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 1706 reactions


@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..
commented 2011-10-20 05:35:07 -0400 · Flag
In My previous post i wrote:

No politician can rise over 10% (% is for discussion) of 1 ounce of Gold/Silver ( Gold/silver price taken on the 1 of January of the election year)

It must be change to – 1 of January ( without that thing of election day cause You in USA can rise money all the time – I’ve made mistake cause in Poland money can be raised only before elections we do not have primaries)

Also – In Poland all parties must make SPECIAL ELECTORAL ACCOUNT and only on his account $ can be given and taken for campaign – this account is under strict surveillance.

Also politicians and their closest family WEALTH must be public to avoid thing such as Perry who buys real estates cheap and sold for $$$$$$$ to corp. which have some business in TEXAS.

There is no ORDER to be a politician – if You want to serve than SERVE and be TRANSPARENT – If you want to make money – go to private sector.

Tweeter : Overkillerr (double r in the end)
YouTube: Overkillerr (double r in the end)
commented 2011-10-20 05:33:58 -0400 · Flag
How about limiting donations into PACs the same way we limit them for regular donations? With the percentage layout we have already? Then the PACs are free to do whatever they want with the funds. We should ban corporate donations into PACs as well.

These are ideas I like:

PACS must submit themselves to an audit by the GAO or recognized public entity.
PACS must post publicly the names of all contributors.
PACS can only be donated to by citizens of whichever jurisdiction they operate in. (example: State politics should NOT be influenced by citizens donations of another state, such as Utah Citizens contributing to the Gay Rights issue of California)
PACS cannot have other PACS funding their actions (such as secret PACS with opaque donors giving money to say.. the Heritage foundation)
—All PACS must operate transparently. (see first one)

Now let’s see if we can get that in legal-sounding form….
commented 2011-10-20 05:33:26 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

Sorry I wish I could articulate this better, I suppose what I am trying to say is that when we, through out of state finances, we can drown out citizens voices in local elections, and thus, democracy is damaged. We see this all the time.

Then there is the Jerrymandering issue.

Are we going to discuss Jerrymandering by any chance?
commented 2011-10-20 05:31:04 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

Have you guys considered that somebody in one state can donate privately to a citizen of another state? Which means that through the media people could promote for people to donate in key battleground states to a representative of a state they are not apart of?

For example: Candidate in NYC is running against an opponent who gets funds from people outside of their district, causing them an unfair advantage.

We have seen how out of state residents can influence elections. Utah Citizens putting money to a California Issue. When influenced by people with large megaphones, people in a district are at a disadvantage when it comes to promoting their representative.
commented 2011-10-20 05:27:04 -0400 · Flag
@Tim

PACs like WOLF-PAC prove that they can be useful tool of democracy as it’s a way for CITIZENS to join together to enact change as an organization. It has it’s place provided it’s done within reasonable and democratically sound pretenses.

We don’t want to defang citizens, but give them a voice. I see a PAC as a great way to promote ideas in the democratic arena, just as Unions stand up for people in the labor rights arena in a democracy.
commented 2011-10-20 05:26:17 -0400 · Flag
@Jacob:

Thanks for your support, Jacob. We have some of the things you listed covered. they are good ideas. Just so we have everyone on the same page, I’ll go ahead and post what we have thus far:


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.


All critique/feedback is welcomed. Don’t be considerate of my feelings.
commented 2011-10-20 05:23:59 -0400 · Flag
If we include PACS in the text, perhaps this can be something to consider.

Just reposting this to see if we can get somebody to add or subtract from this if Lam and the other Wolf-Pac guys are taking note. Please challenge this if you don’t like it, I won’t be offended :)

PACS must submit themselves to an audit by the GAO or recognized public entity.
*PACS must post publicly the names of all contributors.
(
Campaign donations should be considered Free Speech of Human Beings, and therefore be published publicly as well in my opinion)
*PACS can only be donated to by citizens of whichever jurisdiction they operate in. (example: State politics should NOT be influenced by citizens donations of another state, such as Utah Citizens contributing to the Gay Rights issue of California)
*PACS cannot have other PACS funding their actions (such as secret PACS with opaque donors giving money to say.. the Heritage foundation)
*All PACS must operate transparently. (see first one)
*Citizens can donate more then no more than 2500 dollars to a PAC.
commented 2011-10-20 05:22:59 -0400 · Flag
@Lam Good point about banning PACs (and PACs by any other name). The intent of the amendment is not to ban donations from corporations alone but to allow donations only from citizens. Besides, if contributions from PACs are allowed, what’s to say that a separate PAC couldn’t be created in the name of each person?
commented 2011-10-20 05:22:13 -0400 · Flag
Amendment is a GREAT IDEA!

Here are some ideas to improve its text. I’m from Poland, but I’m a lawyer and USA crisis is influencing global economy.
I didn’t use English actively for 7 yeras so my grammar wont be perfect. If something is not clear in my post or You have some questions.

Tweeter : Overkillerr (double r in the end)
YouTube: Overkillerr (double r in the end)

If You try to change the SYSTEM it must be done right or Your effort will be corrupted.

1.Thing – In Your proposition is:
No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity

My contribution: It can’t be 100$ specifically written in constitution cause to change it another constitution change would be needed! It must be something like this:

No politician can rise over 10% (% is for discussion) of 1 ounce of Gold/Silver ( Gold/silver price taken on the 1 of January of the election year)

Or .. 100$ + % of inflation… Cause ten years from now 100$ will have different power than today and You all know that.

2. Thing – Herman Cain is founded by Koch brothers through some foundation.
To 28Amendment was successful – this must be banned OR It must be publicly known what foundations/think thanks etc. support all politicians and what entities politicians support – (some kind of register is probably needed..)

Also must be know – where politician wife/kids/siblings(and their wives/kids)/parents(also in law)/grandparents – I have in mind closest family.
You know its the same thing that must be know if judge gives a sentence to be sure he was not the JUDGE IN HISOWNCASE

3. Thing – There must be some rules some "punishments’ for violation of this rule.
In Poland we have institution that controls moneys in politics and if they brake rules they can be fined 100% of raised $. Now 1 party must pay 18 mln zlotych = 100% of raised money in 2001 fine cause they violate rules of donations.

If You don’t ad things like that to Your amendment – Politicians and Supreme court will be able to CORRUPT You EFFORT TO CHANGE YOUR COUNTRY!

Stay strong and good luck – THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING :)
commented 2011-10-20 05:17:08 -0400 · Flag
@Tim:

“or by Conventions in three fourths thereof as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”

I think this says ratification can be done with 3/4ths of state legislatures’ approval, or 3/4ths of the delegates at the convention, whichever one Congress chooses. I don’t think it should be too big of a problem.

“and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

I’m pretty confident that this just says all states will have equal votes in the Senate, unless they retardedly don’t want it.
commented 2011-10-20 05:16:52 -0400 · Flag
@Lam

PACS can be utilized for either good purposes or bad purposes. Proactive joining together for a common goal such as this shows they have merit. WOLF-PAC being a perfect example of it being used proactively and in a positive way.

I think if we help settle ground rules so we can’t have them run on a corporations behalf is a GOOD THING. It can be a tool of a democracy or it’s undoing.

My worry is that people will be able to donate unlimited funds to a PAC to run say campaign ads or TV ads in general (SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO). Perhaps there should be a limit on financial participation?

If an organization say attracts a HUGE amount of people with 100 dollar donations, then you will have the funds to continue because its POPULAR. Where other PACS can have just 5 people donating millions and thier voice is equal. This is unjustifiable.

*Citizens can donate more then 2500 dollars to a PAC sounds reasonable. Also, they must operate similar to a 501© not for profit.

Sarah Palin uses her PAC as her own personal bank account. We need to also make sure the likes of HER cannot use them to simply make money to fund family vacations, fine dining or a new dress! However, PACS can be utilized as a tool for a democracy like I said.
commented 2011-10-20 05:08:23 -0400 · Flag
You know, after reading this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php

I don’t see why we shouldn’t just ban them all together. Opinions?
commented 2011-10-20 05:07:51 -0400 · Flag
@Sean: I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but Article 5 of the Constitution seems to provide that the legislatures of two thirds of the states can call for a constitutional convention, and amendments can be ratified by legislatures or conventions in three quarters of the states. This would seem to allow for wholly sidestepping Congress, should it be unwilling.

However, I do see some ambiguity on that point, in the clauses, (1) “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress,” and (2) “provided…that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” It’s not clear to me whether clause 1 implies that Congress, in proposing the mode of ratification for the states, can prevent ratification by not proposing a mode. And it’s not clear to me whether the mention of “Suffrage in the Senate” implies that the Senate must be involved in the amendment process, notwithstanding the Article’s apparent provisions otherwise. Maybe some better heads than mine can help me out with that.

Here’s the full text:

“Article V – Amendment

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
← Previous  1  2    48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

@shiftybadger tweeted link to Petition.
signed Petition
commented on Home
wants to volunteer
signed up for cyberteam, Tech
signed up for outreach

View All