commented on 28th Amendment 2014-08-01 22:57:48 -0400 · Flag
Zom Bee: Wolf-Pac’s resolution, in Vermont & Massachusetts at least, calls for an Article V Convention, but limits the subject of the convention. The following is an excerpt from VT Act 454, the Resolution passed by the VT state legislature: “Whereas, the State of Vermont believes that a convention called pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution should be convened to consider amendments to that Constitution to limit the corrupting influence of money in our political system and desires that said convention should be so limited…”

Right, the text of the actual amendment will emerge from the convention, but the intent of the convention is stipulated and limited to this one subject from the start.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-08-01 07:19:41 -0400 · Flag
Corporate personhood really doesn’t have that much to do with the money in politics issue. The 1st Amendment is a restriction on what Congress can do. If Congress could regulate speech by non-persons, they’re way more likely to use that massive power to target dissident groups or the media than to pass real campaign finance regulations.

(That said, I’m content to say call the Article V convention first, iron out the details of the text later.)
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-27 22:05:49 -0400 · Flag
I agree Kyle. Putting a level fundraising cap on every campaign would level the playing field, but unless it were very low, it would still allow politicians to raise more money than some of us can afford. Wouldn’t no private election funding be better?
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-27 15:04:22 -0400 · Flag
Wouldn’t limiting contributions from a single person allow the already rich to have an advantage? I feel like it would be better to limit the total amount a single campaign can raise rather than limit the amount a person could contribute.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-23 18:14:04 -0400 · Flag
Carl, it’s not my intent to eliminate corporations entirely, just to clarify beyond any doubt that corporations and all legally organized groups of people are just that, organizations, and not the same thing as the people who comprise them. As such they should not have the same constitutional protections as living people have, but government may grant them privileges such as the ability to sue and be sued, etc. (and take those privileges away if it is deemed necessary).
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-23 18:05:38 -0400 · Flag
test
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-17 13:32:33 -0400 · Flag
Carl; Saying that “corporations are not people” would NOT eliminate all corporations. That’s absurd; and totally fails to advance this discussion, so what’s the point? Or; IS that the point?
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-14 22:37:36 -0400 · Flag
William – We would effectively eliminate all corporations if we say simply say that “Corporations are not people.” Only “people” may contract with other businesses, sue for the enforcement of legal rights, etc. I completely agree that corporations should not share all of the constitutional rights of human beings, particularly those found in the First Amendment. But, is it our intent to eliminate the corporation (and presumably any other entity with limited liability) entirely? I doubt that idea would garner the necessary support from three quarters of the states.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-14 22:37:30 -0400 · Flag
William – We would effectively eliminate all corporations if we say simply say that “Corporations are not people.” Only “people” may contract with other businesses, sue for the enforcement of legal rights, etc. I completely agree that corporations should not share all of the constitutional rights of human beings, particularly those found in the First Amendment. But, is it our intent to eliminate the corporation (and presumably any other entity with limited liability) entirely? I doubt that idea would garner the necessary support from three quarters of the states.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-14 21:08:46 -0400 · Flag
Carl: The reason we can’t contain or control corporations IS because they have the rights of persons. Corporate personhood IS the crux of the problem; after all this discussion and enlightenment, you still haven’t grasped the basic/central idea behind our struggle for the abolition of it. We’re pretty close to a unanimous majority on that point now. Why would you want to drag us all back to square one? Legal obstruction? More definitions of “is”? At some point we have to admit to our mistakes, make the correction, and move on! You can argue ‘til the cows come home, but corporations are NOT people! It’s really that simple. Now let’s just codify that simple fact into the Constitution in the sort of unambiguous terms that even our uneducated kids can understand.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-12 16:18:20 -0400 · Flag
Have you considered joining efforts with www.ConventionOfStates.com who already have a few states under their belt. I know they are coming at it from a conservative side, but all proposed amendments are going to be brought up for a vote so it doesn’t matter if a progressive or conservative provoked the state to call the article V convention, it just matters that it was called.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-07-10 13:41:59 -0400 · Flag
I support the general purpose of this amendment (to eliminate the ability of corporations to independently donate to political campaigns), but there is a collection of rights that the first sentence of the proposed amendment threatens that corporations should have as a legal person: those closely connected to their operations as commercial entities. For example, the right to sue and be sued, the right to enter into contracts, etc.

I argue that it is our inability to regulate corporations effectively (due to their ability to influence our politics) that is the problem, not the notion of the corporate person itself. But the corporation is a psychopath! You object. Yes, because it is a legal fiction set up solely to limit the liability of its investors to their invested capital. But its managers and owners are not psychopaths but people whose actions we can control as a society.
signed Petition via 2014-06-26 11:54:55 -0400
“government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
@WolfPAC_NY tweeted. 2014-06-23 21:53:59 -0400
@WolfPAChq @arcsine Here's a news article on it: http://t.co/eJ826Q4lr7
@WolfPAC_NY retweeted @WolfPAChq 2014-06-23 19:55:46 -0400
Retweet to congratulate California! #tlot #Getmoneyout #endcorruption http://t.co/2Z7vIDzBsE
@WolfPacTX tweeted. 2014-06-23 18:35:01 -0400
RT @WolfPAChq: California becomes state #2. Passed Wolf-PAC resolutions to #GetMoneyOut.
@WolfPAC_NY retweeted @WolfPAChq 2014-06-23 17:40:13 -0400
California becomes state #2. Passed Wolf-PAC resolutions to #GetMoneyOut. #tlot
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-06-09 00:44:05 -0400 · Flag
Paul, It seems to me that “For anything to change, the” bought two-party political system has to change, not necessaryily the “economic system that underlies all the corporate money grabbing.” Free enterprise as an ecomonmic system is not the problem, a corrupt financial system that runs the governemnt is the problem. It is a monopoly that dictates all public policy and legislation. Greed has become the end goal, and not a healthy economy. Certainly McCutcheon makes it easier for greed to buy the system.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-06-08 21:31:21 -0400 · Flag
Rich I believe the McCutcheon decision effectively raised the aggregate individual contribution limit per election cycle to $5.9 million, I’m told.

William, your recollection of the history of the “press” and the “news” sounds right to me too. But I would add that when TV first started, the deal was that the price we paid for TV was that the broadcasters would be permitted to air advertising (and get paid for it). The “deal” was that we would have to tolerate the ads because the programming was “free” (broadcast television: you put up an antenna and you can get all broadcast stations (and the ads) at no charge.)

Now we have to pay close to $100 a month for 699 channels of crap, and there are more commercials than ever! What happened to that deal?

“Might such a system then reverse the entire evolution of political campaigns back to the altruistic societal function our forefathers envisioned. " That sounds like a stretch to me. The original FCC deal under the economic structure we have now got us to the point where we are at today… the media make fortunes at our expense and we are the victims, left literally in the dark.

For anything to change, the economic system that underlies all the corporate money grabbing is what has to change.
commented on 28th Amendment 2014-06-08 06:46:40 -0400 · Flag
William it seems to me you put forth a pretty good history of the evolution of news coverage. It is corrpupted by advertising. Good ideas in your comments. Paul, maybe they want to lift the $2600 individual contritution limit on Congressioanal campaigns. Oh, is that already done by McCutcheon? Hard to keep up with the corruption supported by the Supreme court.
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9    43  44  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

View All