Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What would an Anti Lobby Constitutional Amendment look like?

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 7:44 p.m. EST by ryancozzens (32)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The goal wouldn't be to eliminate lobbying, there needs to be a way for people to organize collectively for a single purpose, the goal would be to create an environment where any group could meet certain requirements and have an equal voice with the elected officials.

@ryan_cozzens

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by daddyo14171 (48) 8 years ago

There doesn't need to be collective access - not in my opinion. Every citizen already has that right.

If you as an individual want to write a letter and tell your rep that you feel a tax break for corporation X is vitally important or explain your stance on a social issue you should have that right as an individual. This is the way the process should work.

Corporations and special interest groups are just a collection of individuals lobbying under an assumed name to broker power on their own behalf and it acts as a privileged second layer of access to politicians. It should never have been legal in the first place.

The groups would still have the power to organize their members and send letters as individuals but they shouldn't be allowed to have lunches, offer contributions or buy a politicians hand.

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

I want to agree with you, but here is where I get shaky on that point. I want to see corporations pay a fair tax rate, considering the resources that the US expends to protect their interest overseas it is only fair they pay a higher tax rate than any citizen. If that happens I think they should have a voice separately from individuals. But no louder than any group.

[-] 2 points by daddyo14171 (48) 8 years ago

Than that should be done in front of a committee, on television and recorded for all to see through transparency. Not private lobbyists...

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

I agree, transparency would be main point

So Maybe we could set up a system where voters decide who gets a license to lobby, then those groups have to show all financial and communication records

[-] 2 points by UPonLocal (309) 8 years ago

possibly something like this:

http://ni4d.us/en/act

We refer to it on www.uponlocal.com Direct Democracy Voting system

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

http://ni4d.us/en/act is legislation and not a Constitutional Amendment.

-- I am simply unimportant

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

BTW... if anyone wants to play devils advocate as to why lobbying should exist at all please do so here.

[-] 0 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

direct representative government, we didn't do before cause we didn't have internet and facebook type apps.

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

I believe that the foundation behind checks and balances is still valid. One of these foundations is a representative government. This insulates the system from the whims of an angry mob.

However we should directly elect the president

[-] 0 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

we need to vote on issues not people. direct democracy is the only true democracy.

i don't even know what to call what we have now other than a primitive form of government we came into the communication and technology age with. The last few decades has completely changed our world, technology has shifted commerce, government is lagging behind but evolution is inevitable.

[-] 0 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

we should be voting on issues and not people.

[-] 1 points by ryancozzens (32) 8 years ago

I believe that the foundation behind checks and balances is still valid. One of these foundations is a representative government. This insulates the system from the whims of an angry mob.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 8 years ago

no, that protects the interests of those who can control the representatives. technology will inevitably change government, the way it did business.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

A positive idea -
There are a huge number of great COMPLICATED ideas that will garner GREAT OPPOSITION. In an ideal country full of great idealistic philosophers, these would be easy to implement. We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

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.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or 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 – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, 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, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —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 a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of 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. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


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 - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Explained well. I believe more and more OWS'ers are getting behind the idea of this being step 1. Most other issues would be far easier to implement if this were done first, and many issues couldn't be done at all otherwise.

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The Citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA do hereby construct and present to the Congress and the Senate of the United States, this AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION, to reaffirm, Restore, Protect, Ensure Equality and to Secure the Blessings of Liberty derived from certain “Inalienable Rights” to Representation in our Legislative and Electoral Processes granted by the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights and the accompanying Amendments.

We, the Citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, do hereby find.

CORRUPTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS; Money in the form of, but not limited to, monetary donations, gifts, promises, lobbying for and/or against the passage of legislation unduly influences and/or impacts the final vote. Resulting in the deprivation of the Civil Rights of the Citizen of the United States of America.

Money in the form of, but not limited to, monetary donations, gifts, promises, lobbying for and/or against the election or appointment of any candidate to office unduly influences and/or impacts the final vote. Resulting in the deprivation of the Civil Rights of the Citizen of the United States of America.

This influence is made plain to see with results of the advertisements for and/or against the proposed piece of legislation. Furthermore, this same form of donations and/or the lobbying for and/or against the an individual to be elected to public office, unduly influences the outcome of our Electoral Process in the same fashion as the Legislative Process, the results of this corruption of the Democratic Process is self-evident.

RESULTS OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS; The result of these acts is an inequity in the lives of American Citizens, so much inequity that some Citizens are unable to provide homes and food for themselves and their families. The economy of the United States of America has faltered and America has been brought to its knees and continues to decline.

United States Judicial System and the Courts specifically, have failed to protect the Electoral and Legislative Process from these Corruptions.

PERSON-HOOD AND THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHER; The Founding Fathers' Intent, when framing the Constitution for the United States of America and the accompanying Bill of Rights, is self-evident in only a “person” may be counted in the enumeration, vote, hold office and possess “Certain Inalienable Rights”, this is self-evident in the language used in Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 9 Article 2, Section 1, Article 3 Section 3, Amendment 5, Amendment 12, Amendment 14 Sections 1, 2 and 3, Amendment 20 Sections 3 and 4 and Amendment 22 Section 1.

Amendment 28 - Electoral and Legislative Process Contributions

  1. A “person” is defined by the Constitution, specifically by Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 9 Article 2, Section 1, Article 3 Section 3, Amendment 5, Amendment 12, Amendment 14 Sections 1, 2 and 3, Amendment 20 Sections 3 and 4 and Amendment 22 Section 1.

  2. Only a “person” may participate in the Legislative and/or the Electoral Processes.

  3. Only a “person” may contribute financially, monetary or other gifts, to a candidate running for and/or currently holding any elected and/or appointed public office.

  4. Only a “person” may contribute to the input and/or the creation, and/or advertising to and/or against any piece of legislation.

-- I am simply unimportant