Forum Post: What will bring the fundamental change we need
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 12:31 p.m. EST by bmck
(11)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The conflict and chaos in our society is essentially defined by two basic problems: our government works for the wealthy who buy their representatives. The second fundamental problem is that our representatives are not leading the dialog that defines and potentially alleviates our various needs.
The essential remedy to these two fundamental issues is to pass a constitutional amendment that prohibits all private campaign donations, replacing that with a public government fund from increased taxation of the wealthy. They are giving their money away anyway, so with this amendment it will be given to nurture our nation's common needs and discourse.
The second part required in this amendment is to limit all terms of office to two consecutive terms. People can return to serve in the same office, but only for two consecutive terms at a time. This will encourage more people to participate in various offices and develop experience and knowledge that will contribute to a more informed discourse in our society. With all campaigns funded by a public government fund, office holders and candidates will be free to speak to our true needs and issues. An additional component that this amendment will require is that once a potential candidate meets a certain requirement for public campaign funding, her or his job must be made available to them to return to either after the campaign if they lose, or after their term of office. This requirement might be fairly limited to all businesses with 25 or more employees. This economic support will allow and encourage a great diversity of candidates from all walks of life, especially those who have a financial responsibility to support children. This is a similar requirement provided for those who were previously drafted into our military.
I believe that without these two fundamental amendments, all other remedies will simply add to the chaos and obfuscate the essential issues and needs.
Passing this amendment will probably be the most difficult task our nation has taken on since our revolution. However, it is obvious that it is time for another revolution and I believe that these essential changes suggested above can provide the new revolutionary foundation that we need in order to begin to turn this great battleship of our nation around and head it in the direction of peace and prosperity for all.
Barry J. McKenna
What we really want is to remove the political influence of corporations.
So here's what we're up against. 1) The Supreme Court ruling that a corporation, business, club, church, city, community, etc... is an organization of The People and that it is those people's rights that are being represented by the organization, thus giving the organization faux personhood.
2) The repugnant Supreme Court Ruling that says Congress cannot limiting corporate political spending without limiting the People's right to free speech.
I personally think that an individual should be able to spend all of their money any way they want. If they want to run for president, they can spend all their money to do so (like Ross Perot). If a rich person wants to fund my campaign for President, they can do so.
HOWEVER!!! ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FUND CAMPAIGNS. Organizations rarely represent their members' political beliefs when spending politically, and even more rarely give members the choice to opt out of political spending they don't agree with.
We need nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to get past the Supreme Court Rulings. A constitutional amendment that forbids organized money from being spent for political means. The regulations enacting the law would impose fines and penalties up to and including dissolving the organization. The Supreme Court can't overturn a Constitutional Amendment.
Political campaign fund raising will still exist, and individuals can donate as much as they want, and who donated how much will be public record, but corporations would not be able to donate a penny.
The Progressive movement (very similar to the Occupy movement) was all about common people against the elite, the 99% against the 1%. The elite controlled the Senate through easily purchased Local State Representatives. As a result, the 17th Amendment was passed and the power to appoint US Senators was stripped from the State Legislatures and given to the voting People.
The Occupy movement can and should strive for that Constitutional Amendment. It's been done before and should be done again!
We have the numbers, time, resolve to get it done. Taking the corporations out of politics is what we want, isn't it?
Our Constitution does not provide for a Public/National Referendum so until Congress backs us, we're just blowing hot air.
Occupy has to propose the Amendment to as many Congressmen that will listen and start focusing on getting it passed. It's the only way to make lasting change. A Congressman has to stand up in Congress and propose legislation or all of this is for nothing. It's time Occupy Wall Street became Occupy D.C.
I agree absolutely that corporate influence in our political process is the cancer that is destroying us.
My thinking about this problem goes back more than 30 years to the Supreme Court decision that was the second major nail in the coffin (following the regulatory ruling that resulted from a clerk's clerical error from the nineteenth century)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti
From my experience with reading Supreme Court decisions and the wisdom shared with me from scholarly counsel, my intuition is that one of the things we need to make sure of is to NOT specifically address anything about corporations in our remedy. To do so would only invite attachment of the (too) many legal decisions that have allowed corporations to kick us out of bed.
That is why I believe that a constitutional amendment that specifically addresses the limitations on how campaigns can be financed will give us the simplicity, clarity, and insurance that the corporate cancer can be essentially avoided by an end around. I believe that any attempts to directly challenge the corporation issue in terms of our electoral process will only continue to mire us deeper and deeper into what we are already stuck in.
Hmmmm. Let me think about that a couple days and get back to you.
Here, here! Well said. All I would like to say is; in light of the attempts to divide and discredit the movement, we must not allow our government to ignore us altogether based on accusations that the movement has no definitive course of action.
I agree: It has been discouraging to read, daily, the critiques in the media about the lack of specific remedies brought forth.
This is another major reason why we need to keep our fundamental proposals as simple as possible. With each clause added to a proposal, we guarantee a longer and more difficult process to arrive at a new beginning.
The proposal I have made in my OP represents more than fifteen years of self-critique and discussion with my familiars. I believe, until I see reason otherwise, that what I propose will guarantee the essential tools, the essential constitutional foundation, that will bring us the opportunity to build anew the society and world we truly need.
Agreed.
Here is one of my favourite quote in the world: It deserves to be remarked, perhaps, that it is in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of the people, seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is, in reality, the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the society; the stationary is dull ; the declining melancholy. -Adam Smith. I think we most importantly need to fill the poor's pocket through structural accounting and financial changes and we need to build a different type of economy.
Absolutely. However, in order to build a different type of economy we need a representational structure that is capable and self-interested in directly addressing the kind of discourse that can bring to the surface the creative economic solutions we need.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with someone about fifteen years ago when our major banks were metamorphising into mega-banks. I mentioned that it was unfortunate that we are unable to have a public discourse that can evaluate and potentially improve all of the components that make up our system of capitalism. There was a long silence from him after I made that comment, and then this man, in his thousand dollar suit who appeared to present himself as someone desiring of intelligent discourse replied, "Well what is the alternative: Communism certainly doesn't work!"
So much for fostering intelligent and creative discourse.
I believe that the simple amendments that I have proposed above - and despite their simplicity will require a virtual revolution to bring them about - are the only way that we will have any hope of an opportunity to begin to make the kinds of economic changes we - and the rest of the world - needs.
I'm recommending this. But the guys in Wall Street don't seem to like it =) 1) Make people assets in balance sheets. Right now employees are mere expenses, so when things go wrong, we cut the workforce and we cut salaries, and we cut the workforce again. With employees as investments, companies will naturally be driven to keep their workforce (to amortize their investments), and to invest in them in various ways. For most of the 19th century, Republicans believed not only in work, but in high salaries. I wonder what happened with that. 2) Corporate profit should never exceeds 5-10% of employees salaries and benefits. Make this a Constitutional Right. Or at least a law. So you don't stop companies from making profit, but employees will always get a share in the process. People would no longer simply work to enrich the rich, but would work for their own benefits. 3) Ask for a new science to complement Economics. I call it Caronomics, the Science that cares and that works for the wealth/wellbeing of people instead of the wealth of governments and companies.
your ideas are contained within the 99% Declaration, a roadmap to achieving these goals. Modelled on the Suffolk Resolves of 1774. https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1
The "Working Group on the 99 percent Declaration and Petition" reflects a lot of hard work and appears to model an historically successful process. However, I believe that its implementation will require a herculean effort that is many magnitudes greater than the effort to implement what I have suggested, which will be in itself be an enormous undertaking.
you know the old saying, "many hands make light the work". If you take the enormous work to implement what you have suggested and it fails where are you at the end of the day? If you invest that same amount of work in creating the National General Assembly NGA and deliver a Petition, if the list of grievances is ignored, the investment you've already made becomes the foundation for taking it to the next level. Can you quantify the effort to implement what you are suggesting and demonstrate how the effort to deliver the petition is many magnitudes greater? Bear in mind that should the list of grievances be dealt with in a timely manner to the satisfaction of the petitioners, then there is no need to form an independent third party. Also bear in mind that there is much more on the list besides campaign finance reform so it's like getting them dealt with for free : ) The question is then which is the better investment? We are the 99%. We are many hands. We do Hurculean.
I believe that the type of social organization that would be required to implement the amendments I have suggested would amount to a social structure very similar to what you are proposing. If the amendment effort I am proposing failed, as did the ERA for instance, we would still have the social organizational structure that implemented the effort. I can not see that the position we would be in if either of our proposals failed at first effort would be all that different. We would still have the great complexity of social relationships that required either approach.
Many of the ideas expressed in the Petition you offer represent real needs in our society. (I don't think it is wise to have absolute term limits: If someone has served well and has developed resourceful social and political relationships, we would suffer needlessly by guaranteeing to discard the investment that that individual's life and commitment represents.) However, my experience suggests that we need to insure against unnecessary complexity. Complexity, whether in biology, culture, social or political structures is one of the most serious issues we need to be conscious of.
For instance, it may appear that having access to a system and process that allows for the ready implementation of new legislation and laws will provide the kind of social organization we need. However, what usually happens with the addition of new laws is that the structure becomes more complex, judicial intervention takes longer, and, what is worse, enforcement may not ever occur.
For example, in my state a new law was passed about 8 years ago that required every driver to yield to any bus signaling to turn out from a bus stop. I have never seen nor heard of anyone being cited for violating this sensible and considerate law, and it is the rare exception that I ever see a driver yield to such signaling on the buses I ride.
I do not claim that my suggestion is the perfect one, or even the best one. What I do believe, however, especially based upon my own political organizational experiences and my reading of the history and process that brought about our original and current Constitution, is that we need to discern the fundamental simplicity that will provide a new foundation that we can then build upon as we realize and define our essential needs.
I disagree. The government works for everybody not just the wealthy. If if seems that is the only group of people they respond to and want to please with their legislation, it may be because that is the only group they hear from, via nice campaign contributions.
They are not leading the dialogue to respond to our needs because nobody from our sector has put forth a prolonged request/demand for them to do so. Long term communication where we ask them to do things (specific things) and follow up with them on how they are doing with these tasks is necessary. You can't just say I want you to support the President's balanced budget proposal, and then drop the ball and assume the representative will take care of it.
We need to Supervise Congress. What are they working on, where are they in the completion of these tasks (bills, propsals, drafting legislation, meeting with others, getting it done). This has not happened. They tell you they are working on it, we all know what that means, because we say that when people ask us about things we haven't done anything with when the boss asks about our progress. 'I'm workin' on it, is like the check's in the mail etc.'.
Point #3. You will not get an amendment passed to tax the wealthy for the purpose of contributions to a campaign contribution fund to be shared by all the candidates. The wealthy have enough money to make their own specific contributions and take a tax write off. They have no interest in changing that way of doing business.
We could however have a check off box on our tax returns or a dedicated line item contribution of whatever nominal amount is acceptable to everyone $2 or $5 to go into a campaign fund to be used by all the Congressional members for their upcoming campaign costs. Split the money across the board so each member gets the same amount, let them figure out how to responsibly spend it.
No to term limits. If they are lousy at their job, they can be voted out, if they are good, they should be able to stay in their job.
Yes to them returning/forfeiting any remaining campaign funds if they lose office, those funds will go to whoever the new incumbent is, because the funds are for the representation of a specific Congressional or Senatorial district.
It's not clear to me what you are disagreeing with. By "taxing the wealthy" I mean only that by increasing their taxes back to the level they used to be at we will have additional funds to finance campaigns.
In theory the government works for everybody but it seems to me self-evident that the representatives have been primarily representing their largest campaign contributors.
We also need a system of representation that will actually represent us.
Amending the system so that we have to spend many hours per week following up will mean that we have a system where most people won't. The state I live in has increased the level of referendums and measures that have to be voted on by the voters. What is happening is that people are not doing the reading, they aren't following the bills, they don't read the thick booklets we get at election time, so yes, it appears that we have more voter participation and representation, but only in appearance, not in fact: most of the voters that I have spoken with are not even aware that the booklets we receive from the secretary of state at election time have summaries of the bills, petitions, and referendums.
So, we need a system of representation that will generate a higher level of discourse so that people have easier access to what the real issues are.
I lived in Barney Frank 's district for most of my life, and always voted for him. When Bush was banging the war drum in 2002, the organization I belonged to and the vigils I supported with Newton Dialogues for Peace sent a representative to John Kerry's office to express our concern about going to war. Kerry's aide told us that his office had been receiving calls and messages 10 to 1 against going to war. Yet he still voted to attack Iraq.
We asked for a meeting and forum with Barney Frank and he agreed. At the forum, Barney told us that we needed to petition our elected representatives because that was the only way the system can work. When I asked the person next to me why no one was speaking up about how we had already done that, and what do we do when our representatives still vote contrary to what their constituency desires, he said that's a good question, but I raised my hand and didn't get called on and nobody else spoke up about it.
I don't care how good a job someone is doing, allowing people to stay for decades in an elected position is only encouraging a form of aristocracy and is not increasing the level of discourse.
We need a system that will require less supervision than the one we have now because millions of us are spending many hours in the process and our energies are just being channeled down the drain.
I agree, also please read Wildfire: the Legislation that Ignited the Great Recession, it has many good ideas relating to taxes and how to improve America's economy. It has mentioned many times throughout this forum.
The book looks to be a valuable contribution. However, I suggest that we will not be able to have access to a process that will allow for those types of economic changes without total public campaign financing first and an electoral process that is regularly channeling new faces and new ideas into the public discourse.
Fully agreed :) Some more inputs:
As I replied to lisa above, we need a structure that "requires" minimal citizen input, because in states, such as my own, which have evolved to require more and more initiatives, petitions, and referendums, it is my experience that most people are not taking the time to do the reading and the thinking that their fellow citizens have thrust upon them. I seems ideal in theory for us to have a system whereby our representatives require constant checks and balances from the voters, but in practice, as I am experiencing it, most people are not doing the work required. That is why I suggest the limit to "consecutive terms," which with total public campaign financing will bring more potential candidates into the process, a process where they are not beholden to their campaign financiers, and a process with new faces and ideas after each consecutive two terms.
agreed.....government should act only as a facilitator and help communities/people self-organize to solve problems. Afterall, in the beginning the problems are small and can be solved by affected people themselves. But the politicians and bureaucrats want to wait till the problem becomes big and profitable to solve. Also, increased government control means decreased freedom which is against democracy. So, we need revision of the existing democracies of the world.
Good luck with that plan. Seems unworkable to me.
We are currently doing some experiments regarding social-self organization, voting behavior of people and degree of transparency. Our initial experiences support the fact that people can self-organize. So, we are excited. Thanks
I never said that people couldn't "self-organize" friend. I simply was commenting on your specific plans.
Yes, . . . and if Congress refused to follow the constitution,
Bill Walker sued congress for not calling an article 5 convention to amend.
http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
then?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-would-shamar-thomas-do/
that is the most managerial approach i have seen yet. very cool.
The 28th A. needs to reverse the awful Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS and even older SCOTUS rulings that have created the present mega- corruption through giving Corps. person-hood and making money the equivalent to speech. Do this and then you can move to publically financing elections. I also agree on the term limits. We don't need professional pols. They just get entrenched and corrupt. Pols are like dirty diapers. They're full of shit and therefore need to be changed often.
I agree that Citizens United brought a major blow to the body politic. However, with a constitutional amendment allowing for only public, government disbursed equal campaign financing, Citizens United will no longer be relevant to our structure of government.
My suggestion in my OP directly addresses the issue of "professional politicians."
look for new Constitutional Amendment W G in a few days
Citizens United is item two on the List Of Grievences in the 99% Declaration