"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.
----
Click to visit the Wolf-PAC Forums
Do you like this post?
Showing 1449 reactions
Aaron Eisenbarth commented
2011-10-20 21:15:36 -0400
· Flag
@Nick
I’ve had similar thoughts before, but the general consensus right now is that this amendment should focus on getting and keeping corporate and special interest money out of politics.
Afterward, we can start working toward other amendments to address various issues.
That said, I think 5 year terms with a 2 term limit for pretty much all elected positions is pretty good.
I’ve had similar thoughts before, but the general consensus right now is that this amendment should focus on getting and keeping corporate and special interest money out of politics.
Afterward, we can start working toward other amendments to address various issues.
That said, I think 5 year terms with a 2 term limit for pretty much all elected positions is pretty good.
Dave Walker commented
2011-10-20 21:14:35 -0400
· Flag
Good but Ratigan’s is better:
“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
Dave Walker commented
2011-10-20 21:14:34 -0400
· Flag
Good but Ratigan’s is better:
“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
Nick Dell'Omo commented
2011-10-20 21:11:05 -0400
· Flag
I think there should also be a term limit for Senators and Representatives such as six years, so that we can have some new values and voices in government
Les Frankland commented
2011-10-20 20:55:00 -0400
· Flag
I am here solely because I believe in an amendment ripping the right away from the corps, the are not people. They used the very noble case of human rights to protect their interests and that is what I am willing to fight for. This bill would let us know if the Gov. at hand will go with us or against us. If the later is the case, then we must stand and fight for something completely new.
Lam Nguyen commented
2011-10-20 20:54:23 -0400
· Flag
@Aaron:
I thought about proposing something like that at the local level, but it seems like the direction most people want to go is one where we focus on one main issue instead of tackling all voter turnout, voter suppression, and other voting issues in one amendment. A possibility we talked about was multiple amendments with different focuses, but all work towards some common goal like general empowerment of the average voter, like a Bill of Rights type thing.
I thought about proposing something like that at the local level, but it seems like the direction most people want to go is one where we focus on one main issue instead of tackling all voter turnout, voter suppression, and other voting issues in one amendment. A possibility we talked about was multiple amendments with different focuses, but all work towards some common goal like general empowerment of the average voter, like a Bill of Rights type thing.
Jenn Studebaker commented
2011-10-20 20:47:27 -0400
· Flag
In Texas and in Oklahoma there are laws for employers about giving time to vote. I remember it being two hours when I was a GM. I think every state already has these. Holidays for voting makes it seem that we just want days off.
Les Frankland commented
2011-10-20 20:45:09 -0400
· Flag
Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings THIS IS THE FOCUS
Aaron Eisenbarth commented
2011-10-20 20:44:52 -0400
· Flag
@ Lam: I don’t think it should be scrapped. I think it should be worded such that the two days prior to the deadline for voting in any election should be declared a municipal / state / federal holiday at that time only, to be repeated for each and every election as needed.
Lam Nguyen commented
2011-10-20 20:42:11 -0400
· Flag
“Not all elections are held at the same time. There are many elections for various things. What about Primaries and such. "
This argument has persuaded me. We should scrap the national holiday. Anyone else besides Jenn on board?
This argument has persuaded me. We should scrap the national holiday. Anyone else besides Jenn on board?
Les Frankland commented
2011-10-20 20:42:05 -0400
· Flag
I agree the voting day can not be part of the “corp not a person bill” but is is a good idea……focus
Joseph Bunn commented
2011-10-20 20:41:06 -0400
· Flag
If Obama got behind this and supported the idea, he would get elected again no doubt. I’d rather have Ron Paul over Obama but just saying. It’d be the smartest thing for Obama to do.
Jenn Studebaker commented
2011-10-20 20:31:35 -0400
· Flag
Lam and Miles: I’m with you guys making it about one issue to address. I do think we need to address the concerns Derek brought up, howevver.
Jenn Studebaker commented
2011-10-20 20:23:00 -0400
· Flag
I like Derek’s idea of a Corporation Bill of Rights because it takes the argument by the corporations off the block to some degree.
Jenn Studebaker commented
2011-10-20 20:21:47 -0400
· Flag
Oh, and I think the voting day still doesn’t belong in this. Not all elections are held at the same time. There are many elections for various things. What about Primaries and such. It doesn’t make sense to attach the Voting Day to this. Although it would be nice, It’s just fluff.
@ChrisThurisaz
tweeted
link to this page.
2011-10-20 20:05:21 -0400
28th Amendment - Spread the word: Get money out of politics - http://t.co/3RNw3nJz
Kyle June commented
2011-10-20 19:58:19 -0400
· Flag
@Lam I do not think we will be able to get all the amendments through if we push for all of them. If we try multiple ones the media will most likely focus on the least helpful one, than when it passes try to tell the people that the problem has been solved. We should focus on one that will help remove money from politics the most than pressure politicians to pass other ones related to the issue.
