Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Interesting Site on Removing Money in Politics

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 13, 2012, 7:59 p.m. EST by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What do you guys think of this?




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Signed & Tweeted

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 7 years ago

It's the same 'ole same 'ole. Petition for desired legislation and threaten not to support elected officials who won't support it. In the end, committed democrats will continue to vote for their popularized candidates and committed republicans will continue to vote for their popularized candidates with the alternative being to vote for another democrat or republican who holds the same position to replace the previous ones.

Vote n Hope simply doesn't work.

If Americans truly want political representation, they're going to have to start at the root of the matter http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ and impose legal control from the start. If they can't come together on that, why would anyone expect anything else to work?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I like that. In regards would use of that template come into play?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 7 years ago

I'm assuming a word, perhaps 'when' or possibly 'where' was left out in your question. In responding on the basis of that assumption, I would have to say that the official state versions of the template would begin to come into play roughly two years from now in the 2014 elections after its had two years of promotion among current non-voters and Independents. I see current non-voters as the main people who can make the application of affidavits work as, in being current non-voters, they are the only people willing to not vote when candidates don't comply. In contrast, when candidates do comply, there should be massive support from the current non-voters, overwhelming the corporate bought candidates.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

PROVISION 3: CLOSE THE REVOLVING DOOR  Extend the existing revolving door limitations applicable to Members of Congress and congressional staff to 7 years for former Members, and 5 years for former congressional staffers who are either (1) paid at a rate of 75% or more of a Member’s salary, or (2) whose duties are not primarily secretarial in nature.

PROVISION 4: PROHIBIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE PACS, LOBBYISTS, AND COVERED ASSOCIATES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS • Amend 2 U.S.C.A. § 441c(a) to state the following (inserted text underlined): § 441c. Contributions by government contractors (a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) Who enters into any contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof, or a lobbyist or an individual who engages in or directly supervises one or more individuals who engage in lobbying activities on behalf of such person, either for the rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies, or equipment to the United States or any department or agency thereof or for selling any land or building to the United States or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the performance of such contract or payment for such material, supplies, equipment, land, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds appropriated by the Congress, at any time between the commencement of negotiations for the later of two years following (A) the completion of performance under; or (B) the termination of negotiations for, such contract or furnishing of material, supplies, equipment, land, or buildings, directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use; or (2) knowingly to solicit any such contribution from any such person for any such purpose during any such period.

This is good.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ya, I always thought term limits were good. Not huge, but would help part of the problem. Very frustrating that the people wont even get behind that. I would make it so that anyone who had more than seven in was automatically out of the next election, regardless.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

If someone else presents it to me I will consider it.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago


[-] 0 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

looks like it is going viral.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 7 years ago

Looks good. The pop up made me wince but when i saw what it was i totally signed it. Pretty cool. I'll have to check it out more later because my grocery store is about to close. Cheers.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 7 years ago

The website itself looks great. The mission is perfectly stated boldly upfront, and i think rebuilding america is exactly what people want to hear. The deeper information continues to be clean, simple and easy to read. I don't have a complete enough understanding of politics to know exaclty how well the amendment will do, but damn it sounds good.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Half stepping with a happy face.

[-] -1 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

Hmmm. Nothing in there about confiscating union dues against the will of the worker and throwing them at candidates they may not agree with. Why is that?

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

I don't support the proposal either but for a different reason. It's an appeasement move to pacify the base without actually doing anything.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Im not sure. Im all for removing 100% of the money out of politics.

If the union people dont like who their bosses donate to, they are free to go find a job with someone else.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 7 years ago

Unions are democratic organizations. If they don't like who their union leaders donate to, then they vote for new union leaders. They can keep their job. And just change their union leader.

That said, anything Lawrence Lessig signs on to is probably a good thing.

[-] -2 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

How about giving the worker a mechanism to opt-out of their share of the campaign contribution?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Im all for choices on everything. That being said, I hear the right tell workers who want to organize that if they dont like the conditions, go work somewhere else. So why does that not apply here?

[-] 0 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

Because they aren't collecting part of your labor hours and giving it towards candidates.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

They are in different ways.

[-] 0 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

No, you get your labor hours multiplied by your rate and that is given to you minus taxes.

If there's something else going on, let us know.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I read through it. Lemme read it again tomorrow morning and do a third read through later tomorrow night and then I'll tell you what I think.