commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 12:10:57 -0400 · Flag
Lauren’s course of action is a great idea. Asking groups of Occupiers to endorse an agreed upon amendment is a fantastic idea.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 11:50:37 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Just give “The members of Wolf-PAC” the credit. I feel Aaron Eisenbarth and whoever else you feel deserved it should get a special mention.
posted a note for 2011-10-20 09:29:35 -0400
PDF completed based off the 9 sections, We can add the others later of PAC leadership likes this. I did a little revisions here and there as well. I need your email. I also added you as the primary writer and when I email this I will let them know. (this is my forte as I am a freelance writer and activist) check out www.thevenusproject.com I'm their marketing coordinator. :)
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 06:03:00 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Lol, yeah, this is something I’m very passionate about, as are most people here.

If I understand you correctly, you think we should allow inter-district donations, but not inter-state with the exception of PAC money. I agree here. Given this and the restrictions outlined earlier on PACs (or whatever we decide to call them and related things in the amendment), I think it’s a good provision.

I’ll get back to you on FB soon. I have it blocked at this time (part of my self-regulation. I’m a procrastinator.) Then we’ll send a draft to TYT and get their critique.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:47:00 -0400 · Flag
@Barb Dallaire:

Yep, we thought of that. It’s in section 9 of our rough draft.

Sec 9. No candidates shall spend any amount of private wealth on his or her own campaign; all campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign donations both public and private.

Basically, we just flat out banned it. If you have a better idea, please share.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:45:12 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

No, if anyone is going to submit anything for expert legal review, it’s gonna be the official leaders of this PAC. I don’t have the resources for that and remember, we’re just a few people. There are many others who haven’t had a chance to review this crude draft. Also, leadership may not like parts of it.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:40:46 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

Your articulation was just fine.
I’m guilty of an out of state donation, lol. I gave money to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, but perhaps it’s best if we limit people’s ability to donate to those who are part of the area the candidate’s running in.

So only Californians can donate to a Senate run in that state and only residence of District X can donate to a candidate in District X. Everyone could donate to presidential candidates.

I’m not sure though since in a state like ND where the population is like, 600k, getting a significant amount of money is tough and their campaigns may not have the funding to get out their message properly. What do you think?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:33:58 -0400 · Flag
How about limiting donations into PACs the same way we limit them for regular donations? With the percentage layout we have already? Then the PACs are free to do whatever they want with the funds. We should ban corporate donations into PACs as well.

These are ideas I like:

PACS must submit themselves to an audit by the GAO or recognized public entity.
PACS must post publicly the names of all contributors.
PACS can only be donated to by citizens of whichever jurisdiction they operate in. (example: State politics should NOT be influenced by citizens donations of another state, such as Utah Citizens contributing to the Gay Rights issue of California)
PACS cannot have other PACS funding their actions (such as secret PACS with opaque donors giving money to say.. the Heritage foundation)
—All PACS must operate transparently. (see first one)

Now let’s see if we can get that in legal-sounding form….
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:26:17 -0400 · Flag
@Jacob:

Thanks for your support, Jacob. We have some of the things you listed covered. they are good ideas. Just so we have everyone on the same page, I’ll go ahead and post what we have thus far:


Sec 1. No corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, hereafter referred to as ‘entity’, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any candidate for, or holder of, any elected office, hereafter referred to as ‘candidate’; or those appointed, hereafter referred to as ‘appointee’, to such an office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for office.

Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sec 3. Congress shall set forth a two day long minimum federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for office.

Sec 4. No appointee to, or candidate for, 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.

Sec 5. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more than one half of one percent of the average income of the bottom fifty percent of all citizens of the United States of America twenty-one years old or older 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; and all contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source.

Sec 6. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted for any purpose to receive or spend contributions totaling a value of more than twenty-five thousand percent of the median income of households in the United States of America at the Municipal level of government; fifty thousand percent at the State level; and one hundred thousand percent at the Federal level during the same election cycle.

Sec 7. Failure of any candidate for, or appointee to, any governmental office to comply with these constraints and regulations shall be punishable by forbiddance from holding any form of governmental office in the United States of America for life.

Sec 8. Nothing in this Amendment or in the U.S. Constitution shall be construed to deny the rights or obligations of any entity to sue and be sued, or to buy, sell, own or dispose of property, or to be taxed.

Sec 9. No candidates shall spend any amount of private wealth on his or her own campaign; all campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign donations both public and private.


All critique/feedback is welcomed. Don’t be considerate of my feelings.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:17:08 -0400 · Flag
@Tim:

“or by Conventions in three fourths thereof as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”

I think this says ratification can be done with 3/4ths of state legislatures’ approval, or 3/4ths of the delegates at the convention, whichever one Congress chooses. I don’t think it should be too big of a problem.

“and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

I’m pretty confident that this just says all states will have equal votes in the Senate, unless they retardedly don’t want it.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:08:23 -0400 · Flag
You know, after reading this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php

I don’t see why we shouldn’t just ban them all together. Opinions?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 05:01:32 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher:

We decided to remove language detailing punishments in the amendment. It’s not really the place of an amendment to do that, some of us argued, but rather, the law/legislative process.

Personally, I simply support banning a candidate from running or holding office if it’s discovered he/she violated the 28th.

What do you think?
posted a note for 2011-10-20 04:53:41 -0400
Very considerate of you Lam. Thank you very much.

I find this absolutely intruding how this process is happening. I would further note in terms of "punishment" that litigation penalties should be equal to the repercussive effects of breaking the law so as not to kill a corporation for violating the mighty 28th.

Perhaps make the CEO or Board of Directors liable directly so as not to penalize the employees of said organization?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 04:45:21 -0400 · Flag
@Daniel:

“All campaign contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source.”
is now in our draft.

@Sean:

They could only get around it if they passed an amendment of their own, which would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states which just got done ratifying this campaign finance amendment. I doubt they’d un-ratify it.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 04:40:41 -0400 · Flag
@Daniel

On the draft I have on my Word doc, I removed the former section 6 entirely and forgot to say something. I agree with you. I do think we should remove the mandatory sentence, but keep the ban from government office. If a person violates this amendment, it’d probably take a while for us to find out. By that time, the candidate may already be in office. By having this mandatory ban, it would immediately remove him from office once we found out. The alternative may be weak laws addressing this and the candidate may not get removed from office. I don’t want to risk this hence why I support the office ban.

And yes, we’ve added the state and local elections to the mix.

On my Word doc draft, the 2nd and 3rd sentences in the Williams model are made into sections 2 and 3, so his whole model + state and local elections + donation caps are all in there.

If anyone wants me to post the most current version of what we have, just let me know.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 04:27:40 -0400 · Flag
Crap guys, we didn’t address PACs at all, did we? What should our language on that be like?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 04:26:45 -0400 · Flag
@Christopher Jannette

Of course. What we’re doing is simply drafting a rough draft. The final copy will be polished.

I altered section 1 further to suit your suggestion:

No corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, hereafter refered to as ‘entity’, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any candidate for, or holder of, any elected office, hereafter referred to as ‘candidate’; or those appointed, hereafter referred to as ‘appointee’, to such an office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for office.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 03:54:19 -0400 · Flag
@Issac Russhing

That sounds like a good idea, but isn’t that what they do at Constitutional Conventions?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 03:47:31 -0400 · Flag
@Tim Elston:

The percentages refer to “X percent of the median income of households in the United States of America”. I didn’t think it was necessary to add that line at the end of all the percentages. In numbers, it’s 25,000% (250x), then 50,000% (500x), and 100,000% (1000x). …now that I think about it, it might be better just to say “one thousand times”.

I share your concern about the revolving door, but I’m not sure how to address that. You can’t just ban office holders from being employed by an “entity”. They’ll have really crappy job prospects after leaving office. You can ban them from becoming a registered lobbyist, but idk if they have to registered to talk to an old Congressional friend.


@Daniel Dubenco

Hmm…
I agree. How should we address that? Are mandatory punishments even necessary?
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-20 03:33:00 -0400 · Flag
@Danny Wesgate

I agree. Here are some alterations to sec 6 I made.

Sec 6. Failure of any inhabitant of the United States of America and its territories to comply with these constraints and regulations shall be punishable by forbiddance from holding any form of governmental office in the United States of America for the rest of their life, and no less than five years in Federal prison; failure of any entity, domestic or foreign, to comply with these constraints and regulations shall be punishable by an imposed fee of 50% of all entity profits and capital gains, to be collected at the end of four quarters each quarter.

I lowered the mandatory sentence to 5 years because 10 for a slight amount over the max is a bit unfair. 5 years might be too, but hopefully that’ll discourage anyone from attempting. The courts can scale it up if they deem it necessary.

For entity punishment, I chose taking a big chunk out of their profits. I think 50% might be a bit much since that might be corporation killing. (Get huge ass fee, raise prices on their shit, no one buys, corp goes down.) While their influence is disproportionate, they do contribute quite a bit to our economy.

Anyway, opinion?

Also, I altered section 1 to this. It uses some other site’s wording which I thought was better. I changed some minor things:

“Sec 1. No corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any candidate for, or holder of, any elected office, hereafter referred to as ‘candidate’; or those appointed, hereafter referred to as ‘appointee’, to such an office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for office. "
← 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

wants to volunteer
wants to volunteer

View All