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 1723 reactions

commented 2013-09-19 16:37:15 -0400 · Flag
You should add unions into this language so conservatives don’t get their panties in a bunch.
followed this page 2013-09-13 00:29:04 -0400
commented 2013-08-13 20:16:51 -0400 · Flag
“Flies in the soup”- The 1% and those in Congress that would like you to believe in a mythological idea called “moral capitalism “are promoting a self-serving lie. You are needed to believe this lie, but we cannot because capitalism has no human morality. Corporations have no morality. Morality, values and ethics, in a society are provided by regulations, laws, and constitutional amendments, made by humans.
commented 2013-07-28 19:32:36 -0400 · Flag
Does politicians include President nominees? That 100 dollar cap will definitely make ads. and commercials hard to make.
commented 2013-07-28 05:03:36 -0400 · Flag
The 100 dollar part has me nervous. future lawmakers could twist that amount by using some odd inflation excuse or other nonsense. Other than that it’s direct and there’s nothing vague about it.
commented 2013-07-19 18:06:44 -0400 · Flag
I signed. This is a step toward monetary reform and freedom from the Bank!
commented 2013-07-07 19:42:56 -0400 · Flag
@michael and Everyone

You NEED to watch the documentary Money Masters and also check out Bill Stills presentation at the open minded conference and Birgitta J’s presentation there as well. You can Utube them. It will take up some hours of your time. Money Masters is 3 1/2 hours long itself and I understand that most people won’t want to commit that much time out of their busy schedules, but EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH!!!!! IT’S IMPORTANT!!!!
commented 2013-07-07 19:06:57 -0400 · Flag
@collin, history shows us that governments who own and operate the money presses always inflate their currency, plunging their nations into absolute poverty. A recent example is Zimbabwe, and lets not forget about Germany’s post WWI inflation. Yet more relevant to us is that the US has corrupted the special purpose of the Federal Reserve being a separate money-printing entity. Now, Congress simply sends its spending plan to the Fed, and it prints enough money to cover the bill. Hence, we are living in a time of hyper inflation.

@naveen, unfortunately the method of random selection removes the peoples ability to select the most representative candidate. If we want better representation, we must decrease the size of voting constituencies, and thus increase the number of Representatives. Currently, many districts include hundreds of thousands of possible voters, and although only a small fraction vote, only one person is selected to represent them. If we limit a district to, say, 50,000 people, that places the candidate closer to the electorate, and thus he’ll be more directly accountable. This also solves the problem with Congressmen not reading the bills they sign, as both accountability to voters, as well as individual partisanship will fracture the dangerous two-party block voting we currently experience.

As for requiring Congressmen to attend every debate or else they cannot vote on a bill, I can see dirty politics being used to shut out dissenting voices, and thus the results would be less democratic. I’d rather there be a test that each Congressman himself must take which requires specific knowledge from within the bill prior to voting. If he can’t get every question correct, then he cannot vote, and the results will be publicly available. Is your Congressman lousy at reading and comprehending the things he votes on? We’ll know and it serves as fuel to remove him in the next election, or hold a special election if his results are consistently dismal.

As for the cost of an increase in Federal Representatives, if Congress can currently spend trillions of dollars on illegal domestic surveillance, pre-crime programs, we can certainly shut down those programs and fund better representation.
commented 2013-07-07 15:43:58 -0400 · Flag

I’m in! but you’re preaching to the choir because like you the most widely supported amendment proposal out there do not go far enough: they simply will not solve the problem, which runs deeper than the problem of money influencing politics. The problem is that money has too much influence over everything in this country! The people need to make a moral statement in the form of a constitutional amendment about the use of money, and I’m not sure they are ready to do that yet. I’m beginning to resign myself that proposals such as what you and I are talking about will have to take the form of a future amendment. The proposal that is currently before congress and wending its way through ratification by the states is certainly a step in the right direction, and it may be all that is passable at this point in our history.

Massive protests certainly dramatize the people’s objection to whatever is being protested against. Perhaps a massive rally in DC once 38 states have held constitutional conventions would push it over the top.
commented 2013-07-07 03:30:40 -0400 · Flag
Implementation is easy. Anyone who owns media which has any significant audience reach should have to open the floor of participation to a public, transparent lottery-system (in this case a website) of participant-selection if engaging in political campaigning. Simple.

That addresses the media side of things. The congress side of things is addressable by having a congress which is itself selected via a lottery system. This would be a maximally-representative cross-section of the people. Other necessary rules are: every measure proposed in the congress by any member must be voted upon separately & regularly, a member must have attended all debate sessions in relation to a measure to be permitted to vote on it, & undercover & regular bribery checks on each member. That would address the congress/senate side of things.
commented 2013-07-06 21:21:53 -0400 · Flag
14,000,000+person protest in DC. If Egypt can we can. I don’t think very many people trust the government or believe that the government is looking out for our best interests. If we can’t trust them they need to go. We need to stand up for ourselves! Our representatives can’t(won’t,whatever)! We the people sure as Hell can!
commented 2013-07-06 20:15:50 -0400 · Flag
I’m skeptical that this government understands what is “necessary to benefit the people”, since the federal government is made up mostly of representatives and senators who are for the most part owned by the (mostly corporate) special interests who have funded their candidacies. So, I would not trust the management of the currency to them.

You’re right, as always my friend. Citizen’s United was not the beginning of "government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and overturning it will only bring us back to 2008, when big business had been pillaging the economy for decades already. Naveen calls for an article making unrepresentative speech unconstitutional. A fine concept, but difficult to grasp and implement. As I have said before in this blog, my personal view of the 28th amendment is one that defines the social responsibilities of publicly traded corporations to the societies in which they operate.
commented 2013-07-06 17:00:06 -0400 · Flag
“Money out of politics” is the stated goal.

Unrepresentative influence out of politics is the more precise goal.

If Citizens United was not the beginning of unrepresentative influence in politics, then reversing Citizens United will not end it.

The same goes for Buckley v Valeo, and 1st National Bank of Boston v Bellotti.

The concept of money, or unrepresentative influence, out of politics MUST be included in the wording of the amendment itself, otherwise it will rear its ugly head in some other form in future, for example under a claim with respect to “the freedom of the press”, or some other such potential legal shield.

None of the proposed amendments by any of the big movement leaders actually explicitly demand the end of money in politics. I have proposed one that does, in this comments section. I suggest that people push for something like it instead.
commented 2013-07-06 13:59:52 -0400 · Flag

Thanks. For getting back to me and for the proposed amendment. Apparently not the only 28th amendment being proposed? I don’t believe our money needs to be backed by anything other than our government. If it was actually our government printing the money (and not the federal reserve) they would only print what was necessary to benefit the people and upon seeing inflation would tax accordingly. Also check out Bill Stills money masters documentary and his presentation at the open minded conference in 2012, let me know what you think
commented 2013-07-06 12:35:50 -0400 · Flag
Thanks for the correction. You are absolutely correct that amendments to the constitution are legal clauses (as such their wording is critically important) and it is the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret the constitution. My mistake. Duh……….

The whole point of the resolution posted below and the combined efforts of Wolf-Pac and other ad-hoc organizations is to provide a constitutional basis for overturning the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court.

Do you agree with the proponents that the proposed resolution will indeed do that? Like you, I don’t represent Wolf-Pac or any other organization, but I can tell you that many people are counting on whatever 28th amendment that gets passed to serve that purpose! The goal of all these efforts is to reverse the Citizen’s United decision.
commented 2013-07-06 12:12:45 -0400 · Flag
Thank you for correcting a lazy mistake. I was referring to the 4th amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and amendments are legal clauses. I’m not sure if we’re disagreeing on this point. However, the Supreme Court’s principle duty is to interpret the Constitution, in fact they’ve ruled only last week on the 5th amendment.

Also, thank you for posting the language presented to Congress.
commented 2013-07-06 11:56:32 -0400 · Flag
Michael, replying to your last post:

A constitutional amendment is what is being proposed, not a law. I don’t think the Supreme Court is permitted to interpret or rule on constitutional amendments, so what you are suggesting will not happen.

Also, I’m not sure what you are referring to in your statement referring to “secure in our papers” in the First Amendment. My copy of the First Amendment contains no such phrase. We are talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, right?
commented 2013-07-06 11:41:35 -0400 · Flag
This text has been presented to the US House of Representatives on February 14,2013:

H.J.RES.29 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. (Introduced in the US House of Representatives)

HJ 29 IH

1st Session

H. J. RES. 29
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.

February 14, 2013

Mr. NOLAN (for himself and Mr. POCAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
`Section 2. Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
`Section 3. Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’.
commented 2013-07-06 10:50:49 -0400 · Flag
I don’t represent Wolf Pac, and I’ve only just joined this conversation. My exposure was through TyT. As far as the specific language, I can only guess that it will be brief, and close to the clauses written above. That is best for an overarching law, both to encompass its spirit and its letter. When this law is challenged and interpreted by the Supreme Court, being too specific can lead us into debating the definition of “is,” and so there needs to be room for a nine-panel clarification on the spirit of the law. Just look at how our 1st Amendment right to be “secure in our papers,” has been willfully construed to mean only physical documents. That somehow “papers” wasn’t mean to include all personal documents and data regardless of how it is stored. A separate document, like the Federalist Papers, is the better means of elaborating upon and clarify the intentions behind the amendments.

Can anyone else provide a current draft of the proposed 28th amendment as it has been presented to State legislators? I’ll do some searching later if not.
commented 2013-07-06 10:33:54 -0400 · Flag
I can’t find a clear expression on Wolf-Pac ’s website of specific text for a 28th Amendment; Wolf-Pac is very focused on convening Constitutional Conventions in as many states as possible to propose a 28th amendment in each state. A concisely-worded proposal can be found at, .
commented 2013-07-06 10:27:56 -0400 · Flag
I wish the country would return to the gold-standard as the basis for printing money. Today’s currency has no intrinsic value. This is a problem.

Without backing by something with intrinsic value such as gold, the government can print as much money as it wants, risking inflation as it does so since the value of each dollar decreases, the more dollars are printed.
commented 2013-07-06 10:23:16 -0400 · Flag
Go to Wolf-Pac’s home page for an answer to your question, "what is a Limited Convention. Wolf-Pac is totally focused on convening Limited Conventions in all 50 states.
commented 2013-07-06 10:21:38 -0400 · Flag
There was nothing wrong with the system we had in place before. What’s wrong is the political climate we have now. That has changed from the worse. Legislators on both sides of the aisle are driven by political ideology and influenced by the corporate money that got them into office.

I agree with you that the government should retain total control over the entire voting process, including the manufacture of voting machines. If the government retook control of voting machines, there would be no jobs lost as the government, not being in the manufacturing business, would hire private manufacturers under contract, even the same ones who currently make proprietary voting machines, to manufacture machine for the government to its specifications, not theirs.

However, the government body that oversees elections, including the mfr of voting machines, would have to be comprised of members of both political parties, and independents, to try to keep some semblance of neutrality in the election process. That would be the biggest challenge to implementing your suggestion successfully, I think.
commented 2013-07-04 21:55:10 -0400 · Flag
@michael Culver

What is a Limited Convention? Obviously I’ve never gotten into government politics and really don’t know. I was turned onto Bill Stills and some of his work by a friend and it has me fired up. I would love to see a level playing field and if I can help I will. Any information or help in understanding this cause would be greatly appreciated.
commented 2013-07-04 21:04:57 -0400 · Flag
@paul Keleher

Private ownership of electoral equipment is a new thing, and the laws that grant these private owners the right to hide the raw data under the guise of protecting “trade secrets” is absolutely dangerous and has the appearance of corruption. What was wrong with the system we had in place before? Why don’t we work on solutions to those relatively minor problems, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water?

As for an addition to the 28th amendment, it doesn’t take a genius to see that this is wrong, and will only be expanded into something even worse over time. I’m not a lawyer, and I have no experience in writing laws; though the comment and concerns are still valid.
commented 2013-07-04 20:59:24 -0400 · Flag
@collin Osowski
Government is not a private enterprise, and should not be treated as such.

I think the consensus is that the people we elect to make decisions about borrowing, foreign policy, etc, will always favor their largest money-contributing constituents; which, by far, are currently corporations through PACs.

When a single corporation can donate hundreds of millions of dollars to a candidate, where as the flesh and blood voters can only collectively come up with about 20 million, whose interests do you think he’ll pursue while in office? So an amendment preventing us from borrowing money will never find a backer in congress, unless the persons elected are not corrupted by the sheer amounts of special interest money currently needed to secure mass-media promotion, let alone sustain an 8 month national campaign.

By getting corporate money out of politics, and by leveling the playing field through public financing of elections (which again is a vital and necessary public duty), this increases the ability of reasonable persons to run a serious campaign.
commented 2013-07-04 19:02:20 -0400 · Flag
What we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that will not allow our country to borrow money. I mean come on! We can make our own money that actually benefits our people!
commented 2013-07-04 18:58:05 -0400 · Flag
The law hasn’t been written yet, this is a primer on getting a Limited Convention in order to write and ratify the law.
commented 2013-07-04 18:55:39 -0400 · Flag
Way to vauge to get me to sign. The banks controlling our money and scamming our people/country with fractional reserve lending is the real problem. The government has no need to borrow money ever. And banks should not be allowed to print/lend more than they have. That is fraud. The Federal Reserve is not a part of our government and should not SHOULD NOT be in control.
commented 2013-07-03 21:15:19 -0400 · Flag
Michael, permit me to play the devil’s advocate for a minute: you are suggesting that all polling equipment be owned and operated by the government. Well, in the government there are Democrats and Republicans. Given the current political climate, is either party beyond tampering to achieve control? Public ownership removes the profit incentive from the process, and may render improved transparency, but it is still subject to tampering. Perhaps some measures could be taken to ensure balance by requiring governing bodies to be made up of equal numbers of all political parties?

Nate, your rep or senator would be a good place to review the kind of detailed proposal you have posted. They might be able to advise you on some of the details that we on this blog are not equipped to address. Just a thought.
← Previous  1  2    5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13    57  58  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:

Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack


wants to volunteer
posted about petition on Facebook
@RudyJudyMusic tweeted link to petition.

View All