Forum Post: No Campaign Contributions Over $100.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 9:02 p.m. EST by Philpux
(643)
from Mountain View, AR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What if we only allowed any one person to donate up to $100 to any political campaign, or political organization? Let corporations act as people, but they can only donate $100. What if we banned political advertising, and only allowed weekly televised debates that are paid for by the government. The airwaves belong to the people, after all. What if those debates were required viewing in every high school in the U.S.? Civics class, right? What if all congress people had to live and work in the district that they represent? This is the age of communication after all. What if congress people had to register and publish the names of anyone they met with from outside their district? I'm sure that there are many other things we could do to take big $$, and influence out of our political system. I don't believe we will accomplish much else, until we get the big $$ out of our government.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
No campaign contributions period.
I agree. Publicly funded elections. Most folks just hear that as "more taxes," though. I am looking to make campaign finance reform an issue. The details will have to come from people smarter than me.
Again - take action to place Buddy Roemer on the Republican debates. Let's get a conversation that has some substance - unless you really care who mowed Mitt Romney's lawn.
Agreed.
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/01/358280/buddy-roemer-loss-of-jobs/
Description?
Buddy Roemer is only accepting $100 donations He also wants to stop free trade.
I know. I like Buddy Roemer. He is one of those issue candidates.
I like him too.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
I'm kind of an independent. I like lots of candidates. Unfortunately not many that actually get into office. lol
Yea, It's a longshot.
It seems that the good ones are always a long shot.
This idea is in Congressional Committee right now: Fair Elections Now Act. Please let your reps know they should support this bill. Senate Bill 750. HR 1404.
Wow. I didn't know that. ty.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
I (heart) Campaign Finance Reform!
Then get Buddy Roemer on the republican debates!
America needs Buddy...
Every man a king! Roemer!
Yup, that goes against the Constitution in a big way.
What we really want is to remove the political influence of corporations.
So here's what we're up against. 1) The Supreme Court ruling that a corporation, business, club, church, city, community, etc... is an organization of The People and that it is those people's rights that are being represented by the organization, thus giving the organization faux personhood.
2) The repugnant Supreme Court Ruling that says Congress cannot limiting corporate political spending without limiting the People's right to free speech.
I personally think that an individual should be able to spend all of their money any way they want. If they want to run for president, they can spend all their money to do so (like Ross Perot). If a rich person wants to fund my campaign for President, they can do so.
HOWEVER!!! ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FUND CAMPAIGNS. Organizations rarely represent their members' political beliefs when spending politically, and even more rarely give members the choice to opt out of political spending they don't agree with.
We need nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to get past the Supreme Court Rulings. A constitutional amendment that forbids organized money from being spent for political means. The regulations enacting the law would impose fines and penalties up to and including dissolving the organization. The Supreme Court can't overturn a Constitutional Amendment.
Political campaign fund raising will still exist, and individuals can donate as much as they want, and who donated how much will be public record, but corporations would not be able to donate a penny.
The Progressive movement (very similar to the Occupy movement) was all about common people against the elite, the 99% against the 1%. The elite controlled the Senate through easily purchased Local State Representatives. As a result, the 17th Amendment was passed and the power to appoint US Senators was stripped from the State Legislatures and given to the voting People.
The Occupy movement can and should strive for that Constitutional Amendment. It's been done before and should be done again!
We have the numbers, time, resolve to get it done. Taking the corporations out of politics is what we want, isn't it?
Our Constitution does not provide for a Public/National Referendum so until Congress backs us, we're just blowing hot air.
Occupy has to propose the Amendment to as many Congressmen that will listen and start focusing on getting it passed. It's the only way to make lasting change. A Congressman has to stand up in Congress and propose legislation or all of this is for nothing. It's time Occupy Wall Street became Occupy D.C.
YES!! We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS
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.
It will be as short and concise as possible, a legally constructed
“corporations and other organizations are not a persons and 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 – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to 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, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)
If they could tie the left and right into a success -
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 the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them 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.
I feel that using 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.
Those are great ideas. I believe that regulating that way has already been tried. Indeed there are already limits on political donations. Any individual cannot donate more than 5,000 to a PAC for sponsor of a campaign directly. In the case of SpeechNow.org vs. FEC, it was decided that there would be no limits on donations to PAC's for independent expenditures. i.e. advertising that the PAC does independently of the campaign. Then with Citizens United vs. FEC, it was decided that Corporations could act as donors directly to PAC's. They always seem to find a way around complicated ways of stopping them. Make it simple. Cap donations. Don't allow political advertising, outside of independently moderated debates.
if you were to say $20 i would get behind it. there is no reason why a person could not finance his whole campaign on $20 donations, remember, we are bringing the incentive back to the real, namely to serve the people, rather than the millionaire club that our congress has turned into.
$20 works for me.
That is a good start. We need to make people who would consider running for office just to get rich to look somewhere else.
The next step is public-funded campaigns. Candidates shouldn't even be allowed to use their own money. It could be done for a ten cent federal tax on gasoline.
I agree. Publicly funded elections are a great idea.
In this way we would own the politicians instead of what ever corporation, special interest group or mega-rich donor that can shovel the most cash into their coffers.
Next: take a dime of lobbyist money while in office,...go directly to jail.
I like it. I also really like the idea of congress people having to live and work in their respective districts.
Remember when they brought in Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama when he was first running for the Seante seat in Illinois? I don't even think Keyes was from Illinois.
I know, right? The whole system is crazy.
Sounds more like the Endangered Incumbent Protection Act.
It is big $$ that often keeps incumbents going. Congress people get most of their campaign funding from outside of their district, and usually by quite a large margin. Pelosi is something like 89%, and Boener is like 91%.
I have one good reason why shouldnt force people to only give a maximum of $100.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES :)
I don't think that free speech should necessarily apply to campaign donations, in as far as dollar amounts. They can give to whomever they want, but a cap would level the playing field, and get undue corporate interests out of our electoral system.
You cannot tell someone what to do with their money! Now corporations... they shouldnt be able to donate at ALL. or very limited... but a PERSON. CANNOT LEGALLY limit what they do with their money.
Actually we already have caps on donations to PAC's, limited to 5,000 for direct campaign funding.
and I am completely against that.
Well, I suppose not everyone will be for equitable access to our political system.
Put this into your civics class.
Try this free speech.
Do you think I'm a plant?
http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/ -- read more
The Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11
American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the 5 hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze.
Of course an investigation would have taken pictures of the remains of the plane. There would have been jet engines, hundreds of seats, the landing gear, pieces of luggage and bodies of the victims if the official story was true. The law suit by April Gallop who worked at the same spot of the explosion and claimed there was no sign of any plane was dismissed by Judge Denny Chin. Chin was then promoted from the SDNY district court to the 2nd Circuit. On appeal 2nd Circuit judge John M. Walker, Jr. sat on the panel. Walker is the cousin of President George Bush in a case filed against Cheney, Rumsfeld, and General Meyers.
Judge Chin's reason was that April Gallop is delusional. If the Boeing jet had truly crashed into the Pentagon, the pictures of the debris would have validated Chin's reason to dismiss the suit. Allowing the trial would have revealed April was delusional by producing the photos of the plane's parts.
Obviously there were no plane parts because there are no photos. Flight 77 was taken some place and all 64 people were murdered. These are facts they are not opinions.
Perhaps, you are right, but I don't see how that is relevant to this topic.
Try reality. Let's see if you understand this set of facts? I exhausted bribes.
Where's one specific? I'm calm and very experienced.
I write to expose corruption. You didn't notice. You are ignorant.
You insult my intelligence because you're rude and arrogant like the 2 nitwits on Colbert. http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/
An OWS critic asked if I knew how many conspirators in 9/11.
All the commandos who rigged the explosives, Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld, Silverstein, the entire 911 Commission who were exposed by Philip Shenon when he published THE COMMISSION. Its a huge number which I can't possibly know.
Arrest the above group and put them in a super max with an ultimatum to speak about each individual involved or they will be there until they die. I'd get very close to the exact number. To rig thousands of explosives throughout all the columns they blew would take a large group at least 2 weeks and maybe 6 weeks. All the pieces that were blown up were photographed. Very sophisticated detonation by highly trained commandos. Only idiots would believe any building will collapse straight down by a random plane crash.
Read my post about the NYT conspired not to publish incredible facts by Shenon, their reporter assigned to the Commission. Invite me to the park for a presentation with pictures of the evidence.
Dood, don't be a douche. Start your own thread. Don't get mine deleted for your own agenda.