Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 1st priority Money is not speech, Corps not people

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 31, 2012, 6:34 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://movetoamend.org/obama-calls-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united

Last Wednesday, President Obama called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United:

"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change."

The Move to Amend coalition has been fighting Citizens United since Day One, and has been organizing against corporate rule for over a decade; we welcome Obama’s statement and his help ‘shining a spotlight’ on the same position held by the majority of Americans.

The good news is that President Obama’s comment has put this issue in the news and in the spotlight. Yesterday big money in politics was the topic of discussion over at HuffPost Live all day (where Move to Amend leaders were featured as guests twice).

The bad news is that the frame is all on Citizens United – as if that is when the problem began. Other organizations whose goals and campaigns are much more limited than Move to Amend’s are touting that Obama has “joined the movement.”

That’s a dangerous stance to take. If we say that “overturning Citizens United” is what our movement is about, that is all we’ll get – the politics of 2009, when the wealthy ruled the country and big money ruled our politics. Not to mention failing to address the other ways that corporations use their so-called Constitutional rights to overturn laws aimed to protect the public.

Move to Amend is aiming higher, and we know that you are too. Our amendment will address both of the spurious doctrines at play in Citizens United: the notion that a corporation is a person and that money is free speech. An amendment that rights both of these wrongs – with no loopholes – is the only amendment Move to Amend will ever support. You can count on us not to accept a watered-down, inadequate solution.

We are proud that our movement has the attention of the President and others in Washington DC, but we know the real work at this moment is not in the corrupt halls of Congress, but in our communities -- reaching our neighbors to help us realize our collective power.

To that end, please help us use this opportunity of the spotlight created by the President’s comment:

Forward this email to at least 5 of your friends and invite them to sign the Move to Amend petition and get involved in our campaign.

Check our website to see if there is a Move to Amend local group near you. If there is, please contact them to get involved; and if not, please consider starting one yourself or with your friends.

Sign up for our next Take Action Webinar on September 4th to learn about how to get involved in your community.

We are gaining in numbers and gaining in traction, but there’s still a ways to go to make the 28th Amendment a reality. Let’s keep our eye on the (real) prize and victory will be ours!

Yours for democracy,

Ashley Sanders, Ben Manski, Daniel Lee, David Cobb, Egberto Willies, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Laura Bonham, Leesa "George" Friday, Nancy Price, Stephen Justino

Move to Amend National Executive Committee

106 Comments

106 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"over the longer term"....

He really knows how to freakin real em in, doesnt he?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You're ability to assume that because we think thing could be much better it measn elect the other half of this disaster is so freakin dumb, and so repetatitive...

You write a bill, you create the press release, and you push it.

Just like we will never see a bill on marriage equality with this guy, we will never see this either. Or financial reform to end the supermarkets. Or a withdrawl of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Listen Obama campaigner, you are the one that top posted something to endorse him. Not me.

Just because I say its typical political bullshit, on your TOP POST ABOUT OBAMA, doesnt make anything partisan.

Please take your Obama/Status Quo bullshit to your nearest GA. Let them give you their feelings on it. Then come back here and report.

[Deleted]

[-] -2 points by PoliticalBabbleKillsOWS (-117) 1 year ago

Dude, you engage in name calling in almost everyone of your comments.

You are simply as always campaigning against Pres Obama.

I think all OWS protesters are. That's their job, to complain about and protest the powers at be. Everyone here should be disgusted with Obama, with Romney, with all politicians. To be an OWS supporter or protester is to be disgruntled at the whole system, not just at one of its parts, that's the job of moveon and friends.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

anti dem

partisan politics got mentioned

it's not important in solving healthcare , housing and stopping war \

.

a bad guy is not what need to defeat

we will go home

and pretended social inequities have been solve

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If that is what you want, stop shilling for the guy doing it. Duh.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't shill for anyone! Please stop harassing me!

[-] -2 points by PoliticalBabbleKillsOWS (-117) 1 year ago

He never went to a GA. He's busy posting on this site 24/7 from the offices of moveon.org.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

money is not speech. and I'll believe corps are people when Texas executes one.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

speech is not secrecy

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I think his position is ok. Not perfect. But better than repubs who attack these efforts. Better than the repub judges who found in favor of citizens united, better because he told those judges they were wrong during the State of the union.

We need to know what the many congresspeople think. (I'm gonna say dems mostly for, repubs mostly against)

I think in the end you are right. It is up to US. maybe through this movement to move this issue, to move the necessary congresspeople, the necessary state legislatures, and I suppose the Pres (who may not be involved in the amendment process).

Amendments ain't easy. But it is the best way.......

"the only way to be sure" It's the truth. Not tryin to be funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Amen ZD - The president is not perfect and at times is quite a disappointment - which is why the Movement to Amend being a state by state campaign is so awesome. This is how we will need to operate politically to make the changes we need to to get the government back to the people.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

he is a blockade

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The President? More like a facade at this point in time.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

he has real power

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

He has some real power - but for 1 he does not write legislation.

No his main power is in talking to the people and keeping them ( us ) informed as well as asking for our help and support as well as outing the individuals who are working against the people ( in Office and in business ) it is also his responsibility to kick the justice system in the ass and tell it to get to work.

No he gets no sympathy from me for not doing what he could be doing with no one's authorization but his own.

That being said - he is still the better choice over mittens at this point in time.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And both are a net loss for the entire country because apparently we are too fuckin stupid to govern ourselves...

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Replace pro citizens united conservatives w/ anti citizens united progressives.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ah - always the optimist - good night Eeyore.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think there is a link that goes with this Move to Amend announcement. Several I think that should either take you to the proposed amendment and a link to sign the petition but also other information links. I can show you how to attach those links if you would like.{:-])

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I definitely need to attach them. Let me try.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Here is How You Do It.

Say the comment above this line is the different color link.

1) put your pointer on the link and left click - this will bring-up a pop-up menu - Click on the "copy link location" option.

2) go to where you pasted the article - find that statement again "Here is How You Do It."

3) put a bracket ( [ ) at each end of the statement.

Example : [Here is How You Do It.]

4) now don't put in any spaces. At the last bracket in the statement put a parenthacie "(" then with your pointer left click your cursor and your pop-up menu will appear again - this time click paste - and the link you copied will be placed - now all you do is place the final parenthacie ")"

5) example : Here is How You Do It.. When you save the comment it will be complete and your line will now be a highlighted link.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thanks dude. I'll be forgettin that pretty quickly. LoL

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Copy it to your profile page or something. Once you have used it a few times it will lock-in. And if you are posting articles - you will do a lot of it if you want to include the article's links.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Another good idea. Your like a demon. You're on fire with helpful hints.

BAM!

thx

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - Demon? Yeah I suppose there are some who might see me that way.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. He's baaaaack! Ha ha ha!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - well I am gonna try to keep my distance - but I won't be able to if he keeps picking fights - OH Well - such is life.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm with you. i am not gonna engage unless he gets too annoying. And I will not hesitate to send an email to the abuse people if I find him to be harrassing me.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That is what they are there for.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wow. thanks. I think it will easy once I do it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - 1st time is the charm - it is easy - and the more U do the easier it gets.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Do you believe Obama was sincere or just using this as a campaign tactic to say something that sounds good but would never happen? As we all know, campaign promises are the biggest bag of lies the preidential candidates give us every 4 years.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is up to the people to pressure politicians to keep their promises. But I definitely believe he means it. Dems know they can't raise as much as repibs because the 1% pliutocrats know the repubs serve them best.

Please remember though a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the Pres. 2/3 of congress, & 2/3 of the states I believe must pass it.

So if you want it don't look to Pres Obama to get it done. It's up to you.!

Do you mean it?. Or are you lying.?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

?? Mean what? Not sure of your reference. IMO this is just another typical comment by a candidate to say something that sounds good, but has no intention of ever doing anything about it. As for any constitutional ammendment, it would certainly help if someone in a leadership position (such a a president), would take the lead. That is what real leaders do, they set a goal and then make everyone want get there. They change attitudes, and get everyone going in the same direction. We have a shortage of real leaders in high government offices. Real leaders always find a way. Think man on the moon as an example.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah man if only someone would say we need a constitutional amendment and then say I support it.

That would be great. And then if he could get his party behind it (like the dems are) we might get something done.

If only.

[-] -2 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

If you have 1 gallon of liquid, and you need 99% of that liquid, how can you complete your task if you insist on pouring 33% of that liquid down the drain?

Knowing what is required to complete this task and the ability to do so with no interruption from personal desire is the conundrum.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Eight!

[-] -2 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

εννέα

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thx

[-] -1 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

George Lucas

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Stronzo

[-] -1 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

Flush

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vaffanculo!

[-] -1 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

infedele

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Never

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Bingo. I look at actions, not words. No one here would form a SuperPAc and take money from oil companies and banks. He does. Case closed. Accept the bribes, and get owned.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We CAN easily publicly fund campaigns, especially if we cut the costs, with shorter campaigns, and tv/travel.mailing discounts.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I would like to see Insider Trading Criminalised for Congress added to that list.

You won't stop criminals gravitating towards politics while they can still make a million off insider trading in their first term.

Remember that the founding fathers received no payment for their services to their people.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Founding fathers huh? Wow maybe they didn't have this scam but they had better scams boss. But whatever that was a long time ago.

I agree with you of course that insider trading must be stopped.

So thats something.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Actually, they were captains of industry and commerce, were they not?

They made decisions that benefitted themselves, and the people, so it was a two-way street. These days, it's more of a narcissist's paradise, for mine.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They owned slaves, the land they owned was 1 or 2 generations removed from being stolen from the indians. I don't think they were the innocent pure "captains of indistry" we are led to believe.

But we don't have to argue about it. That was a longtime ago.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Cool. You're right.

It's kinda pointless.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Let's agree to agitate that corps at least disclose contributions.

https://secure.pfaw.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=193&autologin=true&amp

C'mon we can get together on that no?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (1621) 2 days ago

You mean the wealthiest colonial 1%'rs?

Please.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I support getting the big money out of politics as long as this places limits on all sources: unions, corporations, individuals, pacs, etc. But there should be an allowance for some amount as campaigns are expensive operations. We can not just fund everything on the backs of the tax payers. But a person can also use his/her own money unless that would also be limited (not sure how that could be legislated. This would be an issue as only the rich would be able to run and to fund their own campaign). I support total transparency so that all donations are identified. An amendment Is quite a reach. Besides, if we state that money is not speech in such an amendment, then it could be interpreted to place limits on other things, such as donations to charity, or other type of causes (i.e. animal rights) one might want to support. We must be very carefull whenever we place limits on something from a constitutional point of view. IMO the constitution is there to insure that legislative limits are not placed upon us unless one right infringes another's.
PS. All businesses are also deemed persons for accounting / legal entity, etc.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I will believe Corps are people when Texas executes one. They ain't people. If they are considered so as you suggest then that is wrong. They ain't.

All money should be eliminated, including the unions you mentioned. And definitely individual, and personal money.

Public financing is the only way. Campaigns are expensive. They will have to get cheaper. Shorten them 6mo. Debates everyweek, no commercials, discount transportation, volunteers, there are ways to cut back.

It can be done. Lets give it a try. We should be looking for ways to overcome the obstacles, not looking for reasons not to.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Not sure what Texas comment is for. I believe you may be misunderstanding the legal / financial anecdote for what I mentioned. That really needs to remain in place, there are good reasons for it. But it can be separated from what the issue is for money donations. Not sure how you make a campaign cheaper. Shortening campaigns would definitely be an infringement on speech, so that can not happen. You also would limit the chance for a new candidate to become familiar to the populace as compared to the incumbent who has the "bully pulpit". Debates every week would get tiring, boring, etc. Commercials during debates are not an issue, would give everyone a needed break. Volunteers are fine if you can get them. Transportation discounts are unfair to the companies that own the actual transit. Free TV time penalizes the networks. I am not trying to be obstructive here, but rather showing you some of the issues around this complicated problem. It is not a simple solution, but I believe it has to be done to straighten out the current mess we have.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gee you sure have lotsa good reasons why it can't be done. I think all the details can be worked out.

  • Business aren't people. That's all. (easy peezy boss)

  • Shortening campaigns is NOT an freedom of speech infringement. (That was easy). And it MUST happen.!

  • Incumbents have the advantage you mention now. Sucks but it is what it is. If we remove money we will remove a big incumbent advantage. But no one is running for an entire 6 year senate term so the incumbent already enjoys this advantage. We are just gonna shorten the time an incumbent can campaign.

  • Debates are tiring, boring? tough shit! no campaign ads! we'll see how quick they get excited about tv time in wkly debates. And none of these dual press conference crap! real debates! it will get real exciting real quick.

  • Trans/TV discounts hurt corps? Whaaaat? How about this? No discounts. FREE access for our public officials campaign/debates or these corps can't use public broadcast airwaves/travel flight paths. Whata you kiddin'?

So I can't solve all the problems people find. Thats details. We WILL resolve any problem that arises. We should should focus on solving problems not finding problems.

We know what is right.

"Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead"

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Again, i am not being an obstructionist! But pointing out some very important considerations. As I said, these are real issues that will need more discussion. You are glossing over some very important issues that need to be thought about. Your answer are as if you are the dictator. Does not work that way. We live a free society. Making rules up as you go does not work. You need to listen better. Let's talk about the campaign length. Can you understand my point that you would unfairly limit the exposure of a new candidate versus an established incumbent by having a short campaign duration? Money has nothing to do with it. you would limit his right to discuss his campaign early? That would be quite totalitarian of you. As for use of airwaves and transit. That is theft of service. Why do you insist on punishing businesses? Do you really belive that putting nothing but debates on the TV will force people to watch them ? Please try to think and discuss rather than just write a response.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have thought very deeply about this issue, and discussed at length with many.

We can do best by sticking to the substance rathert than discussing our styles.

I believe the details can be worked out by others. But the details you rightly brought I mentioned. If I dismissed them too quickly perhaps is simply that I don't agree and what is the point in argueing about a detail that will be worked out later. So..

  • It's ok for candidates to start campaigning now a year before their election, even though the incumbent has been in office before that start! So 6 months ain't much different. I think the issue of incumbent advantage already exists so It doesn't seem like a real issue. Sorry. Short campaigns are better for the people. Once a good challenger gets in and has a few good debate showings the incumbent advantage should dissipate. Money has a lot to do with incumbent advantage, this post is about money. Are we gonna disagree on the importance of eliminating money also?

  • Totalitarian? Wow. Like if we started telling people that can't mention their opinion on political parties?

  • Theft of service? How can the people steal what we own? The airwaves, and roads, and flight paths belong to the people. Any business that uses these assets will agree to allow the people representatives and their challengers use of their businesses when they seek out the permits the the people control. No theft, or punishment Just everyone working together to keep the cost down and the taxpayer burden low.

  • real debates can be very exciting! I don't support not having them because they MIGHT be boring. LOL. Certainly frequent debates are better than the constant dishonest slick (expensive) ads we are subjected to. It's better.

There well ythought out. But not necessary. Others can work out the details.

Peace

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Debates may be exciting if the people that partake in them are good debaters and the subject matter is intereesting to the viewers.. I am all for good debates, but debates are not the end all. A person might not be a good debater, but a terrific leader. We need some time to find that out. A question for you: candidate A is a terrible debater and nervous in front of a tv camera, but yet in a town meeting, candidate A is great. Seems like a real leader. Candidate B is a great debater, but shows no leadership qualities. Who would you choose? I believe we both would pick candidate A, but to find that out we would need to be at a town meeting or other event.
Yes, the public owns the roads, etc. but not the bus or plane. You are forcing them to turn over use of the asset. That is theft of service. If a particular company provides that service for free, would then it not be like a donation. We are talking about some major expenses when looking at a national campaign. I am all for reducing the costs of election, but one can not just state "others can work out the details" . We should look at the details to make sure an idea is workable. Discussion of these details will make the idea stronger if the details support the solution.
Money has nothing to do about incumbent advantage. The incumbent can issue update letters, hold town meetings, appear on talk shows, etc. He is not "campaigning" , but keeping his constituents informed (in their view). This keeps him/her in the public eye, a rather big advantage. That is all paid for by his own office budget, not donations or campaign money.
We all agree that the voters need to be better informed, but that is not going to be a given. So a lot of people that go into the voting booth recognize a name and punch the card, etc.
Please understand that my engineering mind always challenges an idea, I look to see can it work, etc. so i dig into details. I want ideas to work, no one wants failure, but as you know not all ideas work out. I have nothing against the proposer. In my career, most of my ideas end up in the can, but the ones that went through are more than worth the failure rate.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Use of corp assets is not a meaningful donation if they must provide the same thing to all candidates.

Debates/townhalls. Whatever. All forms! As long as they are real interactions and not the current dual press conference farce. If one candidate is not as good, they lose! Thats how it should be. No?

Money IS a big incumbent advantage!. That is the point of removing it (1st priority remember?). Currently incumbents enjoy the advantage you keep mentioning (informing electorate while a challenger is not running). We can address it, and ought to whether we shorten the campaign season or not. Period. Shortening the campaign season does not create the problem in your objection.

Ok?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

You missed the point on incumbents. They are not spending campaign money, they are spending their normal operating budget which is tax payer money, not donations. As far as donations, incumbents have an advatage over the challenger as they might be the "safe bet" so they receive more. You say we can "address it", do you have an idea on how we do it?

In my candidate question, Which candidate would you choose? A or B as asked? Assuming there are ot much political differences, Do you prefer a good talker but not a good leader or the other way around? Is not the point to elect the best and most qualified person for the job, or do we elect the prettiest guy / girl who can talk well?

Here is another question for you: suppose you own a bus company, and you have 4 buses. By mandate, you are now required to give up the use of one bus for two months so a local candidate can campaign in your state. You will loose 1/4 of your income but still have 100% of your expenses. would you accept that? For your small company, that might be devastating, might cause you to go out of business. Would you agree to give up your bus anyway, possibly lay off employees, and possibly go out of business? What would you do?

Here is another question: what about primaries? Would the same rules you propose apply?

I ask these questions because they have everything to do with details. We are in agreement about money out of politics, but how can we do it without unintended consequences and still elect the best people to the offices they are seeking.?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Buses should be "leased/rented" from corps that provide that service. It could be a discount, and it could include an agreement to allow the corp to advertise their generosity. They could calculate the difference of income/expense and deduct a portion. No one will go bankrupt.

I didn't miss anything on the money, incumbents have an advantage and this proposal addresses that!

The advantage of incumbency in meeting constituents outside of campaigning exists now. This proposal does not CREATE that problem/advantage, I do not see why I have to solve it.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

First you state that it must be free, now it's rented. So which is it? I wish you would answer the questions posed. Why do you not wish to discuss details of your proposals? I have given you some simple challenges to the issues we have to solve, so we can better discuss them. It takes critical thinking and discussion to solve problems, and this includes "finding problems" . I am not asking you to solve everything, but trying to get you to understand that when you propose something, good discussion should follow. You find compromise and good solutions that way. I proposed the bus question to show you the impact and unintended consequence when you state that "we own the air, roads, etc.". Not everyone is a "corps". But it seems that you attack corporations as evil beings and that we should just force them to do what we want. Again, if you owned the bus company, what would you do?

As for the advantage of the incumbent, that is the very reason why you can't limit the campaign time of the challenger. That actually helps even the playing field a little and yet you want to remove it. The answer you gave actually supports reasons for no limits of time for campaigns as limits would favor the incumbent even more. Especially in a national campaign.

So here is another question: let's say the limit for campaign time is 6 months. A year before the election, can you or I be allowed to post on a blog, or Internet forum "vote for candidate A"? Can we advertise in the newspaper "vote for candidate A"? Would not that be a violation of the rules you are proposing? Would you agree that would infringe upon our free speech? Is this type of advertising not the same as what PACs do now? Can you understand the complexity of what you are proposing and how difficult it might be to actually write legistlation that will work or satisfy the constitutional requirements for such a law? we all desire improvement of election process, but we really need to be careful how we do it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh well. I guess we can't do it! you're right. Gotta keep the 1% plutocrats in control. You win!

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

VQ. I am not here to win. Its not about winning or losing or taking sides. It's about finding a way! I would be disappointed if you do not challenge me when I try to make a point. We may disagree now and then, but one should never stop talking. If we stop, then the process stops. Talk, discuss, disagree, whatever but find the middle ground, find the solutions that will get us out of this mess.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh great idea! I support that. You are so smart.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok. thanks for the pep talk. maybe on the next issue. On this one (money out of politics) you have convinced me it can't be done and we'll just have to leave the 1% plutocrats in control.

Oh well. Shit happens. Whatta ya gonna do?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

While difficult to eliminate all money, I believe it can be limited or at least made transparent and will continue to look for ways to do it and yet not infringe anyone either. Keep proposing!

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

Very well said!

[-] -2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I know this going to be a weird comment on yours but lobbying as giving money to a politician is protected under the "right to petition" in the first Amendment.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gotta be changed. Are you saying you support lobbyists giving money to politicians. lobbyists should not be allowed to give money or gifts. thats is a no brainer. Right?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no i was simply stating facts

its a touchy subject because sometimes money makes sure that issues that are brought up to the politician is know by him/her

but this comes a catch because if i was rich i could make my issue more important than others

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are illustrating the obvious reason why it must be stopped.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

stopped no fixed so it is transparent yes, we could make it so that they simply close the doors and still take the money make this nation much more corrupt than what it is. Like i said this is a touchy issue that must be dealt with as if it was burning metal

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah we don't want the money given secretly either. Good catch!

Of course whatever law is passed someone (probably a repub) will break it so I'm not suggesting we'll pass something and be done.

We will always have to watch these people very closely.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

VQ. Is it possible in a discussion to leave party politics out of it? We already know both sides do this. Let's stay on topic about money donations and elections.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please do not ask me to curtail my free speech. I believe repub/conservative policies have created all our problems. Is that a surprise to you? I don't think so.

Perhaps we disagree. 'sok. different opinions are good. I promise I won't tell you not to say you support republicans. In fact I will not tell anyone what they can or cannot say. Because that right is sacred to me.

Sacred. So if we discuss politics then the parties are gonna come up. Pretending they aren't involved by forbidding any mention is not realistic I'm sorry.

I hope you can handle free speech. Has anyone told you there is something your not allowed to discuss here?

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I was trying to get you to stay on topic. Bringing up political parties has nothing to do with this conversation. I am not trying to limit your free speech, but giving some advice on debating and discussing a topic. When you bring up non topic points, it just starts flaming everyone and the main points get lost. I believe you can understand that. If we had the same opinion, there would not be much to talk about. For me, I rather speak to polar opposites. Best way to learn something and exchange ideas. Who says I support republicans. I never said that, so you can not assume that. Just because I discuss a point which may be different from yours does not make me opposite of you. I support best candidate for the particular position.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I didn't say you supported anyone. I only said I would not tell not to say you support repubs. I will not tell you you can't say you think the parties are the same. I am not gonna TELL you what you can or cannot speak. I am may ASK you not to be disrespectful! but that's it.

My comment was about money in politics, which goes to the parties. it's what keeps the duopoly in control. Further my comments were about how the move to amend process might proceed and succeed. This is directly related to the parties and their positions.

I also mentioned parties when discussing the continued corruption that might occur even after passage. I mentioned one party, of course they're all prone. And I did say we have to watch all these people.

You're opinion on these important issues is welcomed and valuable. I am not seeking advice on how to speak or debate. For the important thing is to be respectful. That is what I'm going for. I won't pretend the parties are not in control, and therefore important elements to all issues that affect the 99%.

I hope this allows you to continue contributing, and offering your valuable opinion on the issues that matter. That is much more preferable than discussing how people debate, or whether they should utter the party opinion they hold.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Political donations need to be limited to a set amount per individual, and must be declared on a public website for anyone to view.

That is the law in other western nations, though it is possible that under the table deals happen, when they are exposed, there are recriminations.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Yes, that is what true transparency would do. And limits on the amounts, which we have for candidates, but not for pacs.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Yes, apart from Citizens United, which amounts to a play on words, the superPACS are akin to buying yourself legislation.

No wonder the economy is in such a mess.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the rich can determine what jobs we work for such is the wealth inequity

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

perhaps

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

if we need money and they have it

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

How is that Matt. specifically, What do the rich do to keep a person from pursuing a particular profession?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

hold the money for other jobs

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Not sure of the reply. Hold what money? What other jobs? Jobs are based on resource need of a company, if one matches the resource need, then opportunity is there. If there is no match, that is not fault of company, but rather the individual who does not match due to wrong skill set, experience, etc. Please reply with more detail to better understand.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

right, my fault

sorry

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

One can petition/lobbby government without giving money.

Do you consider bribery to be protected by the first amendment as well?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no i dont support bribary or insider trading but i know that politicians support both of them.

I do support the bill of the rights as i think it is one of the best documents ever written

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I value the Bill of Rights as well, but I'm not convinced that donating money is a form of speech. Sorry for the flippant tone of my question. I genuinely struggle with some of these questions. What would you say is the difference between huge donations and bribery? It looks to me like huge donations are just bribery done with a wink and a nod.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

to a degree they are bribery

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Bribery might be a strong word, but there certainly can be "expectation" based on the amount. Not trying to parse words either. But it is a struggle. The problem is that we are only looking at money. It can be other things as well. People could supply workers, time, an airplane for use, etc. We seen examples of governement workers being used on a politicians campaign. We need to define what are political donations and what is free speech. Then we need to see if there are ways to place constitutional limitations on them. A clear problem would be this:

suppose I like candidate A rather than B. so I want to support A. I put up my money to buy a billboard on a major highway that says "Vote for candidate A". Is that a donation to candidate A? Is that free speech for me? Have I limited someone else's right? Could someone limit my billboard with legislation that would be constitutional?
Suppose it is a small sign on my front lawn. Does that change the issue?

These are but some of the issues that we will need to deal with and they are not simple. We have one of the greatest documents ever written. We must learn to interpret it correctly and fairly for all. We need to get this right so years from now they will know exactly what we meant.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Citizens united is a red herring to make people forget about the lobbyist. There have always been political ads. More of them is hardly extraordinary. I haven't forgotten and this winter, we will be reminding everyone who did forget.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh boy. can't wait. this winter you're gonna be on fire!

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

and how does that relate to what i said

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

oh, hey Danny, didn't see you there. How the hell are ya.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

fine still confused

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Thought Republicans were against running up the national debt. It's been happening right under your nose and you say nothing? Going to happen again in less than 2 weeks. Curious.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-street-welfare-qe3-where-you-at-gop/

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

hey i dont remember you and im not a republican and saw no such post