Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Regroup On The Only Issue, THE ONLY ISSUE, Get Money out of Politics.....Here's How

Posted 10 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 9:56 p.m. EST by puff6962 (4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The solitary issue upon which all else will depends is big money in politics.

There must be A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT overruling Citizens' United with language banning ALL corporate donations to political campaigns, PAC's, and 527's.

Additionally, ALL interactions between lobbyists and members of Congress should be in written form or recorded. This document or transcript would then be entered into the Congressional record for all to see. Lobbyist activities would become public information. No unrecorded, personal, meetings would be allowed.

In the final analysis, there can be no corporate money, no concentrated influence, and no backroom deals in a government of the people. Unions would similarly be limited in their ability to exert concentrated political influence. Churches that provide "Voters' Guides" and allow political activities upon their premises should lose their nonprofit status.

Concentrated political power always drives corruption and tyranny. It must be opposed in all of it's forms.

The closest initiative encompassing these ideals is Dylan Ratigan's, "Get Money Out," project.

Sign the petition and spread this post.




Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by MarkDuwe (127) 10 years ago

All campaigns should be funded with tax-payer dollars. That is the way they do it in England. Candidates can't even use their own money. It's the only way to level the playing field.

[-] 4 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 10 years ago


[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I am glad you like it.

[-] 2 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

The public financing system in the UK is why politicians there have long been beholden to the News of the World tabloid and the rest of the news media industry, including your bogeyman, Rupert Murdoch.

[-] 4 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I agree somewhat. Public financing also allows the state to choose the parties in an election. It's a nice concept, but to every eden there must be a serpent.

I am not against money in campaigns, I'm against UNLIMITED money in campaigns. There should be limits placed upon personal giving. But, outside of personal donations, there should be no giving period.

Corporations are not citizens, unions are not citizens, greenpeace is not a citizen, and evangelical PAC's are not citizens.

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

Have to respectfully disagree on the corporations issue. Free speech is pretty hollow if we can't band together with like minded people to get the word out. That's one of the purposes of a corporation.

There are already limits on personal giving, and they're so low that members of Congress spend a ridiculous amount of their time begging for money.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 10 years ago

That's not entirely true. Corporations arose because of the separation between management in ownership; in that it is not fair to hold the owners personally liable for the acts of their business, because they are not the ones actually running it.

Corps have since taken on a life of their own, and have manged to secure most of the rights of individuals, but without any of the responsibilities.

The only thing on a corporations mind is: How does this impact net income? If up, then do it; If down, then do not do it. At least IMO a soulless financial monster which acts soley out of greed, and knows nothing but self-interest; should not have the rights of a human being.

It has the intellectual capacity an Amoeba, but it eats money instead of algae, and is much larger and far more dangerous... they should not be involved in the political process at all, because they are incapable of human compassion.

Even without corporations, individuals could still band together and say whatever they wanted; as they always have.

[-] 0 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 10 years ago

So you are saying that the workers at walmart are likeminded people with the investors and owners who control walmart, control walmart's political money, and control walmart's stance on the issues? likewise, the few men at the top of every corporate structure adequately represent the interests of the lower 99% of that corporation? Plug in MOST other corporations.

Your assumption usage of corporations to represent the interests of it's workers is incorrect. It only represents the interests of those who hold stock in the corporations... or by and large, the 1%. I think about the only exceptions I can think of are the corporations in which all the workers share in a near equal share of the company on an individual level... their aren't too many of those.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

You've given every argument from the corporate lobby defense on this issue. You are a plant on this forum.

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

I've been attacking corporate welfare, crony capitalism and bailouts, yet you accuse me of being a corporate plant. Take off the tinfoil hat, puffy.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yet you do not recognize the remedy.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I think that such a system would invite every form of manipulation possible.....similar to the redistricting wars seen over the past decade. Power will not give up power unless you neuter them or produce a stronger rival.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Public finance would be unpalatable to many at this time. It would invite the socialism charge and would limit popular support for the key provision that must be passed.

Getting corporation money out is the essential first step. Public finance may be achievable down the road.....but not as a first step.

[-] 4 points by MarkDuwe (127) 10 years ago

I really think it's the only way your going to get anything else done. Everything else you want to do will be fought by corporations shoveling money at candidates who oppose us. We need candidates who are 'untouchable' like the men Elliot Ness chose for his crime fighting team. They were 'untouchable' because they couldn't be bought for any amount of money, true patriots.

The first thing we need is a positive PR campaign for public funded campaigns. It would only amount to a penny out of every ten dollars in taxes. England does it. We could ban TV ads, I think most people would be in favor of that. It could be done.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

When you begin state sponsorship of campaigns, you create a can of worms. When you limit speech.....TV ads.....you have a 1st Amendment issue.

The end around is to strictly limit the size of donations, and eliminate ALL corporate giving......the rest will fall into place.

[-] 6 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular - how about an issue that 83% of Americans agree on - that 56% of TP agree on - that will cement 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 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 success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I think we can, but all other issues must be pushed aside for the sake of unity on this initiative.

No person, except for maybe George Washington, gives up power without a fight. This will be a tough battle, but all else depends upon ending big money in our political system.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes. Add the written contact clause I describe on the issue of lobbyists and I'm on board.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

I agree, getting the money out is definitely the first step. After that, everything else is achievable. It would be the only way to get our people in office. And that written contract clause is a nice touch. That's a new one. I like it.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Thanks. I think that the "commensurate with" clause, as I call it, is vital.

Corporations and lobbyists certainly have the right to free speech. But, money and our current system has allowed them the mother of all megaphones that can drown out the free speech of others.

Safeguards should be codified protecting the free speech of these entities, but making it at the volume equal to that of an average constituent of the representative. Furthermore, as these are not individuals and most corporations lobbying congress are public corporations, there may not truly be an unlimited right to privacy. Therefore, all lobbyist interactions with a representative should be written and made public.

[-] 3 points by LSN45 (535) 10 years ago

Amen - this is the answer!! We don't need "wealth distribution," what we need is "political influence redistribution!!" I have no problem with people making lots and lots of money - as long as they don't subvert our democracy and disenfranchise the American voter in the process. For the sake our our children and future generations of Americans, we need to take back our democracy from the rich and powerful who are using their vast sums of money to "speak" as if they represent millions of Americans. They are twisting our laws and manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process. Here's my 2 cents on what we need to do:

For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for (both on the right and the left). Don't get distracted by the symptoms - we need to address the root cause. Concentrating our efforts on getting the money out of our politics is the best way we can create an environment in which further reforms can be realized. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the LAP DOGS of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - End the LEGALIZED BRIBERY!!! CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests!!!

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes. This is all that matters.

When the UAW was first established in 1937, the only thing they asked for was the right for workers to choose their own union representation. (There had been "company sponsored" unions and these were farces).

So, the only thing OWS should be fighting for is the ability for it's members and our society to choose our own representatives outside of corporate money or lobbyists' influence.

[-] 2 points by NintyNiner (93) 10 years ago

I agree, then #2 we push the WTO to Implement worldwide labor laws with minimum wages. Lets put the whole world on a level playing field. I believe if we accomplish these two things everything else will fall in place.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago


I am not literate on web stuff. I wish that I were. But, your comment is precise and captures the lynch pin of the movement.......Big money will beat back all of your efforts as long as they control the tools of government.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I got an error 404. What does that mean?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 10 years ago

no idea! hmmmm heres my email... blazefire@live.com.au.... send me a note... and I'll send you my work... I honestly think you'll love it! btw love your ideas on the other post...and... where did you manage to pick up an imposter? lol, are you the real coca-cola?!?! hehehe

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

Help us get rid of Citizens United -
Join the Restore Democracy Working Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
Plan details with supporting documentation found at: http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on
that will bring together the people inside OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only 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 OWS goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.

83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll

Pursuing this one goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of OWS 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. All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

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 - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

Join the Restore Democracy Working Group at
Plan details with supporting documentation found at: http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Is there a way for my assistant to arrange a teleconference?

Why do I have to wait two minutes to type these things?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

What is that freaking annoying delay about? The moderator needs to get rid of it.

[-] 2 points by sampson (34) 10 years ago

Money out of politics should be our number 1 concern

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Agree. ASAP. We must control the upcoming primaries.....more likely on the Democratic side. That is the place to flex our muscles.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 10 years ago

This needs to be pounded into every Occupiers mind. Without getting the outside money out of politics all other issues will not even come close to being addressed.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago


[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Corporations are not people. If you agree, sign the petition.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Where's the petition?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Thanks, can u post link at the top, before the other link you have?

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

This is good stuff.

OWS should have a rally for Ted Deutch.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

well it is good stuff but it doesn't seem to reach the public! i'm trying to spread the word here but there is only so much i can do.. it's really frustrating to see the proposal being ignored, thinking that 80% of the population would agree with it.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

How do we focus the media on this issue?

Recently, the 60 minutes stories on The Stock Act and Jack Abramoff have focused attention upon rampant institutionalized corruption within Congress.

How do you turn outrage into a rational remedy?

It is very easy to get people riled up.....Fox News and talk radio do it every day like a drug.....but how do you get them to calm down and actually solve the problem?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

How many co-sponsors does he have?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

This gets my vote for single most important issue.


[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Thanks, pass this on if you can.

[-] 2 points by llumiNatty (2) 10 years ago

I like this. There is no Free Speech when there is Paid Speech.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Oh, there's plenty of free speech. But, there is no ability for one person to have a boom box and a megaphone while another is effectively mute.

[-] 2 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 10 years ago

Sounds like a good idea and I signed the petition at http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Ross Perot is a billionaire, part of the 1% and funded his own campaign. Would this Constitutional Amendment have prevented him from buying media ads/time and if so how?

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

That has traditionally been the route of a select few politicians around campaign finance laws. David Koch ran for VP on the libertarian ticket once so that he could spend whatever he wanted. Didn't work out too well. People tend to get a little creeped out by billionaires once they get to know them well.

But, I think I would treat a politician's own wealth as a private citizen's political contribution source.....in other words, the politician could not donate any more funds to his own campaign than I could give as a private citizen.

That would end the millionaire and billionaire candidates from having advantages over an average citizen running for the same office.

Free speech cannot be considered free when the money of the rich can drown out the voices of the poor.

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 10 years ago

Agreed! so now how do we proceed

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

For right now, the Dylan Ratigan initiative....Get Money Out....is the closest thing.


You can also get about 30 people and occupy your Congressman's local office, copy and send letters to every representative, and call local newspapers to alert them to the initiative. (You may also want to give them a heads up when you occupy your local congressman's office).

[-] 2 points by carn (3) 10 years ago

I haven't been able to read all the comments on this idea, so please forgive any redundancies. This idea has great merit. It strikes at the core of the problem. Perhaps it could be simplified a bit, as seems to be the case with most ammendments, to simply forbidding campaign donations from anything other than an individual, and that they be publicly disclosed. A billionaire could make huge donations as a private citizen, but we would know who gave what to whom, directly. PACs, corporations & unions could focus on collecting individual donations for candidates they support. Safeguards would need to be instituted to ensure that contributions remain volutnary & optional (like in the workplace) but I think that is do-able. I think regulating lobbyists, while critical, is something better addressed through legislation. An ammendment probably has a better chance if it doesn't have a built-in new circle of regulatory bueracracy, no matter how necessary.

I've been talking allot in our local Occupation about keeping our focus simple. Sticking to something that can be explained on the sidewalk in minutes to someone with limited education or political sophistication. This is how to reach ALL of the 99%. A simple Amenedment aimed at giving political power back to them (us) could really resonate with people & coalesce the power of the movement.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes. I think that would work.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

Yes! someone also mentioned $100 max donation. I like it. I am in. Keep this thread active.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

You have to tie maximal giving to some product of the minimum wage....Say 100 times the minimum wage. Otherwise, you will be constantly amending your amendment.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

I agree, we should at least attempt to reclaim our rightful voice in Washington before circumnavigating it altogether.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Maybe. Power does not give up power unless it doesn't realize it is giving up power or has no choice.

I know, George Washington, blah blah blah. But, trying to go around Washington is like insisting that you can power your car with a hamster wheel. It just ain't gonna work.

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 10 years ago

Folks - this is the answer. The movement needs to regroup around this concept. All other reforms hinge on this. Please spread the word to as many people as you can. Right now the corporations and special interests are "speaking" as if they represent millions of Americans and this disproportionate influence has essentially disenfranchised the American voter.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 10 years ago

+1 for something everyone can easily agree upon. When we speak of issues that the 99% can, and will, rally behind, this is one of the major ones. Keep it high on the list.

[-] 1 points by thomasthetank (41) 10 years ago

Any Constitutional Law People out there?

I need help in writing a pledge to be provided to Congressional primary candidates this spring.

Please drop me an email.

[-] 1 points by Duffminster (4) 10 years ago

Is the petition online? If so where. If not WHERE?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

We're going to need to write a single, a single, pledge.

[-] 1 points by OccupyHouseMusic (1) 10 years ago

I don't see the link to the petition

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 10 years ago

do it

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Make it so.....

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

May I add that hand in hand with this is insisting that black box voting machines be eliminated. Only machines with open source code or none at all, otherwise moneyed interests still have a crucial way to fiddle in the peoples business.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

I wouldn't say the only just the largest.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Maybe # 1 priority is a better way to state it. After that we can get to other priorities.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

On this all depends. It is therefore the ONLY issue for now.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

Fair point in more than one respect. Excellent post.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

If the U.S. dollar collapses you get your wish "to get money out" of this country completely.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

I agree with the sentiment of this proposal.

But I am of the opinion that unless there is serious revolutionary change, nothing will change.

This political and social system has evolved into what it is for a reason. It is a system designed to keep the rich rich. All the patch work changes will not fundamentally change the inequality that is the center piece of this system.

We are living in a time where the differences in wealth are at an extreme. But this has happened before, followed by reform, and back to where we started.

The Movement needs focus on the radical restructuring of this society.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes, the restructuring should begin with how our politicians run campaigns. Take out the corporate money and you remove the blind allegiance of our politicians to big money.

If you want a representative who seeks the greatest public good, you cannot elect him with money from a very small subset of our population.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Let's take back the microphone! Hey all you Ron Lawl guys! Help us get the money out of politics! We need to work together. Hey all of the Tea Party! Help us get the money out of politics! We need to work together! Hey all of the 99%! Let's work together and get the big money out of politics! Let's take back the microphone! Sign the petition!

From GetMoneyOut "A financial crisis and crash has shown our elites to be feckless and corrupt, and the social contract undergirding our economic arrangements has fallen apart. It is time for mass organizing, and big ideas, something tea party activists realized, and Obama spoke to in 2008. It is also time for focus, discipline, and the creation of cross-sectional alliances. The Occupy Wall Street movement as well as the Tea Party Movement should agree: our Federal government is bought and sold and rarely represents the people. In our quest to get money out of politics, we are not beginning at square one. There has been an anti-corruption movement against the modern financing system since the 1970s, and we have many allies in this struggle. It is Citizens United and the bailouts, twin representatives that make corruption so explicit, that have shown us we must act. And it is the foreclosure crisis that suggests that if we do not act, we will be acted upon. Such is how Constitutional moments happen. Now it is up to us, the people, to make this our moment, as our forebears have in their moments of crisis."

[-] 1 points by WakeUp2011 (12) 10 years ago

Spreading the truth is crucial to creating the world we want to see. We need to wake up as many people as we can to get real change. Those that don't want to wake up can stay asleep. Keep spreading the word. Here's a start..


[-] 1 points by FirstLight (21) 10 years ago

Wrong approach - good intent. Money = Free Speech, corporations got free speech (money) and more as a result of Corporate Personhood. Therefore, the ROOT cause and the ROOT solution is to amend the constitution to simply define a 'person' as 'only natural persons' and all the dominoes will fall, including Citizens United with it. Read and learn: http://www.wilpf.org/docs/ccp/CP_article+timeline.pdf

[-] 2 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

have you seen this:


if you like it, please help to spread the word!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

It addresses the same problem. We just need to get behind this issue and keep pushing for people to sign these petitions. I signed both.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

I believe they address the constitutional amendment concern. Read more on the 'about' page on http://www.getmoneyout.com

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Why don't we just allow corporations to, themselves, run for Congress.

Wouldn't this be more efficient as it would eliminate the middleman and would avoid the whole issue of bribery?

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 10 years ago

Hamburgler for President!

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Or the Geico Caveman guy.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 10 years ago

You will seriously need to understand secrecy in order to recover constitutional government. Lots of separation needed, between church and state.

Psychology is deeply negligent.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I don't follow.....

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 10 years ago

All of the unconstitutional government is various levels of conspiracy conducted by secret societies where members are in government, and in corporations. Someone started a thread that is getting close.


The church protects the methods of secrecy, makes it so no one wants to know. Afraid to know. Genetic memory. Epigenetics. Conditioned by fear.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Normally I try to dissuade paranoid schizophrenics, but you're on your own.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 10 years ago

I do believe your comment serves the nwo and secrecy. You will find hard core evidence of memory control there.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 10 years ago

Take away the unbelievable advantage of the top one thousandth of one percent: take away the privilege of creating money out of thin air and receiving interest on the newly created money. Take away fractional reserve lending from privately owned institutions,

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

When you're saying your ABC's, you go A to B, not A to Z. One thing will lead to another. The first, and most important step, is to get the money out.


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

I'm sorry, I'm afraid to hit links. Somebody said there were viruses and attack pages or something. Please paraphrase or post here. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

don't sells this as the only issue

that alienates other issues

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

You are drowning in "other issues."

If you want to accomplish anything, you have to lay a foundation.

That foundation must be getting big money and lobbyists out of how we choose our leaders.

[-] 1 points by carn (3) 10 years ago

I don't mean as the ONLY issue, but as a point around which the most people can rally. A unifier. A foundation for other planks in the platform, if you will.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

If you can't get this passed, then everything else doesn't stand a chance.

[-] 1 points by Blot80 (4) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

The "one demand" is there, ready to be taken up. It is the hinge upon which our congress swings the door shut on us.

H.R.1148 The Stock Act

Until we stop allowing our congress from profiting on "legal insider trading," no other change in public law will matter. How can we ever expect congress to be on our side as long as they are allowed to cheat as bad as people we put in jail?

Pass H.R.1148. That's the single demand. It's easy, it's ready, it's simple.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes, what I saw on 60 Minutes the other night was shameful.

I do think the Stock Act should be supported. But, let's not ruin our appetite until we tackle the main course.

The single most important issue of OWS is getting big money and concentrated influence out of our political process.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

The problem with all of this is you cannot prevent someone for putting up 5,000 billboards that say "Vote for Jimi Hendrix"

To pass a law preventing this is a violation of the the first amendment to the constitution (the most important amendment).

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes, it is a thorny issue. But, imagine a world in which the voices of the rich are able to drown out the voices of the poor. So, do the poor have free speech? It the domination of one's free speech an infringement upon another's?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

Yes the poor have free speech even if the rich do. The proof is OWS and the Tea Party. Most of the people in both groups are middle of the road folks. People can band together to have a louder voice.

Anytime you give government to censor speech in any way you invite abuse.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

The teabag movement was orchestrated and paid for by some of the most powerful interest groups and billionaires in America.

Yes, people can band together. But, to be honest, politics has become war and the battle is fought by airtime. Watch any television news, liberal or Fox, and you will see adds by Chevron, Exxon, Pharm. companies, Natural Gas, ad infinitum. During election season, all you see are attack adds.

The shaping of public opinion has become an evil science and it takes a lot of money.

In a world where money talks, you have two options.

One.....you can try to milk enough money out of people who don't understand their own economic self-interests, or

Two.....you don't give big money such a large megaphone. You take big money out of the equation and let the people speak for themselves.

Personally, I think option two is more plausible. I am sick of watching those commercials anyway.

Exxon saying that it is turning algae into oil....really? Are you trying to say that it's OK to keep driving my Hummer because oil is always going to be plentiful? Get me a bucket.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

Actually the tea party started grass root on the internet just like OWS. It started in social media with a call to send a tea bag to congress to protest George W Bush and the first round of bail outs. The party was then hijacked by the GOP Republicans and the Koch brothers, and the right wing holy rollers.

You cannot prevent companies from speaking any more than you can stop people. Free speech is protected bu the first amendment. As I said you cannot prevent someone for putting up 5,000 billboards that say "Vote for Jimi Hendrix" That would be a violation of free speech. You cannot prevent me from putting up 5,000 billboards that say "The 1% need to share their wealth".

I think a good solution is term limits. Someone can only hold office for one term. That takes the power away from the lobbyists. Politicians listen to lobbyists so they will help them get re-elected. Take that away and you take the power away.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

No, term limits give GREATER power to lobbyists. It takes two years in Congress just to figure out where the bathrooms are. If you want lobbyists and staffers to write bills, the enact term limits.

Also, term limits favor those who have money and an unwavering base behind them......The Republicans and the Evangelicals.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

Top Political Donors 2011 by $$$

  1. National Education Association
  2. Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
  3. Penn National Gaming
  4. Morongo Band of Mission Indians
  5. Community Financial Services Assn
  6. Service Employees International Union
  7. National Assn of Realtors
  8. Lakes Entertainment
  9. Tribes for Fair Play
  10. ActBlue
[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

What was the source for this information?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

opensecrets.org followthemoney.org New York Times USA Today

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 10 years ago

You cannot prevent somone from putting up 10,000 billboards "Vote for George Washington for president". That would violate the First Ammendment.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

But I can prevent a campaign from receiving the money it would take to do the task from a nutcase billionaire and, if this represents a material supplementation of a political campaign by a wealthy and motivated individual....I'm sorry, but you can limit the extent of this speech.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

And what about the unions and their millions? Is their money getting out of politics as well?

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

I would say "yes" in consideration of the fact that their millions of dollars in contributions, collected from workers, are clearly not helping workers.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

You're right, they are helping Democrats, almost exclusively, and at the expense of the taxpayer!

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

You're mistaken if you believe that OWS is tied to the democrats. I think that much of the frustration felt by those who believed in the Obama administration at some point may have served as the catalyst for what we are now witnessing. I know that I gave up on our political system entirely after it became clear that no candidate purporting to uphold ideals in service of the people is capable of delivering said promises due to the fact that they are bought and sold before they even reach office.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

Whoa, that's not what I said but I guess that your interpretation is a little too close to the truth. I said that union political contributions help the Democrat Party, the same party that has come out in support of this movement.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

The greatest fear of OWS protestors that I know is that the democrats may find some way to co-opt this movement. No -- we've given up on them as well. No more political contributions for the democrats via unions since they clearly do not deliver unto the workers who so hopefully dole over cash with hopes for an improved labor scene.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

The greatest fear of the movement should be that the violent tactics of a few participants will kill someone and ruin the entire party for the rest of you. But I can understand the wariness of the Democrats. Unfortunately for you, I think the Democrats already are controlling this show seeing as how all the occupations were simultaneously closed down by mostly Democrat mayors.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

Agreed, study up on President Woodrow Wilson, Palmer Raids ... rerun.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

History does have a way of repeating itself, doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Unions would be held to the same rules.....concentrated power, whether by corporations, unions, churches, etc.....cannot be allowed to circumvent the combined will our collected citizenry.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

OK, I could get on board with that, as long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

This was once looked upon as the Goldwater principle.....concentrated political power, from any source, is corrosive to a democracy.

[-] 1 points by DudleyE (94) 10 years ago

Well it's a good thing we live in a Republic.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 10 years ago

You mean 527's, don't you?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Ya. I think I am thinking of my kids' college fund.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 10 years ago

I assume you know about the "Get the Money Out" Amendment(s)? Dylan Ratigan and Jimmy the lobbyist has to or three drafts on the site and people are signing a petition, close to 300,000 now..

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

There is no way to search this forum.

They need to add the requirement that all lobbyist interactions be in written form or recorded for inclusion within the Congressional record. No backroom deals.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 10 years ago

Well, my solution has two parts. 1. All draft legislation must be written long hand, in the handwriting of the Sponsoring Congressperson. 2. Outlaw all lobbyists, (I agree all contact must be recorded. It will cause a huge market for drop boxes and cause crowds in the parks.) hiring a few of them for the Congressperson to show them how to unscrew what they previously wrote for the old Congressperson.

Search and a few other features are maddeningly missing here.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

blah blah blah....radicals....blah blah blah....one percent....blah blah blah....shouldn't you be masturbating?

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

If you want to get the money out of politics, the only way (other than repealing the First Amendment) is by taking power and money away from politicians.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

That's somewhat reversed.....if you take the money out of political campaigning, the politicians will use their power for the public good. Nice theory. Let's see if it works.

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

Corporate contributions to political campaigns are already illegal -- have been for a long time. Everything else in this amendment is basically a repeal of the First Amendment. You guys like the First Amendment, right?

If you want to take away freedom of speech from Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Service Employees International Union, etc., then support this amendment.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Corporations are, first, not people. They do give in unlimited fashion to campaigns.....just not directly to one candidate. If you want to go through all of the different manners of washing the funds.....then start another forum topic.

And I actually agree with you. Corporations, although not citizens, supply a vital arm of our society and should be allowed to voice their opinions......but, not with cash. Corporations spend more than 11 times the money lobbying than all other interests COMBINED. If you do not see that your government is up for sale to the highest bidder, than perhaps you are on the wrong forum entirely.

However, given first amendment protection, corporations should be allowed the full right to express their interests and to promote them in our government. Because those interests should involve technical, business, and analytical issues before the representative, they are relatively sterile and should be impersonal. As such, there should be no issue in which the lobbyist....whether from Greenpeace or the Koch brothers....should not be able to provide a written or recorded argument that can then go into the Congressional record for all to see.

I have no desire to touch the first amendment. But, the entire lobbyist industry has bred such corruption that it now endangers the survival of our representative government. Republicans have simply turned lobbyists into an arm of government (see The K Street Project) and the only way to counter a force that the founders never foresaw is to bring all of it's interactions with government into full view. Free speech, between a corporation and a member of our government, is still protected.....but it is treated as public information.

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

You claim not to want to touch the First Amendment, but yet you won't allow corporations like Greenpeace to spend money to make their views known. It's a hollow First Amendment that won't allow a speaker to buy a megaphone (or a TV ad) or to pay subway fare to go testify on the Hill.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Greenpeace? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think that there is a politician outside of San Francisco who gives a shit about Greenpeace?

It doesn't matter, because if Greenpeace wanted to lobby a federal official, they would have to follow the same rules as the Koch brothers.

Why should international corporations be given a greater voice than a citizen in this country? What are you, a corporate fascist?

You use the same lingo that was used to get Citizen's United through. But, corporate money is not free speech, it's an invitation to corruption. It is de facto bribery of our officials.

In the end, wouldn't it be simpler for people who think like you just to elect corporations to congress? If you're going to be that corrupt, why even have the middlemen....they might develop a conscious.

Corporations are in the unique position in which their spending of 5 or 10 million in an election could mean billions in returns....if they get their candidate(s). There are very few citizens who could encounter such a fantastic return on their investment. And it is that return that is driving corporations to invade....literally....government.

It is time to throw the money changers from the temple.

[-] 1 points by KirkVanHouten (123) 10 years ago

I'm not going to debate the kind of person who calls me a Fascist (my ideology is pretty much the opposite of fascism). But I will observe that you, like the fascists, don't seem to care much for anyone's freedom of speech but your own.

[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 10 years ago

435 Representatives Can Not Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans!


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

They are not meant to "represent" you. They should be elected based upon their qualifications, record, and evidence of wisdom in past decisions. In some cases, this means that they vote contrary to what the majority of their constituents would choose.

435 wise and honest men could represent the world.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

"435 wise and honest men could represent the world."

Good luck in finding them.

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 10 years ago

One right here.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

While there isn't doubt that there are honest men AND women in the US, the questionable part is not to encourage but to bring these people to positions of effect...

To become a viable candidate, one must have exposure, positive exposure, and that takes funding of massive proportions. Even for the 'lesser' elections.

The issue isn't integrity, it's the holding onto that integrity once the process begins, then the next issue is, if integrity is held, to not only gain but to hold office long enough to affect change.

Grass roots, makes changes, from the ground up, not the top down. Because without a base the steeple will always fail.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

First Power, Then Change.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Why shutdown a PORT?

What was the fucking use?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

This topic dovetails with the butterfly effect topic:


[-] 0 points by lonespectator (106) 10 years ago

It should be quite evident by now to every sane person that the nationwide Occupy movement will only be tolerated by local governments until public opinion turns against the squaller and foolishness of a rudderless movement. This time has arrived, and complain as you will, this is no "Arab Spring", and is over.. You were told many times to conduct a full scale Occupation of the White House which is not only the source of the national problems we face, but is not a State, and is governed by different rules that would have allowed you to stay forever in Tents with Generators. The current administration has no back bone to stop you, and the Capitol Police support OWH. But you have failed, and failed miserably . You can thank the DNC backed OWS group and a coerced General Assembly. LA, Oakland, New York, etc.. you have been used!! Wake up.. Go against The GA/ OWS bias and support of the corrupt DNC, and " the White House" Now!!

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

What about Republicans, Neoconservatives, Evangelicals, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Wall Street Investment banks......

It's strange a little troll like you would try to steer the movement away from all of these very juicy targets and towards about the only source of moderation left in Washington.

Please, go find a rope. Pop a hole in the ceiling and tie it to one of the rafters......well, you get the idea.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 10 years ago

Hi Puff6992. Thank you for your rapid response. Its good to here from our future leaders. LOL have a nice day :-)

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

To be a troll or to not be a troll, that is the question.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 10 years ago

Thats almost as funny as what I just read online at a couple of mSM news sites. They now refer to you as "illegal Campers" LOl now thats funny!! Happy camping Puffy :-0

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Oh, and remember to kick the dog on your way in tonight.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Some thoughts:

No party money to candidates.

Candidates can only receive money from individual citizens within their constituencies.

Parties could fund party ideals advertising but not put money into candidate advertising. For or against.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes, those are very good thoughts.

The final point, relating to Party money being doled out nationally to local elections is something I had overlooked.

It is quite important as RNC or DNC funds are often used as a mechanism for enforcing loyalty.

Further, the national party committees should not be allowed to fund primary challengers in local representative races. This has been the nuclear option in enforcing tealbugger and ultraconservative loyalty.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Can somebody wrap this up in legal speak and give it it's own website?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 10 years ago

Get unions out of politics. Why is it OK for them to do it? Please tell me why unions can take union dues and give to the DNC? If you say that it is OK, you are no better than big corporations. You are all just hypocrites. I have been watching the big unions standing with you. You make me sick.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

It's not OK. Unions would have to give up their right to concentrate political influence as part of the bargain.

Concentrated political influence, whether from corporations, unions, the very rich, or the religious right always produces anti-democratic effects.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 10 years ago

I think you are right sir. Thank you. But right now the unions are standing with you. Someone needs to tell them no because it looks really bad to folks with a brain.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Now, where money is not involved, I don't know what you do. Can you stop little rightwinger evangelicals from canvassing neighborhoods trying to scratch a few votes? I'm not comfortable with that......But, I would say that any church that passes out voter's guides, particularly if it isn't giving squat to charity, should not be allowed to classify itself as a nonprofit.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 10 years ago

I agree!

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

Depending on congress for an amendment is not logical. They created the problem. Article 5 of the consitution is the only solution. Congress has been violating their oaths and duty for 100 years and refusing to call a convention. That is because 3/4 of the states can ratify without congress.

Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk

Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

Article V conference, Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-other attendee video comments http://vimeo.com/31464745

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

That's an interesting proposition. But, do you think that Republicons will allow you to co-opt state legislatures or hold official state conventions in this pursuit?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

Hmmmmm, you know, I think there is strategy that dissolves the right differences to get partisan politics out of the way while creating unity that provides good information for democracy to work because article 5 is democratic control over the principles of the republic, so it will need that.


[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 10 years ago

Big Wealth has immense power at the state level. Immense.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Yes.....and much less oversight.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

Lok at the statement at the head of this list. It says: The revolution is worldwide. Is the notion of revolution, of fundamental social change, serious, or is it mere hyperbole? If it is serious then clearly a mere change of those in office, or of legislative changes, or even of Constitutional ammendments is clearly not what we are talking about. We are talking about something much, much bigger and more profound, and even a Consititutional amendmentment is not "a start." Getting 30 or 40 million people in the streets might be a start.

If the notion of revolution is mere hyperbole then it would undoubtedly be best to take it off the websites of OWS. That is where the discussion needs to begin.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

No, that would be a mob and I would rather protect the current system than deal with the uncertainties of your 30 or 40 million people.

[-] 1 points by TankoHidiki (6) 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure those 30 to 40 million people can leave their country and change their system after being a citizen of a smaller country to fit their views.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

That precisely is the question. Is the OWS call for world revolution serious or is it mere hyperbole? That, really, is the central question of the movement. It's right up there at the top of the website after all.

[-] -1 points by joe100 (306) 10 years ago

It's a great idea to rid the world of VOTING FRAUD - and this is very possible by two SIMPLE steps: 1) to have paper receipts with bar coded info, readable info, and encrypted info 2) multiple ethernet plugs for each voting machine, so other organizations, besides govt, has upto the second real time voting results.

The idea of taking money out of politics is kind of, well, naive, and doesn't let itself to any logical paradigm of a new socio-political system. Money will ALWAYS be part of politics.

There are different ways to attack a problem - get real voting first. Just get voting to work without fraud. Thats a good start.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Horseshit. "Voting fraud" is the biggest ruse of the Right. It allows them to delegitimize candidates who beat them. It is used to put fear in the minds of blacks and poor people. It is used to justify voter suppression measures that are, themselves, the true instruments of voter fraud.

Do you understand that for an individual to commit voter fraud, he is only adding one more vote and is therefore unlikely to change things much. On the other hand, if you are caught committing voter fraud......very serious punishments.

You are just a little republicon pissant masquerading as someone thoughtful. Quick, find a tall building, and jump. Grab a couple of your comrades and take them with you.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 10 years ago

I don't what you are talking about. I am not a republican - Everyone, except you of course, knows that voting in America is fraudulent. There are several documentary movies that show what happened.

With todays technology there never needs to be a recount. Of course I am a software expert and code in over 30 languages, so maybe you dont understand technology too well, cause you don't build it.

Why are you so rude? Does it make you feel good? Do you really think it bothers me? When you are rude, you just hurt yourself, not me. I don't care about your rude comments. Make them all day! Then show them to your friends and family. I dare you, show your comments to your friends and family. they will just call you an a--H-le

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 10 years ago

Perhaps you were making a misguided but well-meaning comment. Voting fraud is an issue the Right uses to enact all types of voter suppression efforts. I think that, if you believe that voter fraud is a bigger problem than our Congressmen being influenced by big money, then you should do what you can do to correct it......with technology that I do not understand.

If, however, you are a Republicon trying to distract with your cause, then I stand behind my previous comments.

And, by the way, everyone.....besides Fox news and the extreme Right.....does not think that voter fraud is an issue.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 10 years ago

I am not a republican, believe me. I think all voting systems are susceptible to fraud if they don't deliver paper receipts to the voters.

The receipts can have info like the vote count just prior to this person voting, for the voting machine, and bar code info.

It is obvious the people should be able to count their own votes, especially in this day and age.

There should be open ethernet ports on each voting machine to allow US Citizens groups to plug in and see the voting how it happens.

I spoke with a guy at Zuccotti park who claimed to have written a book about voting systems. I am not sure its true, he was kinda full of Sh--. But maybe. Anyway, if he did write a book, and he was qualified to talk about this subject, he realized that my proposal would solve fraud problems.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 10 years ago

Total horseshit. You should see his responses in the "Stupid to Buy American" thread.