Forum Post: A Possible Solution to Wall Street Greed
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 21, 2011, 11:08 p.m. EST by louisrocc
(74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Wall Street does harm because its special interests are represented over the interests of the private citizenry. Our system of representation is failing. In a system of privately funded campaigns persons with the greatest wealth purchase disproportionate representation. The Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment can protect fair representation of the people at large. www.campaignfinanceamendment.org
This doesn't seem like a good idea. Your going to have to amend your amendment before you even get started. It guarantees rule by the rich. What's to stop Gates ($59 B), Buffett ($39 B), Ellison($33 B), Koch, Charles($25 B), Koch, David($25 B), any of the Walton's or any person from your 1% running for and office?
Looks more like an amendment for the rich.
THe purpose of the amendment is to prevent elected officials from being influenced by special interests whether the elected official is rich or poor. The amount of personal wealth a person can spend in advertising their own election is a matter of additional legislation that may not be appropriate in an amendment, but reserved fro a law.
Re."INSIDE JOB", The Latest Working Link : http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ .. on the presumption that you haven't seen it ~{;-)
Easy way to tell if your amendment will work. When you have to tell me we'll need more laws, amendments and regulations, then your amendment is not well enough developed. It's a small bandaid on a gaping wound.
Let's pretend for a second your amendment has passed. I'm CEO of Evil Inc. a major special interest group. I hire some articulate power hungry young guy as a consultant at a few million, so do many of my special interest buddies, we make a deal with him to make him rich enough to run for office. He runs, after he's done "working" for us, with the money, now his, that we paid him. We own him. He can out spend any opponent and is likely to win. We violated the sprit of your amendment, but you might have a hard time proving we prepaid for our own private congressman. I'm a poor nobody and it only took me a few minutes to work around your amendment.
Sounds a lot like the current system...
I still think public funding combined with campaign limits is the best solution, provided it is enough to avoid a dependence on the MSM machine for exposure. Zero tolerance for kick backs and lobbying dollars would be a nice addition as well.
Solution for paying? Tax marijuana sales or drop fewer bombs.
The airwaves are supposed to be public, make a station's license dependent on airing a set number of political spots for free for major candidates.
That's a great idea, never even crossed my mind but heck yes that would do wonders as well.
Dear Jen, The first thing is to make such actions illegal. Yes there are always ways to get around a law, but without the law there is no way to stop it. It is then up to the judiciary to enforce the law. Your scenario is much more complicated then the present methods to buy interest and may therefor result in less influence. Of course once the consultant is in power he is no longer controlled by the persons who enabled him to be there..
You've given the rich a bunch of incumbents they can bribe as long as they stay in office. I just see more problems then solution in this. The bribing of incumbents to try to get them to vote for this is really offensive. Suppose the rich simply bribe them too, to vote it down.
The purpose of the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment is to provide the USA with a future of elected officials that are not influenced by campaign contributions when they vote on legislation. If the rich then try to bribe officials it would be illegal with consequences unlike today where contributions are functioning as legal bribes to attain disproportionate representation.
There are already limits on contributions, you'll still have jobs being offered to congressman when they leave office, you'll still have the non-profits with their issue ads. That's where all the money is being spent.
no limits on contributions to PACs.... that's the problem. also, companies can set up subsidiaries and affiliates to contribute.
Fine, limit those too. Do something about the issue ads from nonprofits. This amendment will make reelection a lock for any serving member of congress. The current bunch is corrupt, giving them 20 or 30 years of reelection is too high a price to pay to get money out of elections at some point in the future.
agree,,, but who would run on "i want to deprive my future campaigns of future funding"--the whole sham of this democracy is a joke. it's cronyism, pay to play, bribery--quite literally,,, all rolled into one. the dangerous fact is that it's executed under the guise of "you have a vote," this is a noble democracy looking out for the people-- all of which is complete BS.
one thing that should be done: force comcast, WSJ, NYT and media outlets to provide free advertising for legitimate candidates--but guess what? they make a fortune in election years (i always buy their stock in advance)... and they lobby to make sure that isn't done.
If you're ever going to legislate some kind of free advertising it should be something 5 to 10 minutes long where a candidate has to state his position, without mentioning his opponent. Just state his intended policies. I'd put up with the corruption if I could get a candidate to give his position on issues. Instead we get 30 seconds of them trying to scare voters with all the supposed evils his opponent is going to inflict on us.
An amendment is a major undertaking. It should solve a problem completely, not create other ones to be legislated away later. This one seems poorly thought out. Other commenters have pointed out flaws that are valid. There is no way this could ever get approved. Better no law then a bad law.
An amendment is not just a law. Some topics need to be addressed by amendments and some by laws at different levels. The problem of disproportionate representation is complex and needs legislation at many levels.
You want to change the constitution. When you do that your change should solve the problem completely, at least on a federal level. As I read through I've seen others have pointed out problems. Will we need another amendment to block corporate free speech? Will we need laws or an amendment to say you can't spend your own money to express your opinion when you run for office? The grandfathering in of all those serving is essentially a bribe, vote for this and you'll have an advantage over any challenger forever. No one may contribute to a political party, then I guess they will either shut down or work to stop your amendment.
Political parties could still raise money through dues just like other organizations. Adding amendments to the constitution got the right to vote for women and minorities. They are progressive. THe grandfathering clause is what was used for the amendment that put term limits on the presidency. It would make present Congresspersons immediately less beholden to special interests.
It could also make the current crop of congresspersons very wealthy as special interests lined up to kill this amendment. It doesn't look like something I would support. Eliminate bundling, keep donation size small, increase funding or give free air time.
People involved with special interests have no impetus to kill the amendment since its real affects will not take place until the next cohort of elected officials takes office. This amendment is designed for the future without hurting the present.
It does hurt the present though. Good or bad it will be very difficult for an incumbent to be unseated. The idea to get money out of politics is nice, but it's a symptom. Your amendment doesn't change what motivates people, leave them in power a while and someone will attempt to corrupt them. Unlike government, business is more likely to plan for the future. If this amendment were to somehow get passed the corporations you fear will have a plan to deal with it before you get half of congress on board.
We cannot change human nature; we can only manage our society to limit the negative affects of human nature If we get rid of the conflict of interest caused by contributions, that is one more hurdle placed in front of special interest over representation of the people at large. WIth the amendment, then additional laws can be made to counter additional avenues of corruption that develop over the decades and hopefully centuries. Each generation must fight the problems presented to it.
Have fun then with your particular fight. I see it as a way to ensure only the rich are able to run for office and that corruption becomes harder to find. There is no way I'd ever support this in its present form.
Dear MsStacy, thank you for your thoughts. This is what makes America really great. We disagree and respect each others right to disagree. Now let us learn from each other. Do you think a rich person in office is more corruptible then an average person in office who needs to raise money to stay in office? Would having people in office who do not need to raise money be an improvement over what we have now? Can we put limits on the personal wealth a candidate is allowed to spend for advertising their campaign for public office?
People are drawn to office for different reasons. For the many that become corrupt I would say it's more the power then the money that does it. Having powerful people come to you for advice would also make you feel powerful. Amore useful amendment would be one limiting how long anyone could serve in congress or the senate.
Some pretty dumb ideas in this amendment. Grandfathering in current office holders will give them an unfair advantage until they are carried out of office in a box. Does the amendment do anything to stop a group, union, corporation from forming 501 or 527 nonprofit corporations and making ads for a point of view?
The largest political campaign spender in America is not a Wall Street Firm.
It isn't megacorporation, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil.
It isn’t an industry association, like the American Bankers Association or the National Association of Realtors.
It’s not even a labor federation, like the AFL-CIO.
If you combine the campaign spending of all those entities it does not match the amount spent by the National Education Association
It is important to get rid of campaign contributions so that no entity can place a conflict of interest on the elected officials when it comes time for them to vote on legislation, and the elected officials can then vote for what is best for the people at large.
I do understan that however you are missing the point.
Even if you get rid of campaign contribution you cannot get rid of influence. Groups can campaign on their own without contributing to a campaign.
It is fine if groups campaign without giving money. That is free speech. The problem that I am trying to alleviate is the influence that contributions have when legislation is up for a vote. Presently legislation is proposed and contributions are made between elections to deliberately affect an elected officials vote on a particular piece of legislation. There are many leaks in the dike of democracy drowning out fair representation. I am trying to fill this particular leak. There is a'lot of work to be done to restore our democratic infrastructure.
Free Speech can be bought. Don't kid youself.
I have read the ZCCFA. It appears rather simplistic and dogmatic and for those reasons will probably not find widespread support and therefore FAIL. Reform is clearly desirable and in the interest of moving forward I include some links which I have found have merit and deserve consideration. Firstly the UK system , although not perfect is more restrictive on how campaign funds are raised and managed and the GOOD could be adopted/ proposed and the bad (including circumvention by LOANS) discarded or amended.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php
Secondly the case for the executive to NOT be formulators of election and campaign laws is argued here
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/watt0606.htm
Is it realistic to expect elected officials to support, let alone PASS a bill restricting their funding? Lastly there are existing campaigns with similar objectives which have studied these issues and arrived at a framework (subject to further debate and possible amendments) which have merit and may stand a better chance IF OWS and similar groups combine under one movement.
http://faircampaignfinance.org/
Food for thought which I hope is helpful
I agree that these other mentions that you mention here would be helpful. My approach is to support all proposals that are helpful while seeking similar support for the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment that I posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org. THe reason why a Congressperson may vote for it is because of the grandfather clause. Corrupt people need a payoff. The payoff here is the advantage this elected cohort will have. In the next cohort contributions will no longer be a factor. IN the mean time, incumbents will no longer be beholden to contributions.
Your solution is a half measure, and I say that with respect to the process of American law making. Those that are finding fault with it are being unreasonable. Though I do see a problem with it being used in the general election, It makes perfect sense in the primaries. Those who can't afford to pay their own way would find support through volunteers. If your ideas are strong, and you can disseminate them through the web, I see no reason why people would not volunteer to see your ideas make it through the primaries. Now, once in the general election, especially for the presidency, capital would be needed to offset the richer candidate. I like the idea because I think it would deter out of state interference.
Additional laws can eventually be made to limit paid advertisement by candidates with their personal wealth.
You are right. Although my point is, that there is no magic bullet when it comes to democratic warfare. Every two years is a return to the war of words. The voter must always be vigilant. This is where I get behind those who say, freedom is not free. You either stay caught up with the slings and arrows, or you are a casualty of war. Unless your solution is the end of democracy, I see half measures as peace flags.
Yes, the fight will always be continuous. I am hoping that the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment can serve as a defense against a great weapon against democracy, money used to purchase disproportionate representation.
Tar and feathers of banker manikins. Maybe using monopoly money instead of feathers.
Protests at the gates of Wall Street should include hanging bankers in effigy.
That would be great. Also, all corporate lobbyists in D.C. should be banned, so that they can't throw money at our politicians once they are in office.
I would even go so far to see that inside trading tips be outlawed in Congress. If you haven't checked out 60 minutes investigative report on this, here it is. It's infuriating that this goes on. http://youtu.be/l3DZh1109W8
Thank you. Please support the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment by contacting your Congresspersons through www.campaignfinanceamendment.org
I also would like to see the influence of money taken out of Congressional deliberations and decision making, but the Constitution seems to be designed not to limit the powers of the people, but rather to define the limited powers of government. Such an amendment as proposed would in fact limit our power to individually and jointly support candidates of our own choice.
The purpose of the amendment is to limit the conflict of interest posed by contributions on the elected official when they vote on legislation. There are many other ways that people can use their money to express their support for a candidate.
Thank you Louisrocc for your response. The text of this proposed amendment is veery short (and consistent with the brevity of our Constitution), and so its choice of words must neither be ambiguous nor too broad. The core text seems to be: "campaign contributions shall not be accepted by candidates for public office ...". Indeed, I assumed that meant that individual citizens could not give money to individual candidates (since the candidate could not accept it). As the purpose of the proposed amendment is to limit conflicts of interest, it could address either or both sides of the conflict. One side of the conflict is of course the indebtedness of the candidate to the person who gives the money, while the other side of the conflict is to the bonafide social purpose of the legislation. One problem with strictly (over-broadly) limiting the first opportunity for conflict is that representatives are supposed to be indebted (or obligated) to serve their constituents. Thus being indebted by accepting money from constituents should not of itself generate a conflict. The proposed amendment could be re-worded to limit contributions only to constituent citizens. On the other side of the conflict is the scope of the legislation in question. One problem we face continually with legislation is that it almost always discriminates against the interests of somebody. For example, legislation against the possession and sale of some drugs, or the practice of polygamy and polyandry, or tax incentives and exemptions (other people not favored by the incentives and exemptions must make up the difference in tax revenue). Even within Congressional districts, its citizens will differ on the benefits and harms from different legislations. A representative has a very difficult task of weighing the potential risks and rewards of any proposed legislation. The quantities of money any representative or candidate might receive from different factions of the district’s constituency might help the candidates who are known for their legislative proposals and philosophical biases to assess the balance in terms of both numbers of concerned citizens and the degree of their concern. In sum, I hope that you would consider rewriting the proposed amendment to limit campaign contributions to any political office to those citizens who make up the constituency of that office. Current campaign contribution dollar limits should be maintained.
Yes, these are all important points. The wording was put in place as a candidate 'may not accept contributions' so as not to put into the Constitution the idea that the government may limit the ability of a citizen to use their personal wealth. Also, while it is a big improvement to limit the contributions that a candidate could accept to their constituency, wealthy interests within that constituency would still have more representation then those who do not. This is one reason why wealthy neighborhoods often have their streets repaired more often and lower tax rates on the overall value of their homes.
Very good Touisrocc. Let's keep these ideas in mind as we work toward a convention to amend the Constitution. There are always pros and cons to any action, so these must be explored and considered carefully for their present and for their long term effects. Please post your ideas frequently and assemble the results somewhere so that others can coherently participate.
You might want to take your post and make it into a petition.
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
See also people from all walks of life, from all over the political map "not" supporting a party or leader or group of leaders but "supporting an Ideal".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Bgqt1YYko
Check this out could be real good fun. (petition inside)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/irs-could-resellrent-foreclosed-properties/
Good concept. Action needs to start with over turning "citizens united" though . There are lots of good actions going to get this done. Sen. Bernie Sanders web site has a petition , Movetoamend.org and so on.
Stop market manipulation through illegal high-frequency algorithmic trading, where large investment banks make statistically impossible profits every single trading day. Stop that cheating and you cut-off 70% of their profits. All other sources of investment bank profits are a sideshow.
It's easier than that. Just boycott bad companies!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-great-satan/
The Revolution starts here!
At least we all ought to be getting wise enough to not contribute to any campaigns already bloated with money from special interests.
Instead we ought be contributing to making revolution.....
Or getting our own candidates and running them, to push out anyone that is corrupt.
That would be part of revolution.
Lately it's seemed to me it's the part everyone thinks is too much work. Everyone is more interested in raising awareness, as they put it.
Yes I concur. I get a similar sense. What I'm calling revolution, i.e. really changing things, is a multifaceted activity. Raising awareness is also part of it, it is good, but certainly not all. The thing about "raising awareness" is that it is sort of easy, well not really, but it is the least confrontational. It is not going to get the 1% too pissed off, and it will get nobody killed. Other things like carrying on serious political campaigns, and oh yes of course the much dirtier work of creating active resistances to adversaries (that which is more normally thought of as "revolution") are much harder in the sense one has to put one's neck out (as in put one's life on the line.) Those harder things are what is truly needed , but very few are willing to do. (I'm an old man, and can only do but so much myself. So call me a hypocrite.)
One percent of the "99%" is what I would call active. It would be nice to have more, but that I believe is enough; that is if that 1% took serious action for change. (I point to the example of Cuba, where only twelve men overthrew a corrupt government. We could debate about what came thereafter, but that is another story.) I do not think we could overthrow this international whatever that seems to be taking over not only our U.S.A., but many nations in the rest of the world as well, but I think we could do enough to have them rethink their ways; if we created a serious resistance that is. I've been "trolling" (positive trolling) this forum for some time now, and that has consistently been my message in so many words to everyone.
I'm a work through the system person. Go out find good people and run them for office from congressional districts across the country. Once it can be shown that our point of view can be backed up with votes, that point of view will be adopted by the people running for office. It's worked well with other movements.
If a majority of this 99% stay more interested in reality TV then in what the government is doing then perhaps they deserve what ever government they get. Revolution would only be a change of master for them and they might not notice the change unless it happened during a commercial.
In a country of over 312 million people i seriously doubt you have anywhere near 3 million true believers, but who knows. Revolutions like our's or Cuba's may start with a small handful but have to grow to survive. Civil rights and environmental movements started out small, but success getting candidates elected drew in more people and let to more electoral successes.
The failure of the Soviet and Cuban system and China's need to allow more free enterprise would probably prevent many from wanting to risk a major change in the type of government here. All anyone had to do over health care was yell socialism and people wanted it stopped.
We need a solution to the problem. I have identified the problem to be 'disproportionate representation' in the world's democracies. This is due to special interests groups influencing legislation through the campaign finance system in our nation. This is why I have proposed the Zero Contributions Campaign Fiance Amendment at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org.
Shule, Even though we don't make contributions, the 1 percent still does. We must eliminate private money in campaigns to regain our representation. This amendment is just one step in the right direction, and it is a giant step that will provide the means for additional steps.
Never said the amendment in general was not a good idea (what is with the grandfather clause?). Yes, an amendment stopping the flow of corrupting special interest money would be good. ' was just saying there are still too many of us wasting our cents and time writing checks out to politicians thinking our contributions might make a difference when in reality all candidates with a double digit percent chance of winning are already swimming in special interest money.
The purpose of the grandfather clause is to get a Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment to pass just as the grandfather clause was added to the amendment for term limits on the presidency. We need to eliminate contributions. The Congress has not the will to overturn the Supreme Court ruling so we need an amendment. Our present system of campaign finance selects for persons willing to prostitute their support to the highest bidder. The amendment must have an incentive for them in order to pass. In the future we would then have a cohort of representative who are not influenced by contributions, a greater future then we can have without it..
The other commenters are right though, it insures decades of corruption.
While the present members of Congress may have an advantage they would be immediately less beholden to special interests because challenges cannot raise special interest money. Also, it would not be decades since the average tenure in Congress is ten years. If incumbents are going to dominate for a decade it would be best if they were less beholden to special interests.
That assumes the special interests don't try to offer a better bribe then you have offered. Such as, defeat this and get a great job when you retire from congress. Good luck with it.
Might just as well, revolution has as much chance as this amendment.
If the colonists could overthrow the most powerful empire of the time, surely there is a chance to pass this amendment.
I see many people thinking this through and believing it's a bad idea. If a majority of the colonists had thought revolution was a bad idea it would have failed too.
A good many of them were Tories. I would like to eliminate the influence of contributions that lead to disproportionate representation. It would be a great improvement over what we have now, and an actual method of of achieving improvement considering the conflicts of interest had by Congress..
There was no constitutional requirement for the kind of super majority back then or it might have failed. What was it about one third for, one third against and one third just wanted to stay out of the way. I don't see this as having a prayer, but it's certainly your right to try.
Seems like it creates as many problems as it solves. It doesn't mention the nonprofit interest group spending on issues, that's free speech anyhow and I don't want to see it dropped.
Your amendment guarantees rule by the rich.
The amendment solves the problem of elected officials representing the interests of contributors over the people at large. A special interest group advertising their point of view, so long as it is truth in advertising, is free speech. Providing wealth to an elected official to influence a vote on legislation needs to be defined as 'not speech' in the Constitution.
No it doesn't it just opens the door to the ultra rich becoming the government in person. It also will require more laws and amendments to fix any back door ways around your amendment.
You need 2/3 of the congress and 3/4 of the states. If you can get that many people to go with your idea it would be just as easy to get them to support honest people to run for congress and make your amendment unnecessary.
All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are general and require laws for the particulars. That is the very nature of amendments. If they are too particular then they cannot encompass the the methods that develop to get around them.
So how do you intend to stop the rich from using their own money? You may end up with the board of directors from the biggest corporations being your new congress.
The purpose of the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment is to protect the people from special interests that effect disproportionate representation on the people at large when elected officials vote on legislation. Campaign contributions provide an avenue for unethical persons to achieve such disproportionate representation that benefits themselves at the cost of fellow citizens. Not all rich people are unethical.
It's a dumb idea, you can't just take all the money out and not replace it with anything, you'll make it impossible for anyone to run against an incumbent unless a way around the law is found.
Following the amendment additional ways to legally finance campaigns can be legislated that do not violate the intent of the amendment. It is a pain staking process and each step must be made to reach the goal of fair representation.
I'll leave you to your dreams. I'd certainly vote against this amendment as written, or work door to door to stop it. I don't see it coming close to clearing congress, let alone 3/4 of the states. It wouldn't even be necessary if voters would find out about issues and stop voting for a pretty face or bumper sticker sound bite. You'll never get good people elected with ignorant voters, no matter what amendment you try to pass.
Dear Jen, my primary job involves educating underprivileged adults with regards to environmental issues. I certainly agree that an educated populace makes for the best democracy. However, even with a PhD in molecular biology I still find it near impossible to keep up on all technologies that cause harm. An advanced society needs to employ experts in special agencies on the part of the populace to protect the nation. Therefor, these conflicts of interest on the part of the elected official must also be removed so that the agencies can protect the public.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/video/occupy2012
[Removed]
Wall Street does harm BY its special interests WHICH are represented over the interests of the private citizen. Use correct grammar or no one will take you seriously.
Arizona had a good public finacing law until the Supreames threw it out
This is why we need an amendment, because of the Supreme Court decision defining contributions are speech.
Contributions are speech. Not because SCOTUS says so, but because you are free to put your money where your mouth is.
Union's have long had active and effective PAC's. These represented the rank and file and have been very effective. Just because other groups have something they want to say that you don't agree with doesn't make it any less a free exercise of speech.
Personally, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The bulk of candidates will spend millions of dollars from various sources and still manage to lose. The problem with the current system is that there is no Democratc challenger. In 2004, there was no Republican challenger. It's the apathy of the electorate that accepts the status quo. So when election day comes, the options are akin to trying to select between Coke & Pepsi when soda is good for nobody.
We may not have what we need or deserve, but we have exactly what we chose. Now we just need to choose better.
Thank you. The purpose of the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment is to rid the elected officials of a conflict of interest when they vote on legislation so that they can vote for what is best for the nation instead of what is best for a special interest group. It does not limit a persons ability to 'put their money where their mouth is' with regard to their ability to rely their thoughts to other people. www.campaignfinanceamendment.org
Your right, of course.
Keeping it on, keeping it on keeping it on, on on on....
Thank you. Please support the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment by contacting your Congresspersons through www.campaignfinanceamendment.org
Thanks for the link.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Dear Jen, Grandfathering in present incumbents is a mechanism to get them to vote for it. That's how term limits on the presidency was passed. The average tenure in Congress is ten years. In ten years half of all congresspersons won't be able to accept contributions, in 15 years over ninety percent would not. In the meantime, incumbents would not be dependent on contributions and less influenced because challenges cannot accept them. 501 and 527 groups require additional legislation. That's another fight.
Seems to also give them one big edge in seeking reelection. A current young congressman can look forward to about 40 years of being bought off by interests.
The grandfathering sort of pre-corrupts them.
WIthout the grandfather clause the amendment can not be passed because of the conflict of interest on the part of the elected official. If the amendment is not passed contributions will be considered free speech indefinitely until their is an overturn of the Supreme Court ruling.
Two things. First; you are pushing an amendment that is worded poorly and is incomplete. That comment above about the rich financing their own campaigns is right to the point. This amendment may only insure that only your 1% win elections.
Second; An amendment alters the constitution. If you pass an amendment saying corporations can't have a say in politics, then it becomes constitutional. An amendment could repeal any previous amendment completely, just as prohibition was repealed.
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate the influence that special interest contributions have on legislation. It would then open the door to additional legislation that can protect fair representation of the people at large that cannot be passed since the Supreme Court ruled that contributions and essentially money are speech. The amendment does not say that corporations cannot have a say in politics, only that the cannot legally functionally bribe an elected official.
It won't end it for decades, it will just give corporations a chance to work around it. One of the posts up above suggested a method, overpaying someone that they groom for congress making them wealthy. It's nice that your amendment is so short and easily understood, but it's incomplete and that is a major flaw.
The amendment provides an avenue to combat disproportionate representation. LIke all other amendments, it would then be supported by laws that become necessary as unethical intentions work to bypass legislation.
An amendment is a serious matter and shouldn't be considered just a beginning, but that's just my opinion. This amendment makes all contributions by anyone of any size illegal. You'll get, at best, a few fringe congresspeople pandering for a few votes with it. It will never be seriously considered.
It doesn't hurt to try. As the web advances, large amounts of money will not be needed to communicate with the people. Also the airwaves are owned by the people and requirements can be maintained for coverage of publicly sponsored debates. It is to the advantage of incumbents to vote for it because of the grandfather clause.
You assume, with your rational for the grandfathering, that you will be able to bribe congress better then the corporations can. I disagree with your position that "it doesn't hurt to try". A bad amendment hurts no matter how good your intentions are.
The amendment in the long run will result in a nation whose elected officials cannot accept contributions. I the short run, the elected officials would not need as much money to compete in an election as they do today, and so will be less beholden to contributions.
Your amendment in the long run will ensure either public financing of elections or a congress made up only of the rich. In the short run it guarantees the most corrupt congress we've ever had as those grandfathered in will be able to collect money from every corrupting source.
In the short run it may make Congresspersons less beholden to special interests because they will not have to raise as much money to compete in an election. All those running against them will be using public financing. I am most concerned about the long run since the average tenure in Congress is ten years.
Wishful thinking, you're going to go through the amendment process just on the hope that a new law will change human behavior?
On that average tenure figure, it's wrong to apply it in this case. Your amendment makes it much easier to win reelection when you can outspend your opponent. You're making it more difficult to elect new people that will likely lengthen their tenure.
The Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment that I posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org will have an immediate effect because the incumbents of this cohort in Congress will be less beholden to contributions because their challengers cannot accept them. The next cohort will contain persons who were not selected by the campaign contribution process. Even if the tenure for this cohort is increased, the effects of the amendment will still be significantly positive increasing representation of the people at large..
The objections of "it won't solve everything" don't make sense to me, not because such an amendment will solve everything, but because it is a place to start. All or nothing doesn't work. A cap can also be placed on the amount of personal money a candidate is permitted to spend on his campaign.In fact, with publicly funded campaigns now, it is already the law, I believe.
Also, in order for it to prevent guaranteed entrenchment of incumbents, term limits would have to be placed on both houses of Congress first.
There is another problem with this tough. At best, it would take a half a century to pass.
All in all a laudable idea, but I believe entirely unworkable.
What's more, the problems of government today are not primarily, in my opinion, campaign finance itself, though it is a major contributor. The biggest problem is the million plus dollar a year jobs that await legislators upon leaving office who "played ball" during their terms with the corporations et al. That seems to be the biggest incentive for corruption these days.
It shouldn't build in corruption and make it impossible for people to get elected over an incumbent for the next several decades. As I said above, an amendment shouldn't be used as simply a starting point for laws.