Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: END CORPORATE BRIBES: do we need any other demand?

Posted 7 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 12:32 a.m. EST by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We've proposed a lot, but what about the ROOT of the problem. If our representatives actually represented us, instead of the corporations giving them money, wouldn't they make laws that work in our favor?

We've all heard many demands. Yes, there are plenty of things wrong in this country. But which one of them couldn't be solved or lessened by getting the money out? Is there any other demand that is less universal to the 99%?



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 7 years ago

This would require an Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a corporation is the same as a person. As such, a corporation can "donate" to a politician/political party the same as a person. Problem: corporation can "buy" a politician. Supreme Court recently ruled that the 1st Amendment applies to corporations the same as a person.

The Amendment: A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person and, therefore, is not entitled to the rights and protections afforded to a person as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

[-] 1 points by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY 7 years ago

actually if they just fixed the 14th amendment that would supposed to help blacks.... but helping corps 10X more... and added an economic BOR's wow i would acyually feel like theres hope :P

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

That is very interesting and thanks for the info - I will have to research if it needs a constitution change. I believe we'd need a 2/3rds majority to do this, and our representatives wouldn't do this willingly, as it would reduce their perks.

[-] 1 points by TruePatriots (274) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

The OP is correct it needs a constitutional amendment which means 2/3 of the senate and house: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

But corporations don't directly bribe the legislatures they use lobbyist which are protected by being citizens and having a right to meet their congressmen. Therefore the amendment must state the congressmen cannot meet privately with any individual unless before public eyes.

[-] 2 points by imrational (527) 7 years ago

I think ending corporate bribes makes for the absolute BEST initial demand. Let's accomplish that before tackling other things.

[-] 1 points by thegatekeeperbeta (25) from New York, NY 6 years ago

Might not be so easy considering how many businesses run on this factor.


[-] 1 points by flanga (26) 6 years ago

Yea, bureaucracy at its best!

Thanks from Clive @ http://easydiablo3.com/.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

Pay my family's mortgage.

[-] 1 points by CV578 (10) 7 years ago

Representatives are in office because the majority of people vote for them. Special interests (such as corporations and you) have always, and will always, exist in a government like hours.

[-] 1 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 7 years ago

I'd call it election and lobbying reform, but yeah. I'm with you!


[-] 1 points by elenabotella (1) 7 years ago

There are ways in which corporations influence gov't w/o actually giving money--especially the revolving door between gov't and the private sector. The close personal relationships between CEOs and legislators can't be overstated. This explains some of problem in the military, where almost all 3 and 4 star generals upon their retirement end up working for major defense contractors: http://dukedems.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/how-the-military-is-used-by-the-1-without-regard-for-the-99/

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

That is for sure as well, probably a good chunk of their corruption. The military spends ridiculous amounts of money on inefficiently-run projects. Some of it does stimulate the economy and high tech sectors, but still sounds too much like personal favors.

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 7 years ago

Yes we need more demands. That isnt going to fix the problem only part of it. You need to fix the political system as a whole just not thing in it.

There is way to many issues to attempt a one demand fix. It will change almost nothing in your life.

[-] 1 points by davisstraub (52) 7 years ago

Wouldn't we need 100% public financing of elections to go along with the Public Citizen and Getmoneyout proposals for ending corporate citizenship, etc.?

[-] 1 points by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY 7 years ago

corporate exceeds their defensives.... Economic Bill Of Rights.

a MONERAL code.

Monetary Moral code

[-] 1 points by HillTop (2) from Los Gatos, CA 7 years ago

This would be nice, but it needs a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has already made it very clear that they will not allow any limitations on contributions by corporations to political campaigns, and it (the Supreme Court) is not about to reverse itself; this MUST be done with a constitutional amendment. The current Supreme Court has not pushed the rights of corporations as much it has done in the past with Laissez Faire interpretations of the 14th amendment.
How about the following concept as the basis for such an amendment: The rights and protections granted by the constitution apply ONLY to individuals, and not to any entities created by law. As a result, any protections granted to corporations (or unions), can only be granted by statute, and thus may revoked by statute.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

That sounds excellent.

Though I guess it is up to the court to interpret the constitution (so they may lessen the blow to corporations). I wonder if a constitutional amendment should/could say anything about money?

[-] 1 points by poul (5) 7 years ago

before you can root out the problem of corporations bribing the representatives, you have to root out even deeper root of the problem - the corporations have no choice. the government has its fingers in every nook and corner of the economy, it picks winners and losers based on political donations and favors to family members - so corporations who don't bribe government, do not survive. when it's beyond greed, when it's about survival, it cannot be stopped - the root cause has to be addressed; the government has to get out of micromanaging the economy.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

I'm not asking that we nicely ask corporations to stop bribing, I'm suggesting we make it illegal. You are correct - corporations must do it for their own survival.

Whether or not to micromanage seems like a more complex and more divisive issue than this, and kinda split along party lines.

[-] 1 points by darkhound (66) 7 years ago

The ROOT of the problem?

The POORS blame banks for using LEVERAGE via derivatives, causing the financial crisis. What the POORS don't acknowledge, however, is that the derivatives were based on mortgage backed securities.

It was the POORS who decided to LEVERAGE up (via jumbo loans) to buy McMansions they could not afford. It was the POORS who failed to honor their contracts and to default on their mortgage payments.

So while banks may have had some role as the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the crisis, the UNDERLYING responsibility lies with the masses of POORS.

Of course, the POORS, as they are apt to do, shirk responsibility and are scapegoating the banks.

To avert full-out disaster, the government had to step in with tax money. Who pays the vast majority of taxes? The RICH. In other words, the RICH bailed out the POOR for their stupid, financially unwise decisions to buy unaffordable McMansions. And THAT"S the really irony of this all.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

There was also the very rich, who bought supposedly AAA bonds from the even more rich, which were mis-labeled toxic mortgage-backed securities. The rich people there made a bad decision too, which taxpayers had to pay. But the very rich, and super rich still got bonuses.

But still, this isn't completely about foreclosures, and neither are foreclosures the root of this movement. The present state of student loans, monopolies, our defense budget, our high-priced health care, our tax system/loopholes can all be tied to our lawmakers, who take plenty of money from the very rich.

[-] 1 points by darkhound (66) 7 years ago

I can see it's not just about foreclosures. You jokers are bitching about everything under the sun. Student loans??? Give me a break.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

Well not me personally about student loans. I paid mine off. In fact, I've done just fine and have no money problems. For me, this is purely about being misrepresented.

[-] 1 points by darkhound (66) 7 years ago

Exactly. You borrowed money. So you have to pay it off. How is that unfair or complicated. Yet we have all these yahoos "protesting" this and tons of other idiotic issues. It's basically just a big bitch-fest.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

Yeah, also somehow it was an "official" demand to eliminate animal cruelty, apparently ratified by the protestors. I am not into protesting nor do I have the ability to protest, having a job, so I am not represented down there. People go to protests like a social event, but THIS protest seems to have historically large support.

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 7 years ago

The "protest" has historically large support because we have a historically large population of lazy bums in this country, which is why we are losing competitiveness versus countries like China.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

there are 2 areas to work on 1 is inner the other is outer the inner is to be what we say we belive in and the outer is the usary/fractional reserve banking system that funds wars and class warfare.(WATCH) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

This is really good, definitely should be a top priority. Also, we need to take back the media and make it actually serve the people (but I'm not quite sure how to do that yet).

Things we can do individually to help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXdmNFNqaQc

And I would suggest this to everyone who supports OWS--- DO NOT VOTE in the next election or we will only be perpetuating a flawed political process that is not beneficial to any of us.

Here are some other points to consider that may help us formulate other solutions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1N3opw5eI

[-] 1 points by poul (5) 7 years ago

when you do not vote, nobody knows why, so you are counted as "one of dem lazy stoners".

VOTE. just don't vote for dems or reps - cast your PROTEST VOTE for a fringe party. greens, communists, libertarians - anything - so when the votes are counted, it will be clear that "None of the Above" won the elections.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

That's an interesting idea... I'll think on it, thanks :)

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

I have not voted in awhile for the same reason, but I don't think that not voting is a good idea this election, simply because I think there may be enough support for OWS that votes actually matter.

I think we're getting more control over the media too. We can spread news through social networks, and easily fact check them. Still doesn't cover the fox news territory that well, but maybe it will get there.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

I don't know... currently I am leaning towards not voting but I will keep an open mind about it.

I agree that it is great to start to look at other news sources... we should just boycott all the big news stations until they get some morals.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

missy i love you but i think you are wrong about that! we have to vote for the lesser of the 2 evils..PLATO..the price for apathy is to be ruled by evil men

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

It wouldn't be apathy at all. Not voting would be like a sit-in, it would be sending a message, making a very big statement. By voting for anyone--doesn't matter who--we are, in a way, voting FOR the flawed system! And I think that's a big no-no. So I think we should knock it off. For more info on this, please read: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ori​g/shaffer1.html

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

think harder!! at least obama is moving almost halfway in our favor..if we get him in there for another 4 years we will have less resistance..!! the occupy movement is just begining..do you have what it takes to do this for years?? cause thats what is being asked of you to change this world...its not a sprint its a marathon..think harder!! the object is to win! the less resistance the better

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

I'm not convinced that would help us. I don't know that he is "moving in our favor" :/

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

hes not like me hes not a ballsy mo fo..but hes not a heartless bought off corrupt creep either...hes in the middle an d hes moved to the left within the last 3 weeks...just a bit..but if OWS gets more footing and gets clearer more well defined agendas.he will come even further left...and hes better than any stupid fake christian right wing freak

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

Okay, let's not dehumanize people. I think that with this movement it's important to not name-call or belittle. And by actually talking to the people who disagree with us we have an opportunity to change their minds and their hearts and that is a very important thing. Even if it isn't initially noticeable, simply by engaging in conversation with these people we will be making progress. If we can respond positively and without aggression to people who disagree with us, we will have made an impression and perhaps that will aid in a change in their perspective over time. By making this or that group into "bad" people, we're really doing ourselves a disservice ultimately. We all are interconnected even if the way in which we are connected is not completely apparent. The only way to change people's minds and hearts is to keep talking to them and be respectful and logical while doing so.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

a fake christian is a person who is a hypocrite and uses the name jesus but pays no attention to what he taught..he taught the world to share and be kind and nice and compassionate like i see at OWS..you dont even have to be a christian to be christ like

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

I understand what you're saying but my previous comment is still applicable. Please consider that people really want the same basic things in the end--acceptance, love, and the basic necessities of life. We really are all in this together and I believe it does no good to have an us-versus-them mentality.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

obviously you didnt watch the 20 min video..so save it for later http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24 its all about your very correct point girl we are all in it together

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

I saw it and I understood that message from your video but what you say above about "freaks" and calling people stupid does not go along with that message. Just saying....

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

ther is REAL EVIL in the world and some of it is in our government...i wont stop calling them freaks until THEY stop killing people and doin harm

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 7 years ago

and we have to form our own society(like we are doing)..1 foot in that world..and 1 foot in the exsisting structure...and we will change it! peace

[-] 0 points by ComplexMissy (291) 7 years ago

If you watched this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1N3opw5eI there would be no doubt that there is no "lesser of two evils". And our president--any U.S. president--can't really do much anyway...

Thanks for the love :) Back at ya....