Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Overturn Citizens United & Corporate Personhood

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 20, 2013, 9:22 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Bill HJR 29 Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) Feb 11, 2013


Section 1. Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. Money is Not Free Speech
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


This responds to hundreds of local & state resolutions and Move To Amend for a “We the People” Amendment - The movement for constitutional reforms that would end “corporate rule”.
The Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that:
Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities;
and
that Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

Government belongs to the people & must not be for sale to the corporations and the wealthy and the 1% special interests. The Move To Amend coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment. This bill is specifically different from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United because it also specifically addresses corporate personhhod. In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have voted to end “CP”.
The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom.
We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely with this amendment.


If you want to understand
Citizens United &
Corporate Personhood &
the Amendment Process
Please visit our OWS Amendment site:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
70+ videos & 40+ documents on this issue
from Sanders, Chomsky, Maher, Hedges, Lessig,
Warren, Grayson, Hartmann, Hightower, etc


►►Support this bill◄◄
Write & email your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

106 Comments

106 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

call the author of this bill Rep. Rick Nolan to express your support
202 225 6211

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"Citizens United" - a simplified term that many people use to encapsulate the SCOTUS decision on the case brought to the court by the
ORGANIZATION NAMED CITIZENS UNITED

The organization is as far right wing as tp, koch, alec -
and anything they say must be understood in that context.


Nevertheless, they ( and others ) lambaste Obama for playing the political/money game according to the rules.
Obama & we call for an end to CU & CP - and to change the inherent corruption in the control of democracy by crapitalism.


If you were a professional world class tennis player who hated the idea of modern composite rackets, would you use a traditional wood racket ?

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

I think the modern rackets give you an advantage.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the modern rackets are on wall street

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

yes. I was joking.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26333) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Overturn Citizens United & Corporate Personhood

Agree - a necessary step in regaining government for the people and stopping the wholesale destruction of the world.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Sort of afraid that Funds for education paid by the federal government are getting funneled off to a corporation or to indoctrinate our kids. I'm looking at 2 Treasury Statements a Daily (see 1st page) and a Monthly Treasury Statement (see page 9)

https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=12092800.pdf

https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf

Hey maybe you could check with your congressman's staff for explaination of the Difference Between Withdrawls on the Daily Treasury Statement for Education Department Programs $226 Billion for the Year 2012... and the Monthly Treasury Statement for 2012 which shows Total Education department Outlays of $57 Billion on page 9.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf

The Question is about if trust Funds, Personnel benefits, or tuition Loan programs are rolling up to the Daily Withdrawls... but are not considered part of Department of Education in the Treasury Monthly Statement. Like outside programs confuse the issue...

The thing is the federal Department of Education should not really have a lot of employees. The Department of Defense & State Department would have some Teachers, administrators, and payroll deductions, health benefit deductions, pension deductions, ... The only other thing that is as expensive as employees ... is Tuition.

But if we have Increased Federal Budget Lines in the Department of defense because we have family dependents overseas, and Increased Teacher Payrolls, increased teacher benefit deductions ... this is kind of a hidden cost of Defense in some ways.

Perhaps as an outside chance, DOD Tuition Programs could apply to Veterans & Soliders within DOD Budget Lines for the Monthly treasury Report ... while showing up as Education Department Program Daily Withdrawls.

I hate to think that there is a Financial Scheme for Paying educators to teach school in the USA when we all think they are State Funded - State Controlled Teachers....

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

privitization is the final effort of the 1 %
post office, schools, army, prison
PROFITS
Would any pol vote for any of this garbage if they knew thay wew NOT getting 1% mone because the HJR29 process was complete

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I found part of the reason for the US Treasury Data on Daily Statements cumulative program adding up to $226 Billion:

1) Free Tuition for Military:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/03/air-force-tuition-assistance-030813w/

http://www.stripes.com/news/army-suspends-tuition-assistance-program-for-troops-1.210999

2) Probably Military Academys, DOD Universities & Colleges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_schools_and_academies (holy crap check these lists)

The Military has many on site univesities or Colleges for Military & MIlitary Families, Civilians or whatever.

3) US Government Agencies have their own Univesities

a) USDA has Universities
b) DOD has Acquisition Universities

4) Tuition Assistance in the Military for Veterans

Veterans of War can transfer education benefits to children or use the free benefits themselves

5) Military & State department Schools for Dependents pays salaries and Benefits, Builds & Maintains School buildings, and if college is involved the Federal Government probably pays a subsidy for college Salaries and provides Class Rooms overseas in a US Federal Building .....

So Looks like Federal Employees & Veterans & Military People have more Educational Benefits than all of the Federal Money Budgeted for the Department of Education by far. $226 Billion is like 3 times the amount accepted as our Education Budget.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

Meanwhile David Axelrod wants to lift all campaign contribution limits. It amazes me that you come on here and cheerlead a party that does not hold the same values as you purport to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/david-axelrod-campaign-contributions_n_2725613.html

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you UNDERSTAND what DA is saying, he wants unlimitted money to go from people to the candidates - not from people to superpacs ( to hide the money ) to the candidate.
I cannot read DAs mind on this, but this is an option that can be passed with legislation - which is easier than what is needed = HJR29
In MY opinion, this would not really change anything, and I am against this Democrat's suggestion

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I cheerlead what people do & what people in a party do
For example, I dont like Reid (D) NOT getting rid of the filibuster
why do you bother criticizing me?
I am entitled to my opinions. Why not tell us why you dont like HJR29

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

I bother criticizing you because as far as I can tell you have no principles or ideology. You'll blindly support anything your team or your president does. I see you and your ilk or those who claim to be on the left or "liberal" but aren't really different from republicans outside of a few cultural issues. People like you that have no principles and have offered total devotion to the democrats no matter how far to the right they slide. People like you are exactly what's wrong with the so called left in this country.

As far as the bill above have no objection to it.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

In the last year, how many hours have you devoted to OWS & OWS meetings & OWS goals?
[ not including insults & posting here ]
In the last 17 months, I have attended hundreds of OWS meetings.
How many Democratic party meetings have I attended in the last 30 years - none.


I know you won't believe me - which really is a burden to me

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I'll believe you bensdad: "How many Democratic party meetings have I attended in the last 30 years - none."

Thus you've never sat in on state-level D and R horse-trading sessions well before the primaries. Nor vetted Congressional candidates for the state party. Nor are you acquainted, personally, with state and national moneymen. Which means you don't know much about what's really going on politically -- and it's painfully obvious.

All candidates from both parties must win their respective "wealth primaries" first. Consider it the party's way of granting their wealthy patrons a "right of first refusal" over candidates considered prejudicial to their interests. If the parties did not do this, they would have no wealthy patrons: rich folks expect "value" for their contributions to both party and candidates. Candidates are considered an investment and, as such, when push comes to shove, their investment is expected to pay off.

Please, don't take my word for it. Get a job with the current DNC Treasurer and work the next election cycle on the Ds behalf. Who knows, perhaps you can improve the quality of D candidates...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The "job" is getting money out of politics.
This is one of the primary goals of OWS. The "job" is getting money out of politics. HJR29 is the first step


OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED & CORPORATE PERSONHOOD


Bill HJR 29 Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) Feb 11, 2013


Section 1. Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. Money is Not Free Speech
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


This responds to hundreds of local & state resolutions and Move To Amend for a “We the People” Amendment - The movement for constitutional reforms that would end “corporate rule”.
The Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that:
Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities;
and
that Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

Government belongs to the people & must not be for sale to the corporations and the wealthy and the 1% special interests. The Move To Amend coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment. This bill is specifically different from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United because it also specifically addresses corporate personhhod. In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have voted to end “CP”.
The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom.
We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely with this amendment.


If you want to understand
Citizens United &
Corporate Personhood &
the Amendment Process
Please visit our OWS Amendment site:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
70+ videos & 40+ documents on this issue
from Sanders, Chomsky, Maher, Hedges, Lessig,
Warren, Grayson, Hartmann, Hightower, etc


►►Support this bill◄◄
Write & email your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

And of course the conservative Roberst Scotus will be deciding CU II.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11989/citizens-united-20-supreme-court-could-further-open-door-money-politics

I'm sure you know already.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

While I dont look forward to this decision, billions of bribes went thru superpacs in the last election and I think this will not have a major effect.
Most people who want & can contribute $100,000+ into an election cycle, did via a superpac. They would probably just take their superpac contribution and give it directly. But, I believe the superpac still gives them more privacy.

The system is so corrupt, OUR solution must be HJR29 to void the equation:
capitalism + democracy = crapitalism

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Ooooo. nice play on words. And in fact you are correct in your assessment of the current/future threat.

End Crapitalism!!

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

The "job" is regaining popular and Constitutional control of government.

Getting the money out political campaigns is simply one step and will be much harder than you apparently know. Your reliance on one tactic, an amendment proposed by Congress itself, is too easily sidestepped and / or defeated.

I am not telling you that you are "wrong", nor that you effort is wasted; simply put, we'll need other avenues and tactics.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I see DHS is getting about 32 Subsidies through the Federal Catalog of Domestic Assistance. I wonder if this is corporate welfare.

https://www.cfda.gov/downloads/CFDA_2012.pdf (see appendix I page 2683 for complete list)

I'm looking at Corporate welfare today, but haven't found great sources yet... it takes different forms of course.

Page 2678 has Subsidies for HUD, Housing and Urban Developement listed. HUD has a history of Fraud in may cities. They didn't really see all the extra budget funding as much of the government did since 1998. Now HUD is very important if people are out of homes across the nation. I wonder how well HUD is preforming these days.... Hope corporations aren't getting the HUD Grant money just to create more mortgage derivatives for banks....

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

To NVPHIL: no reply button again......:

So does the fact that our govt has pissed off other people, justify the use of violence?

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

No. that is why I said defensive army that stays home. If someone let's their anger make them attack us we need to be able to defend ourselves. Plus we would be a target with no military to respond to attacks. That doesn't mean I don't believe we need to drastically reduce military spending.

BTW if it helps I usually reply to the previous comment in the chain if I can't reply.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Nothing justifies violence......

Thanks for the help.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Your welcome. Even though we don't agree on this subject we are still on the same side.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I dont know if we are on the 'same' side or not; but we can still recognize the fact that the other has the inherent right to have an opinion independent of the other. :D

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It would require an amendment to the constitution to change 'corporate personhood'. Since both major parties currently are against any amendments defining personhood. An end or overturning of Citizens United is very unlikely.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Last year there were many amendments proposed in congress.
With the Rs blocking everything, even the NEW HJR 29 will be an up hill battle -
but MILLIONS of Americans support this move.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The dems blocked several atempts for a 'personhood' amendment. Which would define who and or what is and is not a 'person.

I dont see this changing the way our government is set up at the moment.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Which democrat blocked a corporate personhood amendment ? . Did you read section 1 of this OP?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

they blocked the republican's 'personhood' amendments. Any amendment defining 'personhood' would need both parties support, the president's support and 3/4ths of the state legislature's support. I just dont see that as likely.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

giving a fetus the same property rights as a human being is not this issue here.
sorry if you are confused.
did you find a SINGLE democrat who blocked one of last year's dozen amendments ( similar to the one above ) that were in the House or Senate last year?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

No, defining what is and is not a 'person' is the issue. Dont you see that?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I see what is printed in the OP section 1 - do you? Maybe you are having trouble scrolling up to it. I'll help you:


Section 1. Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.


see - no fetuses

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Aint going to pass. Whether I agree with the proposal or not, it isnt likely to pass anytime soon.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

campaign finance/SCOTUS news.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/will-supreme-court-end-federal-limits-on-campaign-donations.html

Nothing good can come of this right wing court deciding fed campaign finance limits.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

We need more of us to focus on financial reform before the economy crashes again. And with the futures market the next crash will take down the global economy. The first step is to get honest reps who won't ignore the problem.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Election is 20 months away. Can we force this lot of corrupt pols to do something in regards to fin reform?

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Only if we can have them fear being kicked out of office if they don't. Which means we need to work with conservatives to pressure reps while we pressure dems. We also need to admit the dems arecorrupt and launch a full scale attack from the left.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Right. Dems corrupt (already said "corrupt pols" above), & we must work with conservatives.

Good plan.

How do we start?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

RRP & NV - I beg to differ.
Obama has spent four years trying to work with the Rs to save our country. Racisim or money or lemmings, it has not worked.
Just look at the polls that have 40%-60% of Rs who believe the lies that Obama is a Muslim or Kenyan.
Large percentage of them want to ban abortions & sell more guns.
I see our best path is NOT to persue the people who oppose us just because they are told to.
I see our best path is NOT to persue the people who oppose choice or gun control.


How many times have you thrown something at the TV when MSM says "both" parties won't co-operate?
YOU KNOW BETTER
but too many Americans don't
This election showed that despite the rove / koch / fox /tp lies -
America is a center left country.
Our most productive path is to push the center left further to the left
We need to persue those in the middle to see the truth.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I agree with you 100%. My response to NV was sarcastic. Since he didn;t respond I guess he didn't believe me. LOL

I'm with ya boss

RepubsRtheproblem.

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Thanks for letting me know you don't take the issues seriously. Now I can ignore you without worrying about a losing your support since you support keeping us divided so corps can do what they want.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I do not support keeping us divided. That is you blatantly lying, and creating a straw man (fake argument) to dishonestly attach to me so you can knock it down.

I KNOW the greatest enemy of the 99% is the RW, tea party, neocon, libe(R)tarian, greedy, selfish, "you're on your own", fucks who are the puppets of the 1% oligarchs.

So as long as you can agree with that truth, no division is necessary. But if support that ideology how do you suppose we can "get together".

Moron!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Not a strawman at all. It is a valid hypothesis based upon the evidence of your divisive comments.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

My comments are always in support of the 99% and solutions for the problems that face the 99%.

And all those comments/issues shouldappeal to the 99%.

Just because you dishonestly say "you're divisive" don't make it so.

If you've seen my divisive comments you would site them. But you haven't 'cause there ain't none. just you lying.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

What I'm saying is some conservatives already agree that our politicians are bought out and we need to quit pushing them away with attacks. We all agree the 1% divide the country to maintain control. All the divisive posts do is help them and make our job harder.

[-] 1 points by Imjustsayin (87) 1 year ago

I think we should seek support from any conservative (person) who agrees we should cut taxes on the 99%, raise taxes on the 1%, cut the defense budget, invest in job creation, break up the banks, support unions

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I dont disagree with that, but Ike and Abraham and Teddy are dead.
Most of the Rs who were not in the teapottys' pocket were primaried out.
Seriously - I'll take a vote anywhere I can get it.
but I think a better resource is the millions of moderate-conservative veterans who have been screwed

[-] 1 points by Imjustsayin (87) 1 year ago

Whatever label they attach to themselves, anyone who supports the right solutions I'm good with.

Of course todays republican is usually a tea party conservative extremist who in fact believes the opposite of what i do and what OWS stands for. So it is unlikely we could work together, unless they change.

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Thanks for the reply. Even if we don't agree on everything that shouldn't stop us working towards what we do agree on.

[-] 1 points by Imjustsayin (87) 1 year ago

Do you disagree with my list.? i have other items on my list.

Do you have a list?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I agree with your list but not all conservatives for financial reform will agree with everything progressives believe in. We usedto be able to work together on single issues without having to pass some ideological purity test.

My list includes campaign finance, repealing the many laws that violate civil liberties, R&D investment, upgrading our infrastructure, and serious investment in developing our space infrastructure. I'm believe technology can fix or atthe least mitigate some of the most pressing issues of our economy. That's why SS reform for a problem 20 years in the future upset. Not one person knows what it will be like 20 years from now.

One example of a technolgy that can make a huge impact once we work out the issues is the 3D printer. I saw something on it years ago and was reminded of it today. The video I saw today showed them scanning a wrench, hit print, and it produced a duplicate of the wrench.

[-] 1 points by Imjustsayin (87) 1 year ago

3d printing is amazing. Will revolutionize manufacturing as it improves.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I know. If we can avoid going further down the slippery slope of the police state the possibilities are endless.

[-] 1 points by Imjustsayin (87) 1 year ago

Ending the police state s a critical high priority.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Once we have control of our gov't then the police won't be a problem. They will go back to being our protecters and servants. Most of the main issues today are a result of corp america hijacking our gov't.

[-] 1 points by lights (-38) 1 year ago

Some researchers are working on printing ears, kidneys, etc... with bio scanners and printers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RMx31GnNXY

There's the Wiki Weapon project where plans to build a working plastic gun for currently available 1500$ 3D home printers is being developed.

http://defensedistributed.com/

What about printing your own drugs? Perhaps a meal? You can already print a house.

Someone already used a 3D printer to clone King Tut's mummy.

What about this Japanese company that will print a model of your unborn baby:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/08/this-crazy-japanese-company-will-3d-print-a-model-of-your-unborn-baby/

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

When StarTrek is no longer fiction, we'll escape the money-based system. Cash will no longer be the primary motivator. We'll be free from corporate capitalism and human suffering will be reduced to practically nothing.

Looking forward to it. Dreaming like the Venus Project envisions the future.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Right now I'm telling everyone I can about the dangers of another crash. Also get a list of every pol coming up for reelection, then we need to get their constituants to go to their town meetings and deliver an ultimatum to pass serious financial reform or get kicked out of office. Any that don't listen we then find challengers to go against them in the primaries. Any who still get the nomination we then refuse to vote for them. We also need to get campaign finance reform so the pols can't just buy the election. I'm sure there are things we can do outside the political arena. Take your money out of the stock market and banks. There is more but that is what I've come up with so far.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I had a long talk with a congressman's legislative director today - on reform and HJR29. I'm doing more reseach and will post soon.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Campaign finance reform is definitely required. movetoamend.org, is my preferred path. SCOTUS looking at another campaign finance case. Likely those wackos are gonna lift the Fed limit. Then we're toast.

What kind of financial reform are you supporting.?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I support Wolfpac and have been checking out MTA and am highly impressed with how much they have accomplished. I also support art 5 if we can't pass it in congress.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

How do you feel about the newly re-named obama organization,?....Organizing for America is now called Organizing for Action ( 501c4) . They push the dem ( obama ) agenda and ask for contributions. Now the obama has ben re-elected,where is all the money going?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I support all organization ofthe people to affect change oftheir govt.

I do not support corps are people/money = speech/unlimited money/lobbying of our pols.

I support repealing cu, ending lobbying, ending secret superpacs etc.

But I certainly support people organizing for the change that benefits the 99%.

What issues are organizing for America supporting?

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

They are an arm of the obama administration/agenda. They say so in all their e-mails, which i get. The post election new name is Organizing for Action.

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

I know.

What issues/positions do they support? have they taken a stand on overturning Citizens United? (thread topic remember?)

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

FWIW, I think we're a day late and a dollar short already. The sequester is here, now, a mere few days away.

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

From what I know the sequester is better then anything we can expect to pass. It cuts social and defense budgets. If they tried passing something I can guarantee it will come from social and not defense.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am very "torn" on this issue. But, as you say, military cant be cut any other way.

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

And that is one of the big problems with how we contract the development of weapon systems. The corps are never satisfied and divert money from the budget just to fill there pockets. We should have it where a company can only get contracts worth a certain amount before the gov't needs to find another supplier.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

not a bad idea - but I'd rather give the military a veto on this spending & eliminate cost plus contracts and contracts that "grow"
Imagine you hire a guy to paint your house for $1000
and gives you a bill for $1500

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

That's a good idea. Didn't congress just approve 30 new tanks even though the military said they don't need them?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

They keep approving things the military does not want because their district voters work in the factories.
To cry - or to laugh - watch the movie Pentagon Wars - a true story

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Does the military need any tanks, let alone 30 more?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I don't know their survivabilty against new weapons so I can't answer that. But if the military says they don't need the new tanks how about we, and this may sound crazy, not buy the tanks.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Should there be a military at all? I dont think so........

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I must disagree, especially considering how our gov't is trying to make the world hate us. What we need is a defensive military that stays home and does the occasional excersize with our allies.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

True enough, as far as it goes. But the real problem is cutting spending at all (though I dearly do want to cut the war budget) during a deep recession. The corps know it, especially the retailers, considering all the store closures they've announced.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I agree we will be hurt by spending cuts and if there was any chance washington would defend the social net I would be more upset by the sequester. As it is with the talk about "reforming" medicare and SS I would rather go with the sequester then let them decide to cut from other places.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I understand your position and it's a rational one given our current state of political affairs. So this is what we've been reduced to... a defeatist attitude. (I hold a similar opinion myself, no insult intended).

Have you considered a post on Nevada's "None of the Above" ballot choice. It's not well-known (hell, it's not known at all) outside Nevada and is an interesting expansion of the democratic franchise.

Perhaps it might help with "...hav[ing] them fear being kicked out of office..."

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

No insult taken. The problem with our none of the above option is even if none gets a majority vote the politician who comes in next wins. I know some countries with the option force a new election with different candidates. Let me look into it more and I will get back to you.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

1.5 Trillion over 10 years. Thats about 100 billion a year, or around 3% of the annual budget.

They are going to scream panic on this one too, and we will get screwed as usual.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

When do we not get screwed by politics?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Not likely. And certainly not the way you approach the problem.

Let's start with your screen name: repubsRtheprob.

Have you ever sat in on a D and R horse-trading session before an election? How about vetting candidates for the party? Do you know the moneymen, personally? If not, you ought sit down and shut the f**k up, because you don't know a damn thing about what's really going on politically -- and it's painfully obvious.

I can't decide if you're simply deluded, a fool is always useful in some small way, or a paid D shill. If, as others here think, you post under multiple identities, I'd bet on paid shill.

All you're here to do is: 1) sow misinformation so as to cause the maximum discord possible; 2) prevent unity and agreement on key issues; 3) attempt to spin D positions into an Occupy contortion; 4) attempt to get posters to support Ds by invoking the lesser-of-two-evils fear based narrative; and 5) try to convince posters that the only alternative they have is to vote D.

Which is it, are you a fool or paid operative?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I am neither. And I am not guilty of any of the scurrilous lies you just spewed.

Perhaps you should refrain from the dishonest personal attacks and stick to the thread topic.

This one is about overturning Citizens united. I support the movetoamend.org effort. You support the ALEC inspired Art5, right?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You support the political status quo. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Run along now and use your multiple aliases to stinkle me, since you cannot answer any of the above questions affirmatively. Hide, like a coward, behind your anonymity -- my name is on every post.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You don't speak for me. I support change that benefits the 99%. If a new system emerges I will be right there in support. Until then I support pressuring all pols for that change.

Like overturning citizens untited. Which is what this thread is about.

I am not the thread topic!!!!. You must resort to dishonest, ignorant personal attacks because your position is vacant, and not in support of the 99%.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No, I do not speak for you. You managed to screw that up all by yourself.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Citizens united!!!!!

It was right wing judges who found it constitutional, and it is progressives pushing to overturn it.

Forget me, THAT is the thread topic.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I am trying to forget you, repubs. Believe me I am trying. But something about anonymous posters spreading D bullsh*t just sticks in my craw. You're almost as bad as some of the D politicians I know, except you're not elected. But to be honest, you've got what it takes, if you're photogenic too. Go for it. You'll fit right in. Stupidity won't disqualify you -- the party often considers it a plus.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Citizens United!!!!!!

Forget me! My independent, progressive politics in support of the 99% is the only problem you have with me.

Stick with the thread topic, try honesty, it is the most rewarding path.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You wouldn't recognize political independence if it hit you upside the head.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Violence now?

Stick with the thread topic, try honesty. Refrain from personal attacks/threats. It is it's own reward

Successful Bullying requires the threat of physical violence. Doesn't work on an internet forum. Do you realize that?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Every time I think things couldn't get more Orwellian, I am proven wrong.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Stop harassing me! More blatant lies, personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations.

Clearly we have different politics, but that is allowed. I support radical progressive change that benefits the 99%. You must be against that and for the politics of personal destruction.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I have never said I know all, see all, or understands all. That is you blatantly lying, creating a straw man (false argument) again because you cannot stick with the truth.

Your personal attacks against me are simply a sign that you do not support me radical progressive approach to addressing the problems the 99% face.

Please refrain from the dishonest personal attacks.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It's not dishonest to call a fool a fool, although I'll concede it's not PC. Unless you're a paid D shill. Kinda hard to tell 'em apart actually, unless you're willing to quit cowering behind anonymity.

Dishonesty is claiming you're a radical or progressive when, clearly, your posts show a marked preference for the D party, including parroting its talking points, and the existing partisan political status quo.

Go peddle your BS to someone else -- I'm done shooting fish in a barrel.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I am not interested (or surprised) in your inability to understand what is going on around you. And that you are proven wrong would be given.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Unlike you who knows all, sees all, and understands all. Like I said above: Hide, like a coward, behind your anonymity -- my name is on every post.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Please sign the petition against CU II

http://represent.us/citizens-united-2/

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Move to Amend is currently on tour and if anyone would like to host it, be the lead organizer of an event, in your town, please contact them @ http://www.movetoamend.org

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

I move to do more than amend! We the People are not required to appeal or seek anything from corruption absolute. How long would you seek help from someone you know is trying to kill you? Further WE know they are taking all resources and killing children now! Torture that civilization learned and agreed would not take place on this earth again is being paid for by hard working Americans. Get out of there, wdc is not this country it is straight sabotage and has us held hostage for dollars that are already not enough, and shall never be. Freedom cost a only 10% of wages to make operational. Across the board of trouble we face and our planets survival are at the mercy of criminals of war and WE need not the help to represent our United States. Begin here in our free land! Just leave the mess behind for the makers to deal with. Think how simple(maybe much so to lack appeal) to just let 'er go and begin as should be. Land of plenty home to ALL ONE. Reason with child killers I will not fool myself that will bring results for my well being HELLO!