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.   


Click to visit the Wolf-PAC Forums 


Do you like this post?

Showing 1607 reactions

commented 2013-11-04 11:53:51 -0500 · Flag
Paul- Even before citizens united, politicians would spend thousands on their campaigns (millions now, but not the point right now). Funding has to come from somewhere. PRIVATE money would be illegal but public money wouldn’t be. A political party could simply decide that the opposing side didn’t deserve any money to finance their candidate’s bid for office. In some cases this would be good (the Nazi party, for instance, could be shut up) but it could easily be used to silence dissent.

Ryan- A lack of reasonable debate is one of many reasons democracy is dead at the national level. Just sayin’
commented 2013-11-04 11:41:22 -0500 · Flag
While y’all are debating, we’re busy doing. Just saying.
Wouldn’t it be great to have this conversation in a forum where it actually meant something, like say you know a convention of the states?
Join the fight for free and fair elections!
commented 2013-11-03 21:35:57 -0500 · Flag
How would it encourage politicians to fund their side, when it would be illegal for a politician to donate anything at all? I don’t understand.
commented 2013-11-03 21:04:01 -0500 · Flag
So yes, it WOULD encourage politicians to fund their side primarily, meaning that it would encourage a 1 party system.

That… would not be good.
commented 2013-11-03 21:01:39 -0500 · Flag
In a publicly funded campaign, all private campaign donations would be illegal, including funding one’s own campaign (or party).
commented 2013-11-03 20:55:37 -0500 · Flag
Paul – Unless I misunderstand ‘pulicly funded’, that would encourage politicians to fund their own party and push towards the establishment of a one-party system.
commented 2013-11-03 20:54:47 -0500 · Flag
David, Thank you for your input. Back to your points… the irst mayt or may not be true depending on a particular wealthy individual’s inclinations. Therefore, a constitutional amendment should not be based upon it. To your 2nd point, in your own example, the single rich man who spends $100,000 exerts a large influence by himself, while 10,000 people donating $10 each may donate their money to many different candidates. That is very different from 1 candidate getting $100,000 from a single donor, and not as fair. Re #3, I think we all agree that corps, unions, PAC and all legal entities must be out of the campaign donation business.
commented 2013-11-03 20:48:45 -0500 · Flag
Rich, you don’t seem to understand that keeping corps and legal entities from donating only solves part of the problem. Allowing unlimited contributions from registered voters in an election is still a problem because it still favors the opinions of those with money over those who do not. You asked what I would do: I would favor a proposal that eliminates all donations period and requires all elections to public office to be publicly funded.
commented 2013-11-02 08:34:32 -0400 · Flag
I completely agree with your 28th amendment. I’d also love to see the Electoral College abolished, it’s outdated. Term limits for all political offices as well, would be nice. Of course, there would have to be requirements for public financing but not so strict that third and fourth parties couldn’t have equal footing with the current parties.
commented 2013-11-02 08:11:39 -0400 · Flag
Rich, open debate allows the correct ideas to prevail by allowing people to compare all ideas. Money-influenced debate only allows the best-funded ideas to prevail by drowning out all others, thereby increasing the scope for error.

So Rich, what is the real essence of ending money as speech for you? And what is the goal?

Do you believe that simply saying “money is not speech” in a law, but not insisting that everyone has the same right to be heard, suddenly makes it so?

For example – “This law hereby declares that guns cannot kill anyone” will have no impact on the trajectory of bullets. Listen to those who are saying yours AND Wolf-PAC’s AND Move-To-Amend’s proposals will have little effect on corruption (unrepresentative influence) in politics, because we can already see LOOPHOLES around them. Do you understand what I mean? Any law with any loopholes around it, such as these proposals, is worthless.
commented 2013-10-31 02:59:08 -0400 · Flag
Rich, you had no right to demand an apology in the first place, nor to insult him. Moreover, doing so just ticked him off. If you think his only fault was not understanding it, then quite frankly, you’re overreacting.

Paul, your behavior isn’t helping your point in the slightest. On your actual point…

The difference is threefold: one, a rich man will usually invest his own money back in some way, such as a new car, a personal project, or into his own company. Such assets usually aren’t liquidated easily. Now, o he won’t have as easy access to his money as his business/corporation/union does. (this ties into #3 a bit)

Second, while a single man donating 100,000 dollars can influence an election, so can 10,000 people donating 10 dollars. A rich person who donates thousands will have a lot of influence in an election, but ultimately that person will be drowned out by the sheer volume of others if their positions are widely different. Hell, in the internet age, it’s easy to make your voice heard for nothing. So a politician’s viewpoint will have a stronger mind for the big picture.

Three, most entities like unions and corporations tend to have more money to their name than any single person within it, even the CEO. It doesn’t take a genius to see why taking them out of the picture would make a person’s voice louder.
commented 2013-10-31 02:34:52 -0400 · Flag
The MTA and my amendments end corporate personhood and end money as speech. You do not comprehend the power of that amendment. I owe you no apology for suggesting you have little comprehension of the subject at hand. You wear blinders that demand a simplistic answer. I am not responsible for your lack of understanding.
My amendment simply takes all legal entities out of the political game. All of them. We must elect non-politicians to lower the limits to what all citizens can afford to contribute or not contribute. Free choice. We are given the exclusive right to provide contributions of expenditures to influence all elections in which we can vote. Those persons who cannot vote in an election can give nothing $0.00. $0.00. In a local or state election that would amount to the rest of the country cannot influence those elections. As it is under the two-party system up to 90% of all campaign money comes from outside of an election district or state from legal entities who have no vote in the election. The amendment I suggest represents a huge change. What change would you make? You seem to like the idea of open debate that, to me would simply be, a Tower of Babel of biblical proportions, much noise and no resoulution of our chronic political problems. Corruption with more talk, talk, talk. Money stays protected without ending corporate personhood and money as speech. A quite simple solution which do not comprehend.
commented 2013-10-30 16:57:24 -0400 · Flag
No Rich, I will NOT apologize because I stand by what I said. Nowhere does your proposed amendment (section 2 or elsewhere) eliminate or even limit political contributions to any specific dollar amount. It merely leaves that determination to “federal, state and local government”, who, depending on their predilections, could set that limit anywhere they choose. And who happen to be the regulated party, by the way. So you are apparently willing to let elected politicians be the ones to decide how to limit contributions to their campaigns. I don’t think so. You’re letting the fox watch the hen-house, and leaving the door wide open!

And I don’t appreciate the tone of your criticism either. Perhaps it is you who should apologize to me…
commented 2013-10-28 20:55:40 -0400 · Flag
Paul, first read the page, Section 2, then apologise for not having read the page. Section 2 provides for controlling the size of contributions. Do you always leap before you look? The amendment provides what you say you seek, or is your aim just a platform to complain? You do that very well.
commented 2013-10-28 20:04:28 -0400 · Flag
Sorry Guys, the “Geoff” page linked does not contain the Secion 2 update shown in red. http://cs2pr.us/Rich/28th_Amendment.html#Three has all the latest updates. Exclusive voter rights corrects the system. IMHO.
commented 2013-10-28 19:52:13 -0400 · Flag
Rich, I see a problem in national elections with an amendment that permits unlimited contribution by individuals. Those with lots of money to spend to influence a political outcome will have a louder voice than those who do not. We need a political process in which one’s money cannot be used to influence any political campaign. I believe the forefathers envisioned a country in which all men (and women) have an equal voice in the political process, regardless of means.
commented 2013-10-28 19:39:28 -0400 · Flag
The secret to reform in an amendment is to make “voters” the exclusive enties allowed to make contributions or expenditures to influence or support political campaigns. No money from any artificial legal entity. What is to not understand about the simplicity of that concept?
http://cs2pr.us/geoff/28th_Amendment.html#Three . The first two MTA Sections are needed to set up the framework within which the Section 3 can work. Rich Stevenson
commented 2013-10-24 20:02:05 -0400 · Flag
David Kuhn-
I’m going by what I’m reading above, where corporations are the main focus… which I now see is two years old. Is there a more recent copy?

But thanks for addressing my concerns.
commented 2013-10-24 19:53:29 -0400 · Flag
Hi David-
Point One- Unions, the Wolf-PAC resolution is not limited to Corporations or Unions, the wording is “dependency on those who spend excessively in elections, though campaigns or third-party groups” this is a cross-partisan resolution. Citizen non-excessive spending is not the issue.

Point two- We trust in the people to design the amendment to promote citizen control of government. The resolution is about citizen rights not limits to the peoples freedom. Limits on non-citizens, interference in citizens rights is expected. The father of our country said" the bases of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government." (from Para #1 of resolution)

Point three-Term limits are a popular idea according to polls. “Fraudulent and dishonest conduct unchecked, invades the body of our national politics, abusing and destroying our civility. Current governmental dysfunctional acts, threaten our present and future well-being. A Constitutional Amendment is needed to stop Congresses addiction to 3rd party money. Would you agree?” The check is in the power returning to the citizens.
commented 2013-10-24 19:11:49 -0400 · Flag
Three concerns.

One: This doesn’t prevent unions from becoming people. I realize a lot liberals don’t think this would be a problem, but you get the same issue: give too many rights to an entity and they amass power like a madman. (I only bring this up because you mention corporations specifically – it worries me)

Two: I’m no legal expert, but ‘indirectly’ looks to me like it means no one employed by a company can donate money. ‘Indirectly’ would include people who get paid by a corporation. That makes sense if the money is specifically FOR the campaign, but what about a person’s regular salary? If I worked for EA (god I hope I never do) would I be unable to donate to a candidate for the rest of my life without going to jail?

Three: This would make incumbents even harder to unseat than they already are, so instead of real change in our leadership, we’d have the same out-of-touch dinosaurs in place for decades on end. An incumbent has a major advantage over their challenger even if they have the same funding. That won’t matter much for presidents (who have a limited number of terms) but last I checked, Senators and House Reps don’t have such a limit.
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    80  81  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:

Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack


signed Petition via
signed home_dev
posted about Petition on Facebook
signed Petition
commented on Contact
commented on Home

View All