Forum Post: A real amendment to permanently ban $$ of influence from our gov't
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 12:39 p.m. EST by LNAB73
(82)
from Oklahoma City, OK
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
1 U.S. Citizens only participate in the election of their Government officials:
“Only U.S. Citizens, defined as a human being who is either a natural or legally naturalized citizen, as defined by the U.S. Constitution are allowed to participate monetarily in any federal political campaign.” “Non U.S. Citizens are permanently banned from participating in all Federal political campaigns. “No corporation or other non human entity or non profit organization of any type, shall be allowed to contribute, directly or indirectly. "No person shall use more than $1000.00 of his or her own money for the purpose of running for federal office “ "No person shall be allowed to contribute more than 1% of the Average American Wage as computed by the CBO, directly or indirectly to any political campaign or other politically defined action (advertisement, fundraising, issue advocacy, lobbying, events including sponsored events, etc) “No person shall be allowed to contribute more than 10% of the Average American Wage as computed by the CBO, directly or indirectly, cumulative to all campaigns nationwide during any election cycle.” “Only U.S. Citizens are allowed to participate monetarily in a federal political campaign.” “No non-citizen or multi national corporation shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. “ “Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
2 Permanent ban of non-citizen political or influence contributions to all Federal Officials, their agents, employees or candidates:
“No Federal official elected or running for office may accept money, directly or indirectly, outside of the "U.S. Citizens only participate in the election of U.S. Government Officials Amendment" " “This specifically bans all monetary contributions, gifts, events, or other means of financial aid rendered from any non U.S. Citizens, non profits or other non citizen entities who do not meet the definition of U.S. Citizen for any Federal candidate, official or employee and specifically defines these as bribes for which both recipient and donor will face a 15 year imprisonment.”
take a look at this video talking to Geither about WHO he bailed out and who he didn't ... it is clear that $$ influence was at work... and basically unexamined by our gov't officials. 84 small banks were allowed to fail yet every mega bank was bailed out 100% by this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pz7ruJw6byQ
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/389538_2637811949848_1391995190_33081482_1137925719_n.jpg where the 99% meet
we must remove the corruption... as long as it remains, our gov't will continue to serve the entitled and NOT the citizen.
If you give a $1,000 to a million people to vote for your candidate, how would you know that they did?
that would require too much collusion, would be very cumbersome and hard to accomplish. Of course it could be done... but would you really want to expose yourself to jail time as a wealthy person trusting a million people to not rat you out or expose you?
Sounds great. You know how i would get around that if i was rich? I would lend money to volunteers up to the maximum limit with a repayment at no interest due in 1000 years, as long as they donated to the person of my choice. Still have the same problem. Public financing is the only way to go, along with repeal of the 17th amendment.
AND I do suspect that public financing (which IS the way we should be doing this)... would become a much more attractive proposition to our corrupt congress... less work for them
sure... but that requires collusion... and collusion... well, its very messy and usually spotted rather quickly... and once again... 15 years in prison would most certainly make that a deterrent to the "little" people.
The collusion already exists so clearly people will do it. I will give you an example. I know lots of politicians in both parties, judges, etc. On many occasions a donor will want to donate to a candidate. The candidate can not accept a donation over the limits directly, so they instruct the donor to give the money to the party with specific reference to be used on the candidate. That is illegal. It happens everyday with both parties. There is a law preventing the PAC's from coordinating efforts with the parties or candidates. Does anyone really think they are not doing so when at dinner parties or out on the golf course? Our system is completely corrupted and both parties are exactly the same. Every single one of the people in Washington is corrupt. including Obama.
WHICH is why there has to be a #2. No ambiguity in either of these two proposals. NO means NO. They get around this now and have essentially have it in such a complex model that there can be no effective monitoring of it. If NO means NO.. then all you have to do is pull up a guy who contributed 20K across the country and check to see what his AGI is. With that... you establish CAUSE to look at him and the candidates who received his money. NO means NO. and here is your authority No corporation or other non human entity or non profit organization of any type, shall be allowed to contribute, directly or indirectly. and if it's a wealthy person, he violates the 20K rule. And yes... ALL POLITICAL PARTIES are corrupt. I want a return to honest governance... I think we can work out the rest if that happens.
I am in agreement with you, and your tactic is one i support. Simply pointing out how it can be abused. Checking people's AGi means nothing, because there is no law against receiving a loan due in 1000 years. Even if you make $12,000 a year if someone loans you $20k that isn't illegal. How you choose to spend it is your choice, even if it was a loan condition. Would be very hard to prevent that.
oh.. I think the collusion, no matter how concealed, would be fairly well shown as in violation via the direct or indirect clause. Intent for all parties would be pretty transparent.