must be flexible but still small amount of money. Constitution can’t obsolete cause if it is – it must be interpreted by lawyers and where 2 lawyers 3 opinions :P – so make 28Amend – flexible but keep Lawyers ass far as possible after it is PASSED -

Best contract is that have all issues in it and leaves no place for Jude or others interpretation – My contracts are always a compromise between 2 sides , and almost never end up in court cause their have all the mechanisms in them – court/interpretation is always a risk, so 28Amend… must be flexible but clear!

The Unused founds : na article from Polish Election Code

Article 138 § 1 In the case of acquired surplus funds for election campaign expenses incurred on the election committee of a political party shall forward it to the party’s election fund.
§ 2 In the case of acquired surplus funds for election campaign expenses incurred over a coalition election committee shall forward it to the election funds of the parties represented in the electoral coalition in the proportion set out in the coalition agreement, in the absence of relevant provisions in the contract – for the public benefit organizations. The transfer of excess financial agent shall inform the competent authority of the election within 7 days from the date of transfer.
§ 3 In the case of acquired surplus funds for election campaign expenses incurred by the electoral committees referred to in art. 88-90, those committees shall be for public benefit organizations. The transfer of excess financial agent shall inform the competent authority of the election.
§ 4 The amount of the surplus shall be determined after the election by the competent authority of final decision on acceptance or rejection of the financial statements, including the obligations of the property referred to in art. 130 § 2
§ 5 Transfer of surplus occurs within 14 days from the day:
1) service of the order of the adoption of the financial statements or
2) ineffective expiry of time limit for lodging a complaint or an appeal referred to in art. 145, or
3) validation of the decision of the court – in the event of a complaint or an appeal referred to in art. 145, or
4) validation of the issued by a court ruling on the forfeiture to the Treasury of the benefits of property taken by the election committee in violation of the provisions of the Code – in the case referred to in art. 149 § 5
commented 2011-10-20 05:52:39 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

get w/me on Facebook, I can throw the draft on a very nice letterhead and PDF to make it very nice and presentable.
commented 2011-10-20 05:49:57 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

I love how you are taking this initiative! You definitely need to get on the horn and talk to them about this so when it’s submitted they have something good to sink their teeth into.

I have a feeling Cenk would like this, hopefully he is monitoring this thread. I back you up 100%.
commented 2011-10-20 05:48:06 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

I am not so much concerned with district x to district y but I am with you on what you’re saying. I may have misinterpreted what you said and for that I apologize.

More I am concerned with states rights, I.E if I were to send money to say Scott Brown against your Elizabeth Warren (HYPOTHETICALLY, I am very much pro-Warren) even if I am a registered Virginia voter.

If Bill O’Reilly got on T.V and told his audience to donate 10 dollars to Scott Brown, then the voters in his state would have their voice diminished.

Completely agree with what you said about North Dakota, though I do feel that when it comes to internal state politics it should be the right of the state to write such rules. I am more concerned with Senators and Congressmen.

Now, if I wanted to donate to a PAC that supports say a cause that is aligned with Elizabeth Warren who promotes her ideas without financially supporting her directly, that could be legal provided the PAC operates with the proper guidelines.
commented 2011-10-20 05:47:00 -0400 · Flag
@Barb Dallaire:

Yep, we thought of that. It’s in section 9 of our rough draft.

Sec 9. No candidates shall spend any amount of private wealth on his or her own campaign; all campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign donations both public and private.

Basically, we just flat out banned it. If you have a better idea, please share.
commented 2011-10-20 05:45:12 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

No, if anyone is going to submit anything for expert legal review, it’s gonna be the official leaders of this PAC. I don’t have the resources for that and remember, we’re just a few people. There are many others who haven’t had a chance to review this crude draft. Also, leadership may not like parts of it.
commented 2011-10-20 05:44:49 -0400 · Flag
Money is needed to win elections. I’m not sure how much of ones own money can be used to finance a campaign, but, using this amendment as it stands, might it follow then that only the wealthiest individuals would win elections, or at least have a real advantage to do so, by using their own personal funds? How would this be controlled in order to level the playing field, and to make sure it is not only the very wealthy that get elected and continue to cater policies to the rich?
commented 2011-10-20 05:43:06 -0400 · Flag
@Tim

That is an excellent idea! I considered your line of reasoning and agree with what you said 100%. Thanks for opening my eyes a little bit.

Perhaps something like “No 3rd party entities can contribute directly to a candidate” it must be done by citizens only on an individual basis.

Get the PACs out of Campaigns but they can still promote issues, albeit under the guidelines myself and others have pointed out in the past.

Thanks for pointing that out.
commented 2011-10-20 05:40:46 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Your articulation was just fine.
I’m guilty of an out of state donation, lol. I gave money to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, but perhaps it’s best if we limit people’s ability to donate to those who are part of the area the candidate’s running in.

So only Californians can donate to a Senate run in that state and only residence of District X can donate to a candidate in District X. Everyone could donate to presidential candidates.

I’m not sure though since in a state like ND where the population is like, 600k, getting a significant amount of money is tough and their campaigns may not have the funding to get out their message properly. What do you think?
commented 2011-10-20 05:40:16 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher: I’m going to have to chew on that one for a while. It seems to me that our draft amendment does not refer to groups like Wolf PAC, since we are not making contributions to politicians. At the link that Lam provided, PAC’s are “organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates.” We’re not doing that. Our proposed amendment is about restricting donations to political candidates, not about donations to civic groups that seek to effect policy. What if we were to leave the word “PAC” out (after all, they can name political donation machines anything they want, to avoid the word), and define a restriction in terms of candidate support. Would that address the concern sufficiently?
commented 2011-10-20 05:39:06 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

As a member of Wolf-PAC are you going to submit the draft to your legal team for further clarification and review? I’m curious to know the process.
commented 2011-10-20 05:37:32 -0400 · Flag
@Jacob

Gold prices can be manipulated though, consider that. However, I like the idea about a special electoral account.

I’d like to know what happens to unused funds for a campaign. Should they be absorbed by the political party they are a part of? This may be bad if you have candidates using their funds simply to siphon off money to party coffers..
← Previous  1  2    48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
signed Petition
donated
signed Petition

View All