commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-24 02:00:17 -0400 · Flag
@Ken Hamburg:

1. We did have rather harsh penalties written explicitly into this amendment at one point (lifetime bans from running for office, fee of 50% corporate profits), but it was later scrapped because there was a consensus that it was not the place of an amendment to create punishments. We felt that it was the place of the legislative process to do so and also, there have never been crimes (besides treason) or punishments written into the Constitution or its amendments so we’d like to keep with precedence.

2. I agree. I will address this.

3. I don’t know, something to be worked out, perhaps?

4. I don’t know if there is. You can do some googling if that’s one of your concerns. Personally, I feel the language is adequate as ‘amount’ can’t really be misconstrued to mean anything other than dollar amount (or maybe it can?). A corporation might try to be a smart ass and say the source of the money was the US Mint, but that’s why we have the Supreme Court. They interpret shit and usually, they don’t mess around with words.


@Zain Pradhan:

In response to your first post, it’s been suggested that we work out several amendment to address different specific issues such as Tax Reform (though personally, I feel it’s best if we left this to the legislative process) or abolishment of the Electoral College, but for this particular amendment, the 28th, we’re gonna stick to the main objectives.

And yeah, I’m gonna have to disagree with you on stripping Congresspersons’ rights to draft laws. I feel there’s a reason literally anyone is allowed to draft a law, but only Congresspeople can introduce it. Think of how many bills would clog up Congress if anyone could submit a bill. Also, Congresspeople are American citizens too. They have all the same rights and among those rights is the right to draft bills. Plus, I have a feeling if corporate and union money is taken out of the system, they’ll be doing less of what corporations and unions want and more of what their constituents want.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-23 23:46:39 -0400 · Flag
Hey guys, we have a more detailed version of the 28th Amendment here. Check it out:

http://www.wolf-pac.com/1255/pac_members_revision_of_28th_amendment
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-23 23:40:05 -0400 · Flag
@Camroeun:

Sec 1. No one except US citizens can contribute to campaigns in any way. Corporations are not people.

Sec 2. Monetary political donations do not count as speech guaranteed by the 1st Amend.

Sec 3. If you’re in office, you can’t accept any gifts. You can still collect campaign donations.

Sec 4. Candidates can only accept about $160 per person, per election. This amount changes with the average income of the poorest 50% of Americans (the richers Americans are, the higher the donation limit and vice-versa).

Sec 5. Candidates can only receive a specific maximum amount of money per election. This upper limit increases if the national median income increase and vice-vesa.

Sec 6. Candidates can only use campaign contributions to fund their campaigns, not their personal wealth. They can still use their own modes of transportation.

Sec 7. Corporations and other entities still have 4th Amendment rights, can sue and be sued, can own, sell, buy property, can still be taxed, and have the right of a free press.
commented on State Leaders 2011-10-23 15:44:44 -0400 · Flag
North Dakota with its 3% unemployment rate, reporting in

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wolf-PAC-North-Dakota/290801804277598
published PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment in Blog 2011-10-23 15:22:36 -0400
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-22 02:47:55 -0400 · Flag
@Tim:

Thank you Tim for your support. I’ve talked to Christopher and we’ve both agreed to hold off on making changes to the working draft of the amendment as is.

However, it is NOT a final draft by any measure. Once the forum is up, revisions will be made using ideas and suggestions from Wolf-PAC members that strengthen the amendment while staying within defined goals. Hopefully leadership will see the efforts of the TYT Army and take up the reigns. So, continue to brainstorm ideas for when the forum is up!

Here’s the draft as it currently is again.
http://shorttext.com/zFnenX
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-22 02:02:35 -0400 · Flag
Hey guys, just so you all know, I and other members of this PAC, have drafted a more detailed version of the amendment above the comments, after days of negotiation and compromises of course.

http://shorttext.com/zFnenX

This is a work-in-progress. It’s the most recent version out there right now. The union issue is addressed in the 1st line of Sec 1: “…or entity of any type…[besides US citizens]”.

The $100 dollar/inflation problem is addressed in Sec 4 and 5.

Lastly, as the main author of this document, I propose we suspend adding changes to it until Aaron Wysocki creates a fully functional forum on the website, as Cenk has promised Jenn Studebaker, another huge contributer to the amendment. It’d be way easier to reply to and address people’s concerns and implement suggestions once it’s up. We’ll have the full document up so people can read it in a thread, revised in real time if revisions are made.

Good idea, right?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 03:31:11 -0400 · Flag
We’ve got to get some sort of video chat system up. This is way too inefficient, lol.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:56:35 -0400 · Flag
No, Section 1 is our masterpiece. It’s already perfect and historic. I don’t see the problem with it.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:54:24 -0400 · Flag
Section 1 has this line:

“No person, corporation, business entity, or entity of any type, domestic or foreign, hereafter referred to as ‘entity,’ other than a United States citizen, shall be allowed to contribute money”

It bans donations for everyone except US citizens.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:51:57 -0400 · Flag
Version 1 is a bit contradictory. It says the officers can’t take stuff from people, except from those in the state/district. Then it bans them from taking stuff from anyone except their salary.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:48:51 -0400 · Flag
@Tim:

Yeah, it has. Now we just have to choose whose Sec 3 to add to the unofficial working document. Obviously, I prefer mine, lol.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:47:52 -0400 · Flag
I think mine is more concise and to the point. All in favor?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:46:22 -0400 · Flag
I combined elements of sec 3 and 4.

Sec 3. No candidate for any Municipal or State office shall accept any gift, donation or contribution from any entity other than persons residing in that State; and no appointee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall be permitted to receive any form of gift or compensation from any entities or persons save their duly awarded salary from said government body.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:34:01 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Yeah, that’s what I said, lol.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:33:11 -0400 · Flag
Guys, guys, guys.

Sec 3 must be written as:

“Sec 3. No candidate for any Municipal or State office shall accept any gift, donation or contribution from any entity other than persons residing in that State.”

Otherwise it conflicts with Sec 4, which bans gifts, donations, and contributions for everyone. If people are allowed to give stuff to their state office holders, that goes against sec 4.

But sec 4 only deals with those already in office. Sec 3 is to prevent the flow of money from state to state during an election which is why it should be restricted to just “candidates”, not office holders or appointees.

Does everyone understand?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:30:32 -0400 · Flag
“it wouldn’t be difficult to get around it by taking gifts before officially running and before officially getting appointed,”

That’s not something we can address. As long as any cash or money given to the to-be candidate can’t be used (as is banned by sec 7), I’d say, good enough.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:27:47 -0400 · Flag
“Sec 3. No candidate for any Municipal or State office shall accept any gift, donation or contribution from any entity other than persons residing in that State.”

The rest of the original language from Sam is covered by sec 4.

“Sec 4. No appointee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall be permitted to receive any form of gift or compensation from any entities or citizen of the United States of America save their duly awarded salary from said government body. "
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-21 02:18:16 -0400 · Flag
Just say

“…any Municipal, State, or Federal office.”
I mean.
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

View All