@Lam

It matters little to me either way. I think Section 12 would be a hard sell regardless. We should not financially punish men or women who wish to assume office. I have no problem whatsoever omitting Section 12. :)

I disagree with Sec 12 for the reasons stated earlier. The other ideas are great ones for general electoral and finance reforms, but let’s stay focused on the main objective here. As Aaron said, we should focus on pulling the money I.V. from the arm of government first. After we reclaim our democracy, we can pursue refinement of our elections.

I support this because a huge majority of Americans see government as corrupt in some sense and too influenced by those with money. An amendment addressing this is easily digestible. We should not include excessive measures of reform just yet because doing so risks the whole package.

Let’s make our main amendment deal with corporate personhood and basic campaign financial caps. We can offer the other great suggestions as part of a line of amendments, much like how the Bill of Rights was passed.

A Proposed 28th Amendment! http://t.co/1nzVfUnG

@Aaron

Ive included your recommendation about holding stocks and bonds into the draft section I just wrote.

Please help me clean up the language, these should be the final points we are collectively demanding if I have been listening to everybody correctly.

---

Sec 8. Candidates running for office must have an account that is separate from the political party in which they operate. Both party and campaign donations must be open to the public and subject to audit to ensure accountability and accuracy. Any leftover funds from a campaign can be transferred to the party upon termination of the campaign.

Sec 10. Candidates for local and state office are disallowed from accepting any gift, donation or contribution from any other candidate or individual not a resident of the state in which they are running for office.

Sec 11. Appointed and elected officials upon completion of their term in office are herewith subject to a 10 year barring from representation of or for any entity who’s goal is to promote the represented interests of said entity.

Sec 12. Any candidate or appointed official owning stocks or bonds in any market domestic or foreign, upon affirming the duties and privileges assigned to them must immediately upon assuming office must liquefy any and all holdings and is banned from engaging in, with or for any market or industry where personal financial compensation or gain outside of their duly awarded salary.

(the old section 8 moves to section 13 and deals with the consequences breaching this law)

Aaron really understands our new amendment, lol. I’ve been explain it to so many people all day. I’m impressed! Although, he did draft the initial outline.

As for Aaron’s last paragraph, I don’t think that can be addressed. It’s far too restrictive. Maybe he has a family and those stocks are paying for his children’s college. And asking a business owner to give up his business before taking office is going to be controversial. I don’t see why we have to though. Being a Congressman already has a nice pay. If you’re concerned about the congressperson voting for whatever industry he’s in, that’s probably not addressable and it shouldn’t be. All congresspersons will have their biases and motives for seeking office. We can’t remove them.

Derek, I really appreciate the questions. I just don’t want the amendment to get off track or seem impossible.

You guys are doing a FANTASTIC job. I really appreciate it. This area is not my strong suit. I’m good at rallying forces and networking. Keep up the good work!

@Jenn I just want to make sure there is an understanding of some possibly consequences and that it is considered. Just so it would have been given thought, instead of an unrealized surprise, and possibly inspire someone to have a great idea on how to make something better.

It would be a giant step forward! It’s just that the funding cap bugs me. I feel like there has to be a better way – that in its current form it’s just filler because the end result would be the same.

@Christopher:

Not really. At current income levels, you’d be able to donate $60 more (cap is roughly $160.)

Besides, if I only had $100, I wouldn’t be donating it, lol.

@Derek

No, there is no issue. There are two limits, not one. One is that no individual person can donate more than “X” amount (I’m not sure what it’s set at right now) period. The original limit was $100 per person per election cycle. It wouldn’t matter if it was myself or Bill Gates, we can each only donate $100 dollars to any particular politician during any particular campaign cycle.

It doesn’t matter how they try to “funnel money” or any such thing. The person doing the donating can never give more than that set amount. If he tries to coerce or force his employees to donate to that politician on his behalf, then it still won’t matter because it won’t get that particular candidate any farther ahead than the rest once the total cap is reached. All politicians will have access to the same quantity of funds more often than not, and it will be far far smaller than currently.

Though…you did mention something that should be addressed. I recommend a section detailing more explicitly how a candidate cannot own stocks, a business, or hold any other kind of compensated position. They can’t be permitted to receive anything at all from any source other than the government or the limited public donations. How do we do that?

@Lam

You do realize that if I have 100,000 dollars to donate to a campaign and you only have 100 dollars, then my right to be heard and noticed in the election process is considerably larger.

I would also consider separate accounts for party and candidate to be completely transparent and subject to audit.

Donations from out of state residents to any race other then presidential to be disallowed due to meddling in the election process.

10 year ban on lobbying after one leaves elected or appointed office.

@Christopher:

How do people have more free speech over others? The contributions, regardless of who it’s made by, isn’t counted as free speech.

@Lam

Ahh nevermind then.

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. Nothing in this Article 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, to be taxed or nullify the rights to a free and open press.

@Derek: It’s not going to do everything we want it to, but it will be a GIANT step towards the right direction. Just section one removing the corporate priesthood is monumental.

@Christopher:

Yeah, we got that. It’s section 7 now.

Sec 7. 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; and the protections offered in the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shall be extended to entities.

I have a problem with section two, it basically says no campaign contribution acts as free speech, this is problematic, the problem is when people have MORE FREE SPEECH over others.

@Jenn

I feel 3 and 4 should be separate due to the fact that one deals with gifts and the other deals with contributions and the monetary caps described therin.

@Aaron There is issues.

1. Yes there would be the limit that could not be exceeded which is great. But an issue is that not everyone has money. Particularly people who aren’t executives, owners, or operators. How many Americans do you honestly think will even come close to approaching the funding cap with their hard earned and much needed money? The end result is corporations still financing the majority of politicians. Currently we could donate money to our politicians but how many do?

2. What would prevent a high up management worker, who invested heavily in the company, from receiving benefits/bonuses indirectly linked to them donating to the politician who will help this company. How can this be definitively proven in courts and lead to a conviction? If you believe that they cannot use funds of their business or organization towards that end because of a law baring against it, I want to live in your world.

Basically legislation was created that creates a funding cap. The people who are funding are the same people with the same motives as before.