Forum Post: OWS Can Eliminate Corruption in Congress Related to Campaign Financing
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 1, 2012, 10:10 p.m. EST by zymergy
(236)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OWS supporters can eliminate corruption in Congress related to campaign financing by simply voting out of office the incumbents. Incumbents are easy to recognize. The votes of OWS supporters may be distributed to the best alternatives available. In this way the wealthy contributors would have no incentive to finance the incumbent campaigns, and Congressional representatives would have two years to do their work unmolested. Other forms of corruption are possible of course, but OWS must be vigilant and creative in dealing with these as well.
We should also support a renewed effort to pass a campaign finance reform bill. I don't think Citizens United closed all legislative windows. It's possible that the provision of McCain Feingold (which was overturned) could be resurrected, if congress does a better job of drafting the bill (taking into account the Constitutional defects found by the Court).
Most of the Abramoff proposals are also very good (and can be done legislatively). Of course none of this gets done without the application of considerable pressure, but if political reform is to be "one prong" of our approach, then we shouldn't solely focus on trying to get an amendment passed (which is very challenging, takes years, and the likelihood of success is unfortunately pretty small).
Indeed the Constitution would be adequate "as is" if we, the American people were more vigilant and applied "considerable pressure" when Congress deviated from serving our best interests. If we don't speak out then money will have its say uncontested.
Exactly. Like V said in V for Vendetta (or to paraphrase), if we want to find blame for this mess, we need only look in the mirror.
I think the first step should be a simple one:
Prohibit all paid political advertising in public media.
cable's privately owned
So are all the other big media outlets which broadcast to the public. Basically, the idea is to stop people from buying public opinion.
This does need to be addressed along with getting money out of government - campaign finance reform.
Although we will have to get people in office who agree with that idea before that can take place.
It's never to late to begin a good thing.
Why there is always the Wisconsin alternative - recall all in office who refuse to work for the people, who refuse to follow their oath of office. Let em hang out with Walker in the unemployment line.
Yes, I think we can reform, I will suggest here that :
1) we end Lobbying of all kinds.
2) Probably should get rid of the Political Action Committees.
3) We should end all gift giving and receiving at the Congress. Any gift should be valued at no more than $5 like all other government offices.
4) Freebies should be eliminted like free hotel rooms, free convension tickets, free tickets of any kind, free dinners, free plane rides, free entertainment, etc.
5) Campaign Finance Reform starts with the above, but also have to prevent book sales of large quanitites to one entity or individual (an obvious pander).
6) The above should help end career politician.
7) I'd also like to see congressmen publish their position quarterly on a type of point paper on a subject or issue of their choice. Or maybe make it 3 subjects of their choice since we are paying them. The intension is to prevent congressmen from changing positions after lobbyist have gotten to them.
8) I would like to see free national radio and tv air time by all stations 6 months prior to elections for min 10 minute speach. This would be free from the radio, tv, or cable station (patriotic duty to help stop national corruption. Say all politician can have free time once a month per station.
You have expanded our awareness of the means by which corruption is implemented, and these means should indeed be countered. How to go about this? Some may be corrected by better rules in Congress - the Constitution permits Congress to make its own rules. When it fails to do so effectively, then we may have to amend the Constitution. There are efforts afloat toward this objective. Other OWS posts have recommended the following: amend2012.org, movetoamend.org, callaconvention.org, americanselect.org, and unitedrepublic.org.
2 Feb 2012 I found a website that lists 16 different Amendments, but only 9 are from congressmen/women. And I think I only saw 4 on-line Petitions.
Senator Bernie Sanders and congressman Ted Deutch have similar if not the same Amendments and were the only Amendments with 4 Articles.
Only the Move To Amend has the phrase: Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, and The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
http://unitedrepublic.org/amendments-guide/ (all 16 are listed here) GetMoneyOut.com has 277,963 signatures Move to Amend has 165,984 signatures Bernie Sanders has over 200,000
That said, my suggestions could either be legislation or Amendments. The problem in the US is we add laws every years, but then don't manage implementation of existing laws. And likely congressmen and lobbyist interfere with implementation. Recently heard that the law that implemented/established the FED has been amended 100 times. Government needs to monitor the laws it implements. Government also needs to go back and streamline existing laws like tax laws that created whole industry of people that do nothing for the GDP or the economic multiplier effect that would stimulate the economy. Maybe we would be better off if we wiped the hard drive of all laws pasted since 1913 or 1910.
I haven't signed the MovetoAmend petition yet, but it looks good. But we need campaign finance reform and simple tax laws, if that means an Amendment then maybe someone can copy some of my work on other posts and get a lawer to review the ideas.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-stimulus-taxes-jobs-regulations-revolvin/
You have made many good points and suggestions at your last link above. Which of these would you say we should focus on first? And what would be the best strategy to use? While you are considering these two questions, please take a look at http://occupywallst.org/forum/reform-constitutional-amendments/ which went up today.
Thanks for sharing and advertising these sites and actions.
No, OWS really can't make that happen with our current form of governance. We all know the money in politics is absolutely wrong, so why does it continue? Even insider trading? Because somebody else owns our alleged government. It's all about money.
conspiracy theory?
truth.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
"The Constitution for the united states of America".
The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not. "
You might also enjoy the website of Ed Griffin http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=US_corporation
Regardless, calling a rose a dandelion does not a dandelion make. We might be deceived into thinking that we have no power, and then in fact we would have no power. Take courage, you do have power when you exercise it. Organize and exercise your vote to achieve the objective you desire.
Thinking you can put "good" politicians in is delusional. The corporate war state rules with an iron fist.
Your voting is useless
Perhaps, Anachronism, you are right about any dependence on " 'good' politicians ... [being] delusional". And you are probably correct that those who benefit from the status quo will fight to maintain it (that is what you meant, right?), but I disagree that voting is useless. Both (and either) to preserve the present system or to change it, without destroying what is also good about it, we must vote. If we don't vote, then those who wish to preserve it can vote unchallenged and easily win. Despondent silence is also consent.
More specifically, OWS supporters can vote out of Congress the 184 corrupt current members who, in 1999, voted for Wall Street to repeal Glass-steagall.
Here is a compilation of those current corrupt members:
The Congress That Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html
There is a long line of new candidates eager to take corporate and special interest money and become just as corrupt as the incumbents they wish to replace. What must be done is to cut off the enormous amounts of money being donated to the candidates. This money is the life blood that feeds the corruption! Contributions must only come from individuals, the people. All others have no right of entry into democracies sacred walls.
You can see a table of FEC Campaign Contribution limits at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
You can find charts of state limits at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16594
Obviously, no one individual, corporation, or union can contribute the very large sums of money that are now required to win a Congressional election. Thus, fund raisers, including lobbyists, must combine contributions from many individuals in order to have an influence. We could define a special interest as the net result of many individuals with a common objective pooling their resources up to their individual limits to support a particular candidate (incumbent or challenger). With such a definition OWS, or Common Cause, would be a “special Interest”. Imagine however that many OWS supporters each contributed $1000 to help advertise a favorite candidate. Then, once in office, the elected representative would look at the issues and consider the competing demands of all of the other elected representatives, and attempt through a series of deals and compromises to legislate according to the special interests of OWS. But, this representative, after recognizing that he or she was not likely to get re-elected anyway because there were other large blocks of voters who were committed to removing incumbents, would be effectively released from any obligation to OWS special interests, and vote as necessary to effect legislation that met the best interests of his constituents (defined as the residents of his Congressional District, or state if this representative happened to be a senator), or in the best interests of his future employment as a private citizen after the end of his term. There are many holes to plug.
So you support government of, by, and for the special interests?
Yes, because that is the nature of a democracy. You are special. There is no one exactly like you. You have interests. Others may share your interests and so it makes sense for the several of you to work together to get the government to pay attention to your needs. It is only when the government pays attention exclusively to your needs that we have problems. Like a diet too rich in alcohol would be bad for me and for everybody else who may not even drink but would have to live in the same neighborhood with me. Yes, a democracy is designed to permit special interests to be heard and to function to the good health of all. When that function exceeds the limits of good health, special interests must be restrained - but not suppressed.
The nature of democracy means one person, one vote. A government of the people. It is only when the government pays attention exclusively to the special interests needs that we have problems. Special interests have far greater power than is obvious. Before the election, their money pre elects candidates. A candidate with 100 regular supporters message will be drowned out by the message of a candidate with just 10 rich supporters. The rich supporters have used their right of free speech by their contributions, but they have in effect amplified their voice far above their opponents. Their volume must be suppressed as soon as it reaches a single decibel above the common mans. Free speech means nothing if it is not also fair speech! Can you imagine an open debate among candidates, but one has his microphone turned up high, while the others are turned down so low, the audience can't hear their message? Can anyone say that this was free speech? All except the one candidate would say it is unfair. Even after the election the rich continue to manipulate the representatives vote by by bribing him with meals, travel, and entertainment, plus the promise of more money for his upcoming campaign. To call this corruption, democracy, is a lie. It is Hypocrisy!
The situation you have just described, Jhirsch, frustrates many of us more modest income people. But we can resist it in five important ways. First, the use of social media, such as this FORUM, which depends not on money, but on participation, can get information out much more effectively than expensive broadcast advertising such as radio, TV, and direct mailings. We have more power here than we realize. Encourage all of your friends and family to participate. Second, we can coordinate our votes in advance just like the major political parties do, to forward candidates for the general elections (you mentioned this action in your comments). Third, we must of course vote, and that is a very personal act. You may vote for an OWS candidate, or for a Democratic candidate, or for a Republican, or Green, or whatever, but by abstaining you will give up a very important piece of your power. Fourth, you can monitor, encourage, and/or badger our elected representatives, while they are in office, toward actions and legislation of which you approve. Fifth and finally, you have to repeat the five steps all over again to protect and improve the results that you want.
The peoples efforts to change our government's present course is like trying to turn a ship by turning the wheel, but for some reason it does not seem to respond. Looking below deck in the control room we see why. The steering wheel has been disconnected, and in it's place another one has been attached, steered by the special interests. If you really want to steer the boat, the only solution is to disconnect the wheel below deck, and reattach the wheel on deck.
Good analogy. Still, it is the voters who enable the connection of wheel and rudder. We can undo what we have done. Many ideas expressed by others in this FORUM and elsewhere have contributed to the five steps I outlined above. These are actions that we can take individually, and if we do so, the collective results of our individual actions, peaceful yet purposeful, may "reattach the wheel on deck".
The proper way to reconnect the voters steering wheel is not by steering it. The connection is broken and must be repaired. It must must be repaired by a constitutional amendment that will eliminate special interest influence from the democratic process. While we are attempting this repair we must also weaken the special interests, because they will fight this repair vigorously. This can be accomplished by cutting off their blood supply, money. Don't buy corporate products and services, it is more effective than any election.
I agree with your proposed action - it is very sensible to boycott the products and services of companies that corrupt Congress.
What specifically can we point to as a corruption? The legislation of an Industry or Company-targetd tax break? The legislation of an industry or Company-targeted de-regulation? A bailout?
All of these things have probably occurred and probably there are several companies that have aggressively lobbied for them.
Should we now get specific, spell out the case against a particular company, identify a vulnerable product, and recommend a boycott? Should we then monitor the behavior of the consumers who would be deciding if the boycott was both justified and feasible for their situations.
Once a boycott is in operation, would we need a means to communicate with the targeted company and monitor its reformation?
The corruption is all monetary or other compensation that a corporation contributes to congress. I would boycott almost every name brand product. I can hear your argument already, but what about the good corporation? Why target them? Corporations get large because they are voracious predators. Their goodness is an illusion created by decades of hypnotic advertising. Even after all of the major banks went bankrupt, people still feel comfortable to leave their life savings with them. What incredible bainwashing has occurred and continues to have effect. I favor a four prong attack overall. First do not buy any new products or at least greatly limit them. Buy used, buy generic, get free, or make yourself. Second, vote for non corporate controlled candidates. The ones with black and white flyers, not the ones with full color on card stock. I am more impressed by one candidates frugal spending on elections than anothers extravagant spending. Third, a constitutional amendment barring special interests from any political contributions. This will be a tough fight. Fourth and most important, sift out the true knowledge first and act on it, then share it with everyone. There are a lot of ideas that sound good, but are incapable of achieving actual results. Go here to see why there is such an inequity in wealth in the first place:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/protest-with-your-dollar/
There is truth in what you write, Jrhirsch: advertising does improve sales and help companies grow; big companies do have several means of rewarding and influencing Congress; wealth is quite unevenly distributed; with limited resources, we as individuals can get along pretty well by not patronizing big business. I hesitate to admit however, that I do not expect that by following the practices of either Jesus or Buddha will we be able to change anything but ourselves, and further that by changing ourselves will we be able to improve our society for our children. That might be irrelevant to your four-pronged approach, or to the first three prongs, but it did seem to be what you were stressing with your last point. From my perspective we must understand how people work, and then set up our ways of doing business, with rules and common practices, that permit opportunities for all to flourish, but limit the opportunities for any to go overboard. I would like to talk more with you about your amendment ideas. Can an amendment provide the appropriate limits?
My fourth point was not meant to be be religious, although the reasoning is identical. I was surprised how many religious institutions donate money to political causes. The separation between church and state should also include corporate interests and state.
Go to this site to find tons of info about your favorite candidate and see where they really get their money from! Plus much info on campaign finance and reform.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
The amendment would limit any monetary or other compensation to federal candidates or representatives in office by groups, corporation, unions, Etc, even OWS. The only people able to contribute would be individuals with a maximum limit of $100, maybe a bit more. A true government of the people, not of the corporation.
Thanks for the reference to opensecrets.org
Fundamental to your amendment seems to be the assumption that a group of people can do something, like donate money, independently of the individuals who make up that group. This is a very strange assumption as only living things have the natural power to act. Yet, we do have the legal entity called the "corporation" that is somehow distinct from the individuals who own it and run it. Obviously, this confusion is at the heart of the CitizensUnited Supreme Court case;
for the complete SC opinion on this case see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf interesting as it is, I did not have the patience to read it all
I wonder if a Constitutional amendment would be needed to clear up this confusion - but to do so would certainly change the way business works in America, wouldn't you agree? By the way, what do we do when science develops sentient robots. Will these robots have the same rights guaranteed under our constitution as people? They will certainly be more people-like than are now corporations.
A poor choice of words. The amendment would BAN any monetary or other compensation to federal candidates or representatives in office by groups, corporation, unions, Etc, even OWS.
Who has more power in an election? A person with a single vote, or a special interest group contributing thousands of dollars to a candidate?
We could talk about power and influence as two different things (even though they are definitely linked in our minds). The Constitution guarantees each citizen (in good standing) one vote - as the basis of political power. A person with a microphone, or a book, or a movie, or a reputation for whatever reason has more influence than most of us. A special interest group, made up of relatively wealthy people, can advertise a lot and gain influence and votes among those who are subject to advertising, but not votes from those who tend to think for themselves. A special interest group of relatively limited-resource people who cannot broadly advertise can still have an influence. OWS protests demonstrate this. However, the special interest group of limited-resource people will have more power if they will organize and exercise their votes. One way to organize is to contribute to and read this FORUM, as you are doing. Your influence is inevitable. Your vote is essential.
Do not THINK
Do not REASON
Do not EVALUATE
Do not be VIGILANT
Do not be CREATIVE
Do what is EASY
Pick a GROUP of candidates that can be described by
a single term { non-incumbents } and vote for all of them
You, too, can be a lemming!
Yes, what Bensdad suggests would work for its intended purpose, but applying some thought, reason, evaluation, vigilance, creativity, and work to the process might uncover more capable candidates from the pack. Yet I would not want to say which candidate best met the interests of which voters, even if they happen to be OWS supporters. That decision should be up to each and every voter. I will go no further than to propose that corruption in Congress related to campaign financing could be eliminated NOW by the electorate's refusal to give any incumbent a second term in office.
[Removed]
wrong: You need to finish grammar school before you come onto an adult forum
Is there a problem with my grammar or with my proposal? Would you be willing to describe your objections to either?
I meant you need to be educated about the truth. You need to educate yourself about the the system you live in. Beginning at the grammar school level of education. I don't have time to teach you the basic history of your own political system and I'm not going to.
Yes, education is something we both (all) need to pursue, for the truth seems to quite elusive, if not expanding in scope. Any response that you might make can have an education value - but you certainly have a right to allocate your time as you see fit.
By the way, your recent post with the YouTube presentation of Gar Alperovitz was stimulating, although time consuming.
If you don't want to learn anything: then don't waste my time Go waste you time with crap that is not stimulating Then you can waste your time and your life without being stimulated.
The truth is not elusive. The truth is there for you to discover. If you don't want to find the truth: you won't. Your self-fulfilling prophecy is bullshit.
And if we vote out the "lifers' we need to put people in office who have a "genuine" insterest in getting America back on track with
Less government
Less regulation on small businesses
Less regulation on industry
Less regulation on individuals
SteveKJR, there may be in this FORUM (or outside) a good discussion on the role of government in regulation, but I have missed it. For example: Is there an appropriate circumstance for regulation? Should existing regulations lapse on a schedule, or persist until revoked? What is the difference between a rule and a regulation? If you created a new post with your ideas on these and other questions of regulation, with references, then more interested people may be able to join in on the discussion.
[Removed]