PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLICK TO GO TO THE WOLFPAC FORUMS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey guys. Many of you are dissatisfied with the PAC's current wording of the 28th Amendment as it stands and so, over the first 3 days since the PAC was announced, many early members, including lawyers and writers for local news organizations, decided to work together to produce a draft of a more detailed version of the initial amendment.  Written with the ideas of many, after days of negotiation and compromise, this is what we have thus far:

---------------------------------------------------------

28th Amendment

(Corporations are not people)


Sec 1. Corporations and other entities created by operation of law are not persons and have all and only those rights created by law. Partnerships and other organizations that act as a mere extension of natural persons shall have the rights of natural persons only when comprised entirely of natural persons and acting with their unanimous consent. 

Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to or in support of candidates for public office and associated organizations in any form are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution. 

Sec 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to deny the rights and protections afforded to any and all legal entities under the 4th Amendment of the U.S constitution; as well as the rights or obligations of any entity to sue and be sued, or to buy, sell, own or dispose of property, to be taxed or nullify the rights pertaining to a free and open press.

Sec 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

29th Amendment

(Hardcore campaign finance reforms)


Sec 1. No person, corporation, for-profit entity, non-profit entity, or entity of any type, domestic or foreign, other than a United States citizen, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any individual hereafter referred to as, ‘candidate’ or ‘elected official’ for state or national public office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials. 

Sec 2. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more than one half of one percent of the average income of the poorest fifty percent of all adult citizens in the United States of America, 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; average income of the poorest fifty percent of American shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  All contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source. 

Sec 3**. No candidate for federal office, in any election cycle, shall raise or spend more than a sum equal to one thousand times the median household income in the United States of America. The limit shall be five hundred times median income at the State level, and two-hundred and fifty times median income at the Municipal level; median income shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. 

Sec 4. No appointee or nominee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall accept gifts or compensation to their personal accounts save their duly awarded salary from said government body; they may receive campaign contributions in a separate campaign account subject to disclosure. 

Sec 5. All campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign contributions. Candidates as private citizens may contribute to their campaigns within the limits and restrictions of this amendment; and shall be permitted use of personal forms of transportation. 

Sec 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

**Note the multipliers to median income are simply placeholders. They were chosen arbitrarily in the early draftings of the amendment and we've all been too lazy to do research to pick better multipliers. It's, like, totaly up for debate and stuff.

---------------------------------------------------------

This is not a finished product and I still want more ideas and suggestions and criticism to be shared.  

Keep in mind though that we have agreed this amendment should not be a wish-list of sorts. We are not trying to fix every electoral problem known to America.  We want to focus on 2 main objectives as outlined by the initial amendment posted by Aaron Wysocki:

"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."

It is clear that our objective should be to

  1. Deal with the issue of corporate personhood and revoke it, and;
  2. Establish basic campaign financing caps/limits and allow public funding.

---------------------------------------------------------

To vote on or against a motion, cite the motion in some way in your post and mention whether or you you approve of it.

Motion to consider (Name of proposer)

  • Names of those (Yea/Nay)
  • in support (Yea/Nay)

---

Removal of Sec 3. in the 28th (Lam Nguyen)

  • Lam Nguyen (Yea)
  • William Falberg (Yea)
  • Skitz O'Fuel (Yea)
  • Issa Haddad (Yea)
  • Minor Heretic (Yea)

Replacing "No person, corporation...citizen" with "Only a U.S. Citizen..." in Sec 1 of 29th. (Minor Heretic)

  • Minor Heretic (Yea)
  • Lam Nguyen (Yea)
  • Samuel Fieldman (Yea)
  • William Falberg (Yea)

Allowing candidates to use their private property in their own campaigns. (Minor Heretic)

  • Minor Heretic (Yea)
  • Lam Nguyen (Nay)
  • Samuel Fieldman (Nay)

Add "All contributions for a candidate of any electoral office must be gathered from citizens of the same electoral district" to 29th. (John Nicholson)

  • John Nicholson (Yea)
  • Lam Nguyen (Yea)
  • Minor Heretic (Yea)

Removal of Sec 3 of the 29th. (Minor Heretic)

  • Minor Heretic (Yea)
  • Lam Nguyen (Yea)
Do you like this post?

Showing 195 reactions


commented 2011-10-24 23:50:08 -0400 · Flag
@Samuel
" …….. Newspapers, for example, are separately protected by the 1st amendment.
Are we to assume, then, that newspapers are natural persons whether or not they are incorporated entities?

“I’ve got some 4th amendment concerns………..”
You think corps have a Contitutional right to privacy, just like humans?

“But I have some more significant concerns about this amendment. I don’t think it achieves the principal aim of removing corporate personhood in any kind of relevant way.”
“Relevant” being the operative word, I agree. It’s too specific and leaves too much “wiggle room” for interpretation.

" Most of the amendments, such as the 1st, do not specifically protect “persons”, they prohibit certain areas of regulation from Congress. (The 4th amendment actually does specifically protect persons, but that is unusual.)"
I think we can assume the Constitution was written to apply only to persons, since the Constitution nowhere mentions the possibilty of any other “entities”, notably corporations, being governed by its “shalt nots”. I think that comes under the heading of “self-evident truths”.

" Simply saying, almost as a throwaway line, “legal affirmation of corporate personhood is revoked” doesn’t really mean much."
I agree, too much wiggle room for interpretation.

“……….getting it into the Constitution will be nearly impossible. If you effectively remove corporate personhood, you get back McCain-Feingold and generally gain the power to regulate corporate giving.”
Spot on.

I propose the following section be added:
Corporations and other entities created by operation of law are not persons and have all and only those rights created by law."
Leaves open the possibility of future legislators passing laws to replace the same corporate priveledges they have now.

“Partnerships and other organizations that act as a mere extension of natural persons shall have the rights of natural persons only when comprised entirely of natural persons and acting with their unanimous consent.”
There is no known “extension” of natural persons. Did you mean “collective” of…..? What other kind of organization is there but persons? Socks? And does it really matter if acts thereof are unanimous or not?

“Actually, I would like that to be the main portion of the amendment with just a few other minor points, including one ensuring that campaign finance is valid under the Constitution.”
Actually I think you’re arguing for the status quo.

" But a strong corporate personhood section needs to be at least part of this discussion."
I thought that was the only part of this discussion.

" Note that I have elsewhere proposed this language (with some changes to improve the treatment of partnerships and close some loopholes) along with the other sections that I prefer."
Sounds to me like a new Constitution for the United Corporations of America.
commented 2011-10-24 23:50:04 -0400 · Flag
Obviously it needs work, as it’s still a draft and one that has just undergone a major change, but I like the general direction of having separate aspiration and operational amendments. By putting the basic rights and theories into the 28th amendment, you get something that, with a little work, could read like the amendments in the bill of rights and other amendments that lay out the principals of American philosophy. By putting the detailed procedure of campaign finance into the 29th amendment, it reads more like the 12th or the 27th amendments, essentially explaining how elections are to be run in the United States. I think that works much better than trying to do everything in a single Amendment.

It also allows for the possibility that only one part of this will get broad enough support to become an amendment. The two are related. They compliment each other, but either on their own is very helpful to the cause.
commented 2011-10-24 23:39:32 -0400 · Flag
After hearing the arguments and posts of dissatisfaction form several of you, I’ve divided the original amendment into the 28th and 29th so that each may have its own focus. Some important changes include the addition of Sec 2 of the 28th. This was drafted by Samuel Fieldman, a lawyer, and I’ll trust his knowledge and wisdom on this addition. I’ve also altered the language of Sec 2 of the 29th with Minor Heretic’s revision. I found it to be better and less wordy.

@Minor Heretic:

The current limits on total campaign expenditures were just arbitrarily chosen. I used 12.5 million, 25 million, and 50 million as placeholders more than anything, lol. Those numbers are definitely up for debate.

As for your point on the individual donation cap, Cenk wanted the cap at around $100 so that’s what we aimed for. We had to find a way to get past the problem of inflation though so we tied it to a dynamic source. .5% of the bottom 50%‘s average income came pretty close (This was something I came up with myself. I wanted the donation cap to rise when Americans got richer and fall when Americans got poorer.) And I don’t see a need to cut it further. You want it cut into 1/3rd of what it is to suit the current levels of spending, but that’s because you assuming every American will donate the maximum amount. Judging from the stats you gave us in 2010, probably only 10 million will donate and only .08% donation over $200.

@Samuel Fieldman:
“Actually, I would like that to be the main portion of the amendment with just a few other minor points, including one ensuring that campaign finance is valid under the Constitution”

What do you mean exactly?

Btw guys, I want to know if most people are satisfied with the 28th now. It has one main focus and includes a detailed section on corporate personhood. Let’s make sure we’ve got the 28th down for the most part before we address the issue of campaign finance, the second half of Cenk’s objective.
commented 2011-10-24 22:23:04 -0400 · Flag
Very nice official rough draft. Having read all comments to date I have a couple potential problems I would like addressed. I can tell there are quite a few capable people involved in the writing, so I am not going to try to add to the amendment, just try to help spot holes.

1. It has been brought up about the legalities of family donations and the potential hazards.

2. Offshore donations? Can this be regulated or even monitored? Do we need to address the possibility of some kind of government internal affairs?

3. Donations to Representatives families and or businesses.

4. I think we may have to add in here an actual role that we need/want representatives to take henceforth. Example: As a representative of the constituancy of the “X” sector, any donations, gifts, grants, scholarships, etc. from ANY person or entity not only is limited by the amendment but must become a matter of public record as the elected official is now a vassal of the people.. or some such jargin.

I know number 2 and 4 open the possibility to a whole new section to the amendment, but I don’t think this makes the “wishlist” catagory, and I seriously doubt we can “lock down” our demands with brevity. Not even two simple demands.
commented 2011-10-24 22:22:31 -0400 · Flag
I agree that removing section 7 is not a major concern. Newspapers, for example, are separately protected by the 1st amendment. I’ve got some 4th amendment concerns, which should be debated, but they are not major.

But I have some more significant concerns about this amendment. I don’t think it achieves the principal aim of removing corporate personhood in any kind of relevant way. Most of the amendments, such as the 1st, do not specifically protect “persons”, they prohibit certain areas of regulation from Congress. (The 4th amendment actually does specifically protect persons, but that is unusual.)

Simply saying, almost as a throwaway line, “legal affirmation of corporate personhood is revoked” doesn’t really mean much. This is supposed to be the central thesis of this movement. It is the notion that has enough broad support to actually become an amendment. Campaign finance reform is great, but getting it into the Constitution will be nearly impossible. If you effectively remove corporate personhood, you get back McCain-Feingold and generally gain the power to regulate corporate giving.

I propose the following section be added:
Corporations and other entities created by operation of law are not persons and have all and only those rights created by law. Partnerships and other organizations that act as a mere extension of natural persons shall have the rights of natural persons only when comprised entirely of natural persons and acting with their unanimous consent.

Actually, I would like that to be the main portion of the amendment with just a few other minor points, including one ensuring that campaign finance is valid under the Constitution. But a strong corporate personhood section needs to be at least part of this discussion. Note that I have elsewhere proposed this language (with some changes to improve the treatment of partnerships and close some loopholes) along with the other sections that I prefer.
commented 2011-10-24 21:45:53 -0400 · Flag
@ Lam Nguyen

California has a referendum process for passing laws. Lately the amounts of money pumped into these ballot initiatives has been appalling. Special interest groups from outside California chuck in boatloads of cash, as do corporate special interests. Most western and plains states have ballot initiative/referendum processes, plus a few midwestern states, and Maine. See: http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm It would be a good thing to have these initiatives/referenda come under the same campaign finance restrictions as elections.

A few centuries ago some early corporations tried to be exempted from lawsuits and the like because they weren’t persons. The courts of the time said “not so fast – a corporation is a legal entity.” I don’t think Section 7 is necessary because corporate legal standing (lawsuits, taxes, etc) is a well established point of English/American common law and statutory law.

I would like to re-emphasize that I am very much against offering any protection to corporations under the 4th Amendment or any other. The constitution was intended for the protection of human beings. Corporations are economic entities brought into being and given privileges (not rights) by society. We can put in a clause reaffirming 1st Amendment protections for the press, just in case. However, the 1st Amendment mentions (and protects) the press specifically as a class of entities other than persons, so it isn’t necessary.

I just noticed an oddity in Section 5: “No candidate for any elected office and the associated campaign thereof shall be permitted for any purpose to have a maximum amount of funding brought forth collectively from contributions totaling a value of more than twenty-five thousand percent…”

The word “maximum” isn’t necessary because of the later use of “more than.” How about: No candidate for federal office, in any election cycle, shall raise or spend more than a sum equal to one thousand times the median household income in the United States of America.The limit shall be five hundred times median income at the State level and two-hundred and fifty times median income at the Municipal level. Median income shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

I’m actually not so worried about total spending as long as it is raised in small donations. If 100,000,000 people really like a presidential candidate and donate $50 each, that’s okay with me. Not a likely scenario, though. If the donation limit is low enough it effectively becomes a maximum spending limit because of population and participation.

With median income around $50k, the proposed limits are high numbers even by present standards.

Also, if by federal level you mean House and Senate campaigns, then the proposed limit ($50 million?) is far higher than any spending any member of congress has ever done. The average Senate campaign costs $4 to 7 million and the average House campaign costs $2 to 3 million. Please consider dropping Section 5 and cutting to a third the donation limit in Section 4. There are roughly 226 million people of voting age in the U.S. At $50 a head, that’s $11.3 billion, compared to the ~$5 billion that gets spent per election cycle right now.

I read somewhere on this site that the calculated donation limit by your standard is $160 – still a problematic sum for a lot of people. For those on minimum wage it is 22 hours of wages, about 1% of annual income. It’s not affordable for those on the sharp end of the stick. Consider donor demographics. Less than 10 million Americans donated any money at all to political campaigns last time around. Only .08% (one out of 1250) donated $200 or more (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php). $160 is a high income level of donation. One one-thousandth of median income would be about $50.
commented 2011-10-24 20:33:42 -0400 · Flag
If Section 7 is removed, what is the effect of this amendment on a newspaper, broadcast outlet or other company or non-profit that publishes or broadcasts an endorsement or attack on a candidate? Is that endorsement or attack an indirect contribution, given that publishing or broadcasting it involves an expenditure of funds. I strongly support a ban on corporate contributions, but balancing an amendment like this against the legitimate exercise of first amendment rights of speech and press is a major challenge.
commented 2011-10-24 19:53:04 -0400 · Flag
@ Lam Nguyen

I agree
commented 2011-10-24 18:40:13 -0400 · Flag
I must agree with William Falberg.
commented 2011-10-24 16:59:59 -0400 · Flag
@Zain Pradhan:
It’s cool dude. And yeah, if we ever need you to do anything, we’ll let you know. We need everyone to make this Con-Con happen.

@William Falberg:
Every argument I hear against Sec 7 (and there have been a few) makes me lean closer to removing it. As someone else said, corporations and businesses have sued, been sued, bought and sold property, and paid taxes before corporate personhood was ever a thing. It may very well be unnecessary.

Since we don’t have a poll function on this forum, I’m just gonna make one up. In the original post, I’ve added a “Motions” section. If anyone feels a course of action should be taken with respect to the amendment, post it and I’ll add it to the Motions section. I’ll then add the names of everyone who posts their support for the motion. (A bit crude, I know. Tell me if you have a better idea.)

I’ll start us off by making a motion to remove Sec 7. If you support, say so.
commented 2011-10-24 16:53:41 -0400 · Flag
Another thought with section 3. How about a gift to a spouse, parent, or child? Should uncles, aunts, and … be included?
commented 2011-10-24 16:43:59 -0400 · Flag
@ Lam Nguyen

Roger, i understand now, my bad, dont have as much time to do research these days…

Just to give you a background of me, I am a soldier, currently stationed in Korea, this is why i cant really volunteer to help you guys out as much as I would like, Im not even suppost to be having these conversations because, i dont know if you have ever served but, you sign away your freedom of speech when you join the service, anyways though if there is anything you can think of that you and your team need help with that I can maybe help with abroad, please do let me know and I will do my best to do what I can.
commented 2011-10-24 16:30:54 -0400 · Flag
Every word you add to the 28th Amendment weakens its purpose. Section 7 is totally unacceptable. It’s not just election reform; it’s TBTF, Constitutional rights for fictitious persons, and the unlimited ability to amass unlimited financial power over the sovereignty of The People.

More effective and more likely to suceed ratification would be: “Henceforth corporations shall not be considered persons under this Constitution.” Let the courts and prosecutors unravel the culture of corporate corruption in due time; one case at a time. It took 200 years to create this monster and it’s going a while to un-do the encrustation of legal precedent that accumulated since our founding. One simple sentence that even “bubba” can understand is more likely to get passed and ratified. KISS
commented 2011-10-24 16:25:52 -0400 · Flag
@John Nicholson:

I share your concerns. I had the exact same thoughts when we decided to add Sec 3 in there. I just figured not being able to receive gifts from your family would be a price to be paid for eliminating possible corporate gifts. I would, however, like to see language that allows for “reasonable” gifts for birthdays or Christmas or weddings, etc without opening the door for corporate funds.

Maybe, banning cash or cash equivalents? A value limit? This line:

“Office holders can only accept gift not offered under circumstances that might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of their governmental duties.”

Here are the current gift rules for congresspeople:
http://www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=43
commented 2011-10-24 16:17:34 -0400 · Flag
@Minor Heretic:

We wanted to be especially clear in Sec 1, but perhaps it would be even clearer just to say only US citizens can contribute to campaigns. Hmmm…that’s definitely something to consider.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

The grammatical error is fixed. Thanks dude.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by having “referenda” in Sec 1?

That’s something we may do. We’ll keep in it mind. If anyone else has an opinion on this, please share.

Sec 4 and 5 reference the Census that’s taken every 10 years. The Census gives a clear number on median or average income so I don’t see a problem with it. Or maybe I’m not understanding you correctly. You can elaborate if you want.

Maybe you’re right about Sec 7. I mean, I never assumed that corporations couldn’t be sued or own property because of Sec 1, but it was something several people wanted to be made clear. That’s essentially what Sec 7 is, a clarification.

And yes, I love making this shorter while maintaining its strength. But it something we have to do carefully. I’ll review the amendment again and try to make the wording more efficient sometime soon. For now, I just want all our best ideas on the table.
commented 2011-10-24 16:14:53 -0400 · Flag
I have problems with section 3. One, if a candidates spouse gives the candidate a gift for … is that unconstitutional with this section ratified? Two, would food be considered as a gift (I do not care if they are standing or sitting)? Three, would an honorary degree, or made king of Mardi Gras, be considered a gift? How about a trophy saying “Worlds Worse Polluter”? I am sure more thought on this can be done and a solution found.
commented 2011-10-24 15:16:24 -0400 · Flag
Good work. Much more precise than the original. Sections 2,3,5, and 6 satisfy me completely.

Section 1 would work as is, but wouldn’t it be more elegant to simply write “Only a United States citizen shall be allowed to contribute…” That would eliminate all that went before it.

“or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type to said candidates, appointees and elected officials.” There is some grammatical confusion here. Substitute “of” for the third “to”?

Should Section 1 also mention referenda? In California the process has been corrupted by huge amounts of corporate money.

One other thought for the last sentence of Section 1 – back to basics. Somewhere it should say, simply, “A corporation is not a person.” Just so nobody can lawyer their way around it. Perhaps, just to nail it to the floor, “A person shall be defined as a human being.” No need for “immediately upon ratification.” Everything in the amendment comes into effect immediately upon ratification.

In section 4 I worry about people fudging the numbers on median income. By analogy, there are multiple definitions and distortions of the unemployment rate. That’s one reason I proposed 8 hours at minimum wage – no chance of changing that except by actually raising it.

As to Section 7, I would deny the 4th Amendment to corporations. It’s all or nothing. Either a corporation is a person and the Bill of Rights applies, or a corporation is a thing and it doesn’t. In fact, an inanimate object, such as a boat or a pile of garbage can be sued, and there is case law to that effect. It sounds weird, and the case titles look absurd, but it is established law. Corporations bought and sold property, sued and were sued, and were taxed for hundreds of years before the concept of corporate personhood arose in the U.S. in the 1880s.

How about:

“Nothing in this Article shall be construed to nullify the rights pertaining to a free and open press.”

Aside from the corporate rights issue in Section 7, these are quibbles. I would recommend going through and seeing about making the language more efficient where possible. The original constitution is a masterpiece of brevity.

But really, bravo!
commented 2011-10-24 14:54:41 -0400 · Flag
@Skitz O’Fuel:

Well, I love efficient combination of sections. And that sounds like a good idea. It makes it much simpler. See if you can come up with such a section.
commented 2011-10-24 14:50:34 -0400 · Flag
In other words, I just think that the statements in Sec.1 and Sec.7 could be efficiently defined in a single section.
commented 2011-10-24 14:47:36 -0400 · Flag
@Lam Nguyen
Thank you, sir.
One more suggestion. Why not simply define “corporatehood,” since corporations have an inherent limited liability (we cannot incarcerate or execute corporations for crimes), as having the rights to sue and be sued but strip them of their right to free speech and the right to directly petition the gov’t at any level?
commented 2011-10-24 14:32:36 -0400 · Flag
@John Nicholson:

That’s been proposed before. TV/radio stations only have so much resources. I think a better idea is to have some sort of public financing of campaigns that’d be adequate in buying ads or air time. What do you think?

@John B. Brown:

It was agreed upon by many that we should focus on the 2 objectives listed above. Our reasoning is that those 2 objectives are clearly address in the initial amendment posted by PAC leadership. It has been suggested we offer 2 separate amendment to deal with 1) corporate personhood, and 2) basic financing caps. That might be a route we take.

I want to add that the campaign finance provisions address the same problem as the corporate personhood provision: the disproportionate influence of the wealthy. Sec 4 ensures an upper limit on a person’s donations so that the super wealthy can’t be giving millions to candidates while the average American can only afford a few hundred. Sec 5 ensures that Corporations can’t give their employees tons of money and force them to donate to a certain candidate, which has been done before. They can do that to an extent, but the cap on total contributions will drastically limit the effectiveness of that tactic.

Do you understand where we’re coming from?

@Skitz O’Fuel:

They almost contradict one another, lol. But I think Sec 7 is like a 1st Amendment, but for corporations and unions and like-entities. They’re stripped of all rights given to ‘persons’ throughout the Constitution. Sec 7, just gives some of it back like the ability to sue and be sued or buy/sell property or to be taxed, which is fair I think.

And yes, I’ll add that congressional enforcement clause right away.

@Issa Haddad:

I don’t think this amendment addresses lobbying explicitly, and personally, I don’t think it should. Remember, when a US citizen calls his/her representative, he/she’s lobbying. But the different between, say, AIPAC lobbying and old grandma lobbying is that AIPAC can threaten to pull funding for campaigns or offer funding, which is common practice. Sec 1 bans all donations from everyone and everything except US citizens so that shouldn’t be a problem. Do you agree?
commented 2011-10-24 14:01:18 -0400 · Flag
I forgot to add.

We should set a definition so that human being is defined and corporation is defined. This way when the Amendment is passed the corporations will no longer be considered humans. Any crimes that the corporations commit will be the responsibility of the human beings running the corporations.
commented 2011-10-24 13:46:34 -0400 · Flag
Ok, I understood most of it but maybe I could have missed it if you did put it into the draft. Government code is like reading old english to me.

Do you think you could add something about lobbying? Israel, Saudi Arabia and other big interests have a lot of lobbying power in our government. I guess section 1. already discusses this but I just want to make sure the idea is out there.

Also we need to stop the revolving door between government and corporations. There’s a reason Goldman Sachs has the nickname “Government Sachs”. There should be an amount of time before someone can take office or a government position when they come from a private working background. There should also be an amount of time before going back to work for the private sector when leaving the public sector. I’ll leave the amount of time up to a larger group to decide, but it should be based off of statistics that the person who worked in the public sector wont be able cash in big bucks once they re-enter the private sector.
commented 2011-10-24 13:11:01 -0400 · Flag
And where is the congressional enforcement clause that has become a must in constitutional law?
commented 2011-10-24 13:06:05 -0400 · Flag
Am I wrong in thinking that the last sentence in Sec.1 and the entirety of Sec.7 contradict one another? Please clarify for me.
commented 2011-10-24 11:24:34 -0400 · Flag
What ever happened to the fundamental aim of this exercise; the removal of PERSON HOOD from corporations? You have very adroitly diverted that aim into an vapid, amorphous, long-winded rant about political financing.
Scrap this piece of garbage and get back to the original aim; reverse the court on creating an artificial person for the elite and rich by declaring corporations as pieces of paper, contracts between people, not people, and having NO people rights.
If that sounds extreme, so be it. That’s what results when the powerful minority shafts the majority.
commented 2011-10-24 11:04:56 -0400 · Flag
I feel that because y’all are trying to limit the amount of money involved in elections that there needs to be some way to have free and open debates on the issues of the day. Currently, one has to buy time on the air. I suggest that there be a section which states something like:

No compensation is to be given to owners of cables in publicly owned right of ways, and to operators of electromagnetic spectrum waves, which shall be used as a means to air free, open, and competitive debates of issues. No candidate shall buy more air time than available to other candidates of the same office race.
commented 2011-10-24 11:04:16 -0400 · Flag
I feel that because y’all are trying to limit the amount of money involved in elections that there needs to be some way to have free and open debates on the issues of the day. Currently, one has to buy time on the air. I suggest that there be a section which states something like:

No compensation is to be given to owners of cables in publicly owned right of ways, and to operators of electromagnetic spectrum waves, which shall be used as a means to air free, open, and competitive debates of issues. No candidate shall buy more air time than available to other candidates of the same office race.
commented 2011-10-24 10:31:36 -0400 · Flag
Add local government, esp. school boards, not just state and national
commented 2011-10-24 08:03:02 -0400 · Flag
Very nice. Simple, but clear.
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

signed Petition via
signed Petition
posted about Petition on Facebook
posted about Petition on Facebook
signed Petition
signed Petition

View All