Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: BRIBES! We must deal with the heart of the problem. We must get rid of corporate money influence. We must get rid of Citizens United.

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 9:41 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Meet us > Nov 12 6PM 60 Wall St [We are the 83%] We do have a large number of great, well thought out, COMPLICATED ideas that will require a huge amount of "selling" and “explanation" and will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple – and that is popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on -
that 76% of Republicans already agree on -
that 56% of TP already agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just 99 days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
If Ohio won. If Arizona won. If Maine won. If Mississippi won - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince your 7 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince her to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


Ohio won. Arizona won. Maine won. Mississippi won -
I feel that using their tactics, and the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 13 years ago

I agree - this is the heart of the problem. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery our politicians will continue to be the lap dogs of the corporations and special interests.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

look for the new working group on this site
[ R E S T O R E D E M O C R A C Y ]

[-] 1 points by NintyNiner (93) 13 years ago

Please!

BUY AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!

I always try and buy American made products even if it costs alittle more.

We must stop importing more than we export!

Everyone needs to wake up and realize we are own worst enemy!!!

BUY AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!

We need to support American companies and they will support the 99%!

Foreign companies just take our money overseas!

Im a OWS supporter that believes we need business as much as business needs us. So support your Mom and pop shops and shift your buying habits to support your local communities!

[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 13 years ago

“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”

I think you might have it backwards ... people are corporations.

What do you make of the following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91qs9v-upWI

[-] 1 points by david19harness (87) 13 years ago

Agreed, here's how to do it: PUBLIC VOTE OPTION on the COMPETING FINAL DEMOCRATIC vs FINAL REPUBLICAN vs INDEPENDENT VERSIONS of a CONGRESSIONAL BILL.

That's the title of a White House petition http://wh.gov/bhC Petitions receiving 25,000 votes in 30 days, are referred for evaluation followed by official White House statement.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 13 years ago

Corporations are not people, pretty obvious. Easy to pass and not detrimental to the rights of people. The idea that expenditure of money is not free speech however, i disagree with. In a free market, the spending of money is absolutely an act of free speech. It is the most direct form of democratic participation one can engage in. It is the statement: "I value what it is that I am purchasing and wish for whoever provides it to continue to do so."

Now, when you view that statement from the perspective of the type of corporate spending this proposed amendment seeks to eradicate, it is the statement: "I value my government-backed influence over the economy and wish for the politicians I am buying to continue to provide it." My point is this: It is not corporate expenditure, as such, that gives them government power. It is the power of the government over commerce.

Even if we amend the constitution to state that corporations are not people, it will NOT get rid of the philosophy of lobbying. It will only push it underground. The solution to the problem of corporate control of government is to get rid of the incentive to control it. Amend the commerce clause out of the constitution.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

Generally you are correct.
Starting with this amendment process is the ONLY way to stop CU -
1
The "money is speech" issue from the Supreme Court has been used to STOP legislatures and courts from making ANY restrictions. For example, if I ( as a person - not corp - Mr. K ) want to buy a $500,000,000 state energy plant in Wisconsin for $100,000,000, I could use the present "money is speech" to literally spend $40,000,000 on a gubernatorial candidate to buy a governor - a cost of doing business - a great 10x investment.
2
Ordinary laws can then deal with lobbying, direct democracy, campaign finance etc.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 13 years ago

I had to guess at some of what you were thinking to interpret what you said, so my response may not be appropriate for what you meant, but here is what I think you are saying.

You're saying that the idea that money is speech creates a situation in which the government can not impose any regulations on commerce, and that this is bad. You're saying that it is bad because someone could buy something that the state owns for less than it's worth by buying a governor and using him to decree that what it is you wish to buy should be sold to you at less than market value.

The main issue of 'state-owned' property is contained in the question: "Who owns it?" If the answer is: Whosoever holds the seat of governor, then you have a problem like you described above. If the answer is anything else, then we are dealing with a slightly different issue.

What will remain the same in any case is that once it becomes the property of a private individual, the plant will be subject to the laws of the marketplace (assuming it does not retain it's government-backed subsidy/monopoly/etc). Which means that whoever owns it will either improve its efficiency, keep it running at the same efficiency, or be crushed by the ability of his competitors. If such competitors did not previously exist due to government monopoly, they now have (legal) room to enter the area, since the government no longer owns the power plant. If they did previously exist but were not major suppliers due to government subsidy or other commercial interference to the benefit of the government owned facility, they will now exist on a more (legally) level playing field, such that their ability to produce efficiently will determine whether or not they will take the business from the ex-government-owned facility.

In your situation, no matter what happens, the fact that the government will no longer own that facility will be a good thing for those who require electricity in order to live their lives. The purchase will, in effect, limit government control of the industry in that area and allow those who can produce energy most efficiently to succeed. That is, of course, assuming that the plant does not retain government protection against the laws of the marketplace. The fact that government (which is, by definition, the organized use of force and/or coercion) can own property and regulate commerce inherently sets up a situation where a government run facility will perform more poorly than a privately owned facility because the government does not need to compete in a free market. If the government wishes to maintain its profits, it need only issue a decree that no other facility providing the same service be established within X miles, or some other such situation.

The problem of bribery of government agents can only be effectively solved by eliminating the incentive to do so. As far as corporate bribes go, the incentive is access to the government's ability to regulate commerce. Thus, I advocate the abolition of the commerce clause.

The idea of a constitutional amendment to declare the the expenditure of money is not free speech (or is even that imaginary category of 'unprotected speech', which the feds are so fond of) would give the government even more direct and undeniable control over what individuals may or may not spend their money on, thus INCREASING the incentive to bribe and own government officials.

Laws which prevent people from doing specific things are not effective at eliminating, limiting, or even |affecting| the causes which lead to those specific things. Prohibition has proved this. Recidivism rates for prison inmates have proved this. America's war on drugs has proved this. America's war on terror has proved this. America's war on sexuality has proved this. It is not more regulators and more controls that will solve this problem. The regulators can be bribed. The controls can be ignored and circumvented. The only real solution is to remove the incentive.

[-] 1 points by MellowYellow (52) 13 years ago

Funny the terms they use for the worst acts. Iraqi Freedom, Patriot Act, Citizens United. You know its bad when it sounds so "peaceful."

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

1984 Orwell

[-] 1 points by Publius1981 (22) 13 years ago

Post a link for everyone else to find out more, if that's possible.

Also, suppose we limit campaign financing. What's the next move on the part of the lobbyists and special interests to regain control of the changed game?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

look for "restore democracy working group" in a few days

[-] 1 points by xavier (28) 13 years ago

I support all the posts all over this site about modeling direct democracy alternatives to our current campaign financing and lobbying setups. Be helpful if these threads might eventually migrate more or less to one forum where you could track the whole range of ideas being suggested and emerging areas of agreement. Would that be the politics and election working group?

[-] 1 points by Publius1981 (22) 13 years ago

Explain what you mean by direct democracy and what theory you're drawing from as your inspiration.

Direct democracy is a tool, not a theory of justice. Direct democracy can contribute to injustice - look at the voter initiatives that come out of California - when it's not moderated by a common set of principles.

[-] 1 points by xavier (28) 13 years ago

Thanks, Publius. Which California voter initiatives are you thinking of? I mean being able as an individual to vote directly and have some real say on issues, not overmediated by reps or by party affiliation. Like town meeting here in New England. I'm not against all representative democracy. It's hard to know how well it could work, given the way it's been privatized

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

We hope to have a working group set up soon.
May be called "We are the 83%" or "Restore Democracy First" If you are in NY see us at 60 Wall

If not, can you help us outside of NY.

Private message me.

[-] 1 points by Publius1981 (22) 13 years ago

Not sure how to PM you using this forum. I'm in TX.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 13 years ago

click on the posters name - and all will be revealed!