Naveen, I don’t care if you agree or disagree. We disagree. That is the only thing we will agree upon on this subject. Time to end any discussion between us.

Rich, I agree that a law can be simply ignored, but if implemented, the equal-chance voice amendment takes special interest money out of political campaigns. Your amendment, in the best-case scenario, cuts out the voices of non-media-owning individuals, leaving media owners to be the major deciders of the political direction of the nation, and prevents this being curtailed at any level. Can you formulate a way of preventing this, since you don’t want this outcome?

Naveen, IMHO what you propose has no chance of having any effect if passed, and has no chance of having enough support to be ratified. 80% of everyone want to take special interest money out of political campaigns.

And by the way, the Supreme Court cannot ignore Constitutional amendments, when ratified. Chartered corps does what you want. That can happen once they are no longer persons under the law. That is my opinion.

I bet you will not pay any attention to what I said. You never have.

Paul, it’s simply due to a lack of exposure because we don’t all have an equal-chance voice :)

Rich, what is your formulation for preventing the existing major media owners becoming the major deciders of the political direction of the nation, which, in the best case scenario, your amendment reinforces by cutting out the voices of non-media-owning wealthy individuals? You must provide one since you oppose this outcome, and your current amendment (and Wolf-PAC’s etc.) not only reinforces it, but prevents it being curtailed at any level.

In the worst-case scenario for your amendment, the supreme court continues to rule that corporations are associations of natural persons and ignores your artificial entities clause. Local, state and federal lawmakers don’t curtail campaign expenditures (even though they’re allowed to). People purchasing media outlets for year-round propaganda dissemination are not considered to be spending money to influence elections.

Your amendment (or Wolf-PAC’s, Move-To-Amend’s etc.) would produce an outcome which is on continua between these 2 outcomes. You don’t want any of them, so you, Wolf-PAC, Move-To-Amend etc. must produce a constitutional amendment and/or any other measures whose outcome isn’t.

In my opinion, the equal-chance voice constitutional amendment is the only one. What is your basis for believing that it isn’t?

Naveen’s proposal is the tail trying to way the dog. Inside a too small doghouse. It is putting the cart before the horse. All politics are, or should be, local. Top down legislation is totally wrong.

Duh!! A qualified voter is a citizen over the legal age who resides in the electoral district. Section 3 bans all other campaign money. Eligible is equal to qualified. Registered is not the same thing, a mere choice of the qualified voter. Over half of current qualified voters do not bother to register to vote. Why? They feel they have no choice for representation by a D or an R, who are over 99% of candidates on the ballot. Why bother, they say. Qualified voters would by the only legal OK money in campaigns under Section 3. Again I say, “Duh!”

Corporations need to have the permission of State legislatures to exist for specific lengths of time as true prior to 1886 Supreme Court giving corporations personhood under constitutional law. Again I say “Duh!” Each corporation could exist only under detailed state charters granted by state legislators. Again I say “Duh!” See Section 1. Again I say “Duh!” Natural persons, voters, control all artificial legal entities including political parties. Duh.

Rich, one of your recent posts you said, “Only qualified voters can use money to influence elections or campaigns. Duh!!”

I don’t want to quote you out of context, but you provided no context, just the above comment. By itself, I read that comment to mean that you support the ability of “qualified” voters (whatever a “qualified” voter is. Did you mean “registered” voters?) to use their money to influence political campaigns. You couldn’t possibly have meant to say that and support this or any amendment to get money out of politics. If you did not mean to say that campaign contributions from “qualified” voters are OK, then what did you mean? Please explain what you mean by a “qualified” voter, too.

As I’ve said earlier, although I personally think the country needs a constitutional amendment that defines the social responsibilities of public corporations in order to provide the moral guidance to legislators that is clearly lacking in many congressional representatives and senators, I’ve not yet been able to articulate the text of my idea.

It’s disappointing to me that Naveen’s Equal Voice proposal is not receiving more attention than it is. The present lack of response may be because it is such a radical departure from the status quo that many people need time to digest the idea before even commenting on it.

anonymous anonymous,

I wish Wolf-PAC’s Cenk Uygur would participate in this comment section as I too have serious reservations about the 28th amendment proposal posted here, and if he would fix it now he could get even more support for it.

The following 28th amendment proposal should satisfy all your concerns. I wish Cenk Uygur would use it verbatim instead, as it actually reaches the root of the current problem. What are your thoughts on it:

"
[28th Amendment to the Constitution. Article -]

The equal opportunity for all ideas to be tested in debate being necessary to maximize the propagation of the most necessary solutions, every individual shall have, by right, the equal opportunity to have his or her opinions heard, read or seen within the United States. This shall henceforth be construed to be the meaning of “the freedom of the press”€ within this Constitution and all Laws of the United States passed in pursuance thereof. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"

?

I have two main concerns about your proposed wolfpac amendment, and before I could support it I must have two main questions answered.

My first begs the question about how corporations are being deprived of their constitutional rights. Are corporations anything other than a collection of people for business purposes? Does this mean the government can take any corporations land without compensation, or throw any member of one in jail for political dissent? What exactly is the corporation, when does the company end, and the individual begin? This could be a slippery slope because many corporations are small stores or businesses that have organized themselves as such for one reason or another. In addition many people have assets like cars and houses in shell corporations, can the government take those? On the flip side, if there is no definition of corporation could that mean the federal government creates a separate type of company so the whole amendment is irrelevant, or could it declare everything a corporation and deprive everyone of their rights? I feel as your this could become the new “general welfare” or “necessary and proper” clause that gives the government any power it so chooses.

My second concern is how you intend to go about stopping corporate involvement in government. I feel as though you are not going after the root cause. For whatever reasons government does give special favors to companies or special interest groups. Prohibiting this is similar to prohibiting drugs, alcohol, or prostitution. Both parties want it so the transaction can and will happen. At the very most it is simply forced under the table. Wouldn’t the correct way to do this be to make it illegal for government to give out handouts? For example, institute a consumption tax and corporations cannot vie for tax deductions, or make it illegal to give out subsidies. Companies want money, politicians have it, politicians want support, and companies have it. Even if there are no campaign contributions, special interests have support, and politicians have money they can give away for support. Ben Franklin once said “when people learn they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic” Getting rid of contributions is only half the equation. The money will always find a way from point A to point B, due to concentrated costs and dispersed benefits. I feel as though your near-ban on campaign contributions, part of your substitution to the current system, also hurts grass roots candidates. Before citizens united it was much easier for entrenched political interests to stay in office because they outspent their opponents 4-1 because they already established means to raise money and read dense regulation. After citizens united they outspent opponents only 3-2 and more incumbents were defeated, which means no more lifetime tenure. My issue with your substitute, public campaign financing, is that now the politicians control almost all of the money, where it goes, and how it is distributed. No one agrees every campaign should get the same amount of money, because some campaigns are frivolous jokes (vermin supreme) thus there will be regulation and this will be stacked for incumbents against challengers invariably. Even if there is equal financing for all, incumbents have the power of government to give away money for support. Since there is inflation government will have the power to determine how much is placed on a campaign, and incumbents have name recognition, challenger generally do not. This is already in effect because legitimate grassroots candidates have to navigate hundreds of pages of campaign regulation. I would like to know how you intend to avoid this.

Rich I certainly don’t have superior “intelligence” & am ready to hear any solution you might have for addressing the issue raised.

Naveen, I bow to your superior intelligence. I am an idiot.

Rich – I’d love your formulation for how to prevent the existing owners of the major media outlets becoming by far the most powerful individuals in US politics in terms of influencing one or both of the 2 parties and their chances of winning elections.

You say they already are, but your amendment would make them even more so by cutting out the voices of other wealthy people, in the very best case scenario. Do you consider this a justifiable outcome and if not, what’s your formulation for preventing it?

The plain-as-day answer is the equal voice amendment. Do you have another plain-as-day answer?

The answers are as plain as day.

Only qualified voters can use money to influence elections or campaigns. Duh!!

They already ae, so what is your point. I bow to your superior wisdom. I am an idiot.

Rich – under the best supreme court interpretation of your proposed law & if the legislatures limit campaign money to the lowest imaginable amount – i.e. best-case scenario – the existing owners of the major media outlets would now have by far the greatest say, more than ever before in fact, on the content of the political conversation in the US. They will de facto then become by far the most powerful individuals in US politics in terms of influencing one or both of the 2 parties and their chances of winning elections. Do you consider this a justifiable outcome? If not, can you formulate a way to prevent it?

Rich, I asked you to convince me that your proposal actually will get money out of politics and you haven’t. I’m sorry. Your amendment as I understand it will stop corps from influencing elections and limit what an individual can give to a candidate’s campaign.

So, if I’m a guy with a lot of money to throw at a candidate who I want to win an election and I can’t give him money directly, then what in your proposal will stop me from buying ads to help my guy win the election?

Naveen, same response as to Paul. The legal history is there. None are so blind as those who will not see. The cs2 Section 3 would accomplish everything you dream. A democratic republic.

Paul, You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Re-read this thread. Read the history of Corporate Personhood and Buckley v. Valeo. I’ve done my work here. Nothing left to say.

Rich, my problem with your proposed amendment as I understand it is that your proposal does not get money out of politics, which is the common objective we are all trying to achieve. It will not succeed in actually removing the influence of money because it permits, encourages even, individuals to use their money to promote their own political agenda or their candidate through the purchase of advertising, or in the extreme, purchasing control of a media outlet. For any constitutional amendment to succeed it MUST prohibit the use of money in any way to dominate a political conversation. I believe the Founders envisioned that the power of good ideas should win political debates, not the ideas with the strongest financial backing.

So, we agree that getting money out of politics is our common objective. You argue that your proposal will do that, but have not convinced me how it will overcome the problem that I’ve outlined above. I’ve reiterated this objection to your proposal many times before.

I will admit that the notion of abolishing corporate personhood (by overturning the Citizen’s United SC decision) is by far the most popular and likely to succeed at this point. It is a small step in the right direction, but I do not believe it will by itself solve the problem. I don’t believe your amendment solves the problem either. Please convince me otherwise.

Fyi, I’m 65.