Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ban Corporate Money In Politics - A Constitutional Amendment For The 99%

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 9:51 a.m. EST by mha (142)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/about/

SIGN THE PETITION: http://www.change.org/petitions/pass-the-occupied-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-corporate-in-politics

Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urA-HovgYEM

http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/OCCUPIED_Amendment_Information.pdf

SPREAD THE WORD!!!

Support is needed!!!

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 8 years ago

It is a hollow gesture, until it passes the Senate. I doubt it would also clear the House this soon in the game, however, there is a glimmer of hope. I will remain staunchly indifferent to the action, until/ if it becomes something more. It's NOT enough. Don't be cowed by small gestures people. We demand a full accounting, not meaningless gesturing and promises!

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

It's never a hollow gesture when someone actually introduces a bill - there are some who introduce bills year after year, and what initially dies without support sometimes makes it through. (Though it seems like usually those are the truly terrible bills...)

[-] 1 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 8 years ago

Unfortunately, our Senate/ House have many thousand of examples of bills/ laws that were introduced... but died quickly. On the other hand, we have many, many examples of motions that have carried. On the one hand/ bills/ laws/ failure for the good of the People - on the other motions for recess/ pay raises and more appropriation - successes. I think I see a pattern and thus - another bill, pfaugh!

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

why not use this time of broader awareness and public debate about corrupted democracy and help this hope to gain some momentum!

help to spread the word. use our possibilities of communication.

the major part of society is behind this idea. all we need is to let the people know about the proposition.

let the people know about it!

spread the word!

help.

i will.

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

doesn't go far enough. corporations are only a fraction of the money in politics.

[-] 1 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 8 years ago

If the corporations make billion, no... trillions of dollars a year and they invest hundreds of millions of dollars in trips, 'gifts', vacations, resort memberships and outright monetary 'bribes' and they end up having laws changed to meet their requirements; I'd say that a 'fraction' is way too much. If a representative is elected to office by his/ her constituents (say 150,000 people in an election) and a single corporation, with a 'lobby' can derail his vote - thwarting that 150,000... do you still feel that that fraction is not a problem? The means to a solution is not a whole thing approach. It is a piecemeal event. Like the morons in the f**king Supercommittee. They gave the dumbass excuse of not being able to come to a compromise, but they were willing to set it aside until after the election to let the next administration debate on it. Why not compromise now - serve the people of this country and then let the new administration deal with it!? Because they no longer serve us, but themselves. They have to make sure they get prepped to come back when they get elected again. With the new redistricting reforms, I'm quite certain that will happen...

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

Rep. Deutch on the OCCUPIED Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urA-HovgYEM

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 8 years ago

Hi mha, Excellent. Signed petition. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

thank you Nevada1. please help to spread the word. the majority stands behind this idea but the medial echo is around zero...

all the best, mha

[-] 1 points by damascus (7) from Bossier City, LA 8 years ago

How can we best tell the politicians to back off and quit trying to co-opt the movement? Proposals coming from outside the movement can only serve to divide us. I hope everyone realizes that campaign finance reform alone is worthless. There are many other ways to corrupt the politicians.

I would like to also add, that although Deutch has introduced some good legislation, his main interest currently seems to be taking down Iran. HE WILL LEAD US STRAIGHT INTO WAR!

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

nobody claimed that campaign finance is the only thing worth regulating, but it is particularly crucial to deal with it, don't you think?

and THIS proposal has NOTHING to do with war. make your points in the proper post about iran. i'm with you to speak out against war with iran.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I've signed on. But like I said below - there may be a more efficient means through Congress as opposed to using the State's ratification process.

The draw back is it might also be less permanent.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Reading the petition now.

I would point out that there may be a cleaner way to do this. A Constitutional Amendment takes a significant amount of time and public participation.

It might be quicker to examine the legislative history behind the premise of corporate personhood and simply repeal it through Congress rather than using the state's ratification process.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

this is interesting

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

please, if you support the idea, help to let people know about it - the medial echo is arround zero.

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/about/

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Do we have text submitted to the Senate?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

If it has been submitted to either House or Senate then it should appear in the

http://thomas.loc.gov

website.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

section 4 is about public disclosure

congress already has the right to regulate business

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

today corporations are able to anonymously funnel cash to any third party for the purpose of funding malicious attack ads, smear campaigns, and companion Super PACS.

Section IV allows Congress to set limits and require disclosure for any and all political contributions and expenditures by individuals and other private entities. This section allows Congress to end the practice of a few billionaires spending unlimited funds to promote their personal political agendas.

if any party would have the same amount of money to spend on their election-campaigns, arguments would win the elections. at the present, MONEY DECIDES who wins!

it undermines democracy if a rich person has more influence on the outcome of an election than a regular person.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

please, if you support the idea, help to let people know about it - the medial echo is arround zero.

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/about/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 8 years ago

I support and signed the petition. Since they are calling this the "Occupied Amendment," I would still caution that this should be in no way a move to either weaken or lessen our activities. Even if the law was to be passed, there still is a lot of people that are likely going to either destroy or weaken it in the future.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Nothing more than a bandaid where MAJOR Intrusive surgery must happen to save the country.

Here is the tip of the iceberg as to why.......

http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 8 years ago

I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. I think it's a great start..

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

please help me to spread the word. people need to know about this opportunity. with enough medial echo this could bring a substantial change.

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/about/

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by baldeaglefreedom (8) 8 years ago

Here it is on POPVOX.com, where you can write a letter to your member of Congress -- and POPVOX will deliver it: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hjres90

[-] 1 points by Pharos (12) from 's-Hertogenbosch, NB 8 years ago

Show them! Don't appease by a statement destined not to make it to congress in a year and not pass!

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

no appeasement. but information is crucial! let the people know so they can show their support for this idea!

the majority of our citizens is behind this!

just let them know about it!

not an appeasement at all.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

Is it possible that a politician was actually doing his job?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

That's good to hear. Thanks for posting!

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

you're welcome ;)

i'm afraid the amendment doesn't get any attention at all.

trying to spread the word but there is only so much i can do..

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/about/

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

Keep on spreading the word. It will take more than one politician and one amendment to make the necessary changes to happen. Every moment spent on contemplating the problems and looking for solutions is well spent!

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 8 years ago

No - It's a paper tiger shot full of loopholes and exemptions. Neither side wants to get the money out! Although the bill prohibits direct corporate donations (which is a definite plus) , it expects congress to regulate the private donations that THEY RECEIVE. If the 1% contributes the majority of the money; guess who gets represented. It's like the law congress made that allows them, and only them, to personally profit from inside information..... when they're the ones that creates the rules! Accept nothing less than 100% government funded campaigns!!

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

You are right that it's not perfect, but it does contain a plus. Let's at least give it that much. I'll take a possible step in the right direction (even if it is a minuscule one) as long as we keep moving toward progress. The faster the better but we have to be realistic. Trying to move the cogs of the entire country takes time. I'll take it over another piece of legislation that directly attacks our freedom any day!

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 8 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Corruption cannot be kept in check without ALL campaign donations being removed. Anything less turns our elections into auctions.

[-] 2 points by divineright (664) 8 years ago

Well in this case I hope your disagreement is right and it does move faster!

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

This has been posted a number of times and it will never move. It would require a reversal by the Supreme Court... Not gonna happen.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

why not use this time of broader awareness and public debate about corrupted democracy and help this hope to gain some momentum!

help to spread the word. use our possibilities of communication.

the major part of society is behind this idea. all we need is to let the people know about the proposition.

let the people know about it!

spread the word!

help.

i will.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Also, ending corporate personhood is illogical and anti-business. The problem is corporatism, not corporations.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

explain that please.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Sure. Corporations are necessary to enable the raising of capital to start any business bigger than an individual.

See a concise definition and history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Corporatism is a different matter entirely. It is a government-sponsored protection racket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

regarding the definition, how is corporate personhood not corporatism?

money means power to help certain politicians to get elected. should a rich man have more power in democracy than a poor man?

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

"All men are created equal", but after that things are seldom equal.

As Steve Jobs wisely noted, he believed in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Corporate personhood is not corporatism. Pore over the definitions more closely or clarify your question, please.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

and should a rich man have more power in democracy than a poor man?

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Right now a rich man does, because we have corporatism and because of that we not only barely have our constitutional republic, we barely have a Constitution left. If we all fight to eliminate corporate favoritism and adhere to the Constitution, both Occupy and the Tea Party people would be on the same side (along with most of the apolitical population).

[-] 0 points by mha (142) 8 years ago

i agree!

and

http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

would help us achieve that goal!

[-] 0 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

Corporations are not people. They have no morality. Their soul purpose is to look at the bottom line. If this is anti-business than so be it. We need to find a new way to do business in this country. How is this illogical?

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Societies that have a business-friendly environment, including recognition of property rights, advance and innovate far faster than those that do not recognize said rights. As goofy as it sounds, corporations are made of people, people with individual rights. The corporation acts as a proxy for their interests as investors and owners. The reason for a business is to make a profit, otherwise it is a charity.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

A corporation is made up of people that have rights. The corporation is their property. A corporation by its self cannot have property rights, because it is the property. The corporation acts as a proxy, only for their monetary interests, not moral ones. Therefore, it does not makes sense to give them the same rights as people. They do not represent the Moral side of people.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

The corporation is morally neutral, not amoral.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 8 years ago

agreed, corporations are not Evil. They are amoral, non-sentient, entities.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

That is a bummer. On the plus side, at least we know one person in Congress knows how to look up something in the dictionary.

[-] 1 points by AuditElmerFudd (259) 8 years ago

Haha...

[Removed]

[Removed]