Forum Post: Big Victory for OWS
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 11:43 a.m. EST by oldman01
(7)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
non-OWS?
Call us communists, call us dirty hippies, we are neither. I'm old enough to be your father, possibly grandfather. I've worked for my own money since I was 11 years old and I still work 2 jobs, while my wife works 1. I have 2 80-something, male, life long Republican family members who support OWS. You, as well as we, are the 99%.
Some keep asking the same questions which were asked of those people "occupying" southern luncheonettes way back when. "What do they want?" "Why don't they just vote?" "Where are their policy points?" "Why do they want to ruin the country?" That the answers are not painfully obvious to you is a failure on the part of my generation in educating you. Mea culpa.
Our job is to speak. Our job is to cajole. Our job is to try and teach this country some of what's gone wrong. It is the job of policy makers to make policy. And this is the first example of one doing the right thing.
That's progress.
All OWS members, I urge you to mail your representatives in support. All OWS non-supporters, please do likewise; you'll be the richer for it. Use real USPS mail with postage, -- email just goes to robot readers -- real mail gets read.
This post is an honest attempt to get traction on this amendment and nothing else. I'll not be debating anything in it, thanks.
Oldman, thanks a lot for this great posting. However I would say it is better within this movement to not mention which party we support. All of us should, if really we want success in this movement, be all together.
understood, and my affiliation is not listed; I just wanted to point out that we come from all parties and all points of view (or most of them, anyway...)
thanks
Before calling this an honest attempt at anything, I would scrutinize the proposed legislation in detail. There will be many attempts by politicians to capitalize on OWS and the movement for their own benefit.
Also, this is not a "big victory". It is just another sign that people are paying attention to us.
I'm calling my post an honest attempt to get traction. Traction will, of necessity, include and increase scrutiny and should engender change in the legislation. At least that's what one would hope for.
oh, as for the last... yeah, but it seems hyperbole is the only way to break through the noise.
the first comment (in the above link) is most valuable:
**Robert Murri · Highland High School
There is a major problem with this particular amendment. It says "For-Profit" entities are prohibited. That means the super PAC are still allowed to send as much as they want in an election since they are formed as non-profit entities. He needs to change it to read that no entity whatsoever, be it a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or sole proprietor as authorized by any state within the union of the United States, by the United States of America or any foreign government or state is prohibited from participating in any way, to include but not limited to monetary contributions or in-king value to a candidate, political part and special interest group for the purpose of promoting, advocating, or otherwise influencing the political and election process. Such entities are NOT natural persons and do not enjoy the protections and rights of the Constitution of the United State of America. Only "Natural Persons" who are eligible to vote in the federal elections, any state or subdivision thereof election shall be allowed to contribute money or in-kind value to a candidate or political party. Limits of such contributions may be regulated by the Congress of the United States and the states therein.
This will force the politicians to seek their funding from private individuals who are eligible to vote and no other source. This will then cause them to truly represent the people and not the corporations. I would further prohibit any gift or in-kind value given to any member of Congress and their staffs, both employed and volunteered. Also prohibit them from working for any special interest group upon leaving their commitment to the Congressional staff or no less than 8 years. In this way, their value to a lobbyist is diminished because enough of the Congressional members and staff will probably be changed and the individual will not know many of the new people. So they are less likely to be bought by special interests groups.
Add these protections and you will have an effective change to Citizens United and the corruption of our government.**