Comments on Amendment Drafts
Please leave your comments for debate on the following amendment drafts.
From our former Washington Lobbyist, Jimmy Williams, here is a DRAFT of our Constitutional Amendment for public debate this fall:
“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
Here is Lawrence Lessig’s DRAFT of the amendment.
“No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”
I believe that limits to campaigns should be limited to the extent outlined above, however- further restrictions to limit the contributions to ONLY those candidates who may represent us directly… in other words- I think someone from Texas should not contribute to a candidate for office in North Carolina, etc. Also- greater efforts and incentives for encouraging ALL citizens to vote, rather than seekling new ways to restrict voting. Monied interests do not typically represent the interests of the people… and their not unlimited ability to lobby is nothing more than legal bribery. I have felt for many years that our government has been hijacked by special and monied interests, and it appears that it is now worse than ever, and getting worse. A new amendment to the US Constitution appears to be the only remedy to this… I have advocated this for many years as well. Much to my surprise- David Stockman, not a person known well for a liberal viewpoint, mentioned that very thing on an interview with Bill Moyers a few weeks ago.
Peters Chemical Company is one of the leading suppliers of industrial and chemical lime (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide, lime kiln dust) and agricultural limestone (PCC Agricultural Limestone) in the Northeast. We carry a full line of ice melters, including calcium chloride pellets, calcium chloride flake (Peladow, Dowflake Xtra, ComboTherm), MAG pellets, MAG flake, magnesium chloride pellets, magnesium chloride flake (MAG), sodium chloride (rock salt, Halite), potassium chloride, urea, sodium acetate (NAAC), calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), potassium acetate (CF-7, E36) and other airport deicers.
Some of our top sellers are: Mr. Magic®, Monster Melt®, Stop Ice®, Safer Than Salt Commercial®, Safer Than Salt Premium®, Safer Than Salt Premium with Corrosion Inhibitor®, EarthGuard® and of course, sodium chloride otherwise known as rock salt or halite.
Another amendment (to reduce needless greed) would be to cap wealth! The excess wealth could be required to be invested in infrastructure and new businesses.
I believe that no household should have more than $20 million for personal use relative to everyone else. This money would have to be in a separate account. Of this $20 million, $10 million should be required to be invested in a 30 year Treasury bond and required to be held for the full 30 years.
Owners of businesses with $20 million already accumulated in a separate could run them like a game with no salary except to maintain a maximum net-worth of $20,000.
However, in our immediate actions for Economic Justice we should promote Robert Reich’s proposals in his 2010 book, “Aftershock” pages 129 to 132.
Reich proposes shifting $600 billion in income from the Top 5% to the Bottom 95%, and getting also $210 billion the first year from a $35 tax on a metric ton of carbon dioxide.
To get more details automatically on Reich’s Economic Justice Actions and other Action ideas, Email: DKseed@gmail.com.
Kaufman’s comment exposes the anti-capitalist sentiment lurking behind this futile campaign. If the federal government did not mandate regulations and spending by private businesses then corporations would not need to lobby for special treatment and favors. Stop the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government and the lobbying for waivers will be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Witness the unions who supported Obamacare and then lobbied for waivers. Or take the case of the Catholic Church who supported Obamacare and then protested the mandates HHS created. Corporations are merely larger versions of mom and pop businesses. If you do not like what a corporation does do not buy their cars, electronics or medicines. If you do not like General Motors buy an Acura. No corporation has a monopoly. The only monopoly is the government. That is why the constitution limits the power and size of the federal government because too much power concentrated in the hands of government is inherently tyrannical.
What follows is an amendment by Rep. Kucinich to get money out of politics. It has no co-signers. Should we write our Representatives to co-sign the following amendment:
H.J.RES.100 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the use of public funds to pay for campaigns for election to Federal office. (Introduced in House – IH)
HJ 100 IH
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 100
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the use of public funds to pay for campaigns for election to Federal office.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 18, 2012
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the use of public funds to pay for campaigns for election to Federal office.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article–
`Section 1. All campaigns for President and Members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate shall be financed entirely with public funds. No contributions shall be permitted to any candidate for Federal office from any other source, including the candidate.
`Section 2. No expenditures shall be permitted in support of any candidate for Federal office, or in opposition to any candidate for Federal office, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
`Section 3. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds.
`Section 4. The Congress shall, by statute, provide criminal penalties for any violation of this Article.
`Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’.
I started a petition on the White House website to Get Money out!
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/formally-endorse-28th-amendment-repeal-citizens-united-decision-and-get-corporate-money-out-politics/PPp1lS8v
I would like to see a combination of amendments such as Deutch, Edwards, Schader, and McGovern that will keep for profit corporations out of elections, but not reduced their powers, and responsibilities in the economic realm where they need to exist. Assembly/associative rights would be continued, and contributions from individuals or associations would be regulated, disclosed, and limited equally.
Jimmy William’s draft seems more logical to me. When you restrict EVERYONE from contributing, it ensures no money will be involved in the campaign process. If you give everyone an allotment they can contribute, bigger institutions will just contribute on behalf of a lot of people…
I like the Renew Democracy Amendment, but would spell out what is “reasonably affordable” by the average American. I would set this at $500.
“The right of the individual qualified citizen voter to participate in and directly elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be questioned and the right to vote is limited to individuals. The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens. Political campaign and political party contributions shall not exceed an amount reasonably affordable by the average American. The rights of all groups, associations and organizations to other political speech may be regulated by Congress but only as to volume and not content and only to protect the right of the individual voter’s voice to be heard.”
The first draft is more inclusive and address many of the problems. I would also like to have the document address the private organizations claiming non affiliation with a candidate or party purchasing advertisement time that specifically addresses a candidate, i.e. Kerry with military record attacked by an organization, heavily funded, with no direct candidate affiliation.
How about PSAs. Every candidate is allowed x minutes of air time as a public service announcement and x ad space in newsprint to get their information out. Any American citizen should have the ability to run for political office, it shouldn’t cost money to get your name on the ballot either. And every candidate that gets themselves on the ballot should be invited to any televised and/or broadcast debates.
Maybe a comprehensive bill should be tried prior to a vague and incomplete constitutional amendment? The bill would strip the supreme court of jurisdiction in political affairs as allowed in the constitution and reverse ruling adverse to public interests since 1976. See the “money outta politics” website for details. Public funding of elections, equal media time, end of the revolving door, election reforms, etc are also included. .
I would not use the word “money”. In order for the Amendment to have the power and change we seek as American citizens, I suggest using the word Donations.
Such as, Donations to candidate shall be limited to value of …
Check with Tax Lawyer as to the Tax Code interpretation of Donations. I think it includes anything of value: money, transfer of assets, granted use of media, overhead, bartered values, and values of goods and services, etc…
I suggest closing real potential loopholes. Such as, placing equal limits to endorsements.
For instance,
once the donations are limited to a value of no more than… the multinational
corporations, foreigners, bankers, special interest groups will not DONATE on record.
They will circumvent via endorsements. They’ll pay for the costs of goods and services
or some aspect of it, and not take the tax deduction on record as a DONATION.
Better yet,I suggest the word “money” be concise and defined as
…Contributions, Donations, Gifts, Endorsements, and payments of goods and services shall be limited to a value of $…
The words and the legal and accounting interpretation of such words should be concise, clear, and bear accountability.
I would not use the word “money”. In order for the Amendment to have the power and change we seek as American citizens, I suggest using the word Donations.
Such as, Donations to candidate shall be limited to value of …
Check with Tax Lawyer as to the Tax Code interpretation of Donations. I think it includes anything of value: money, transfer of assets, granted use of media, overhead, bartered values, and values of goods and services, etc…
I suggest closing real potential loopholes. Such as, placing equal limits to endorsements.
For instance,
once the donations are limited to a value of no more than… the multinational
corporations, foreigners, bankers, special interest groups will not DONATE on record.
They will circumvent via endorsements. They’ll pay for the costs of goods and services
or some aspect of it, and not take the tax deduction on record as a DONATION.
Better yet,I suggest the word “money” be concise and defined as
…Contributions, Donations, Gifts, Endorsements, and payments of goods and services shall be limited to a value of $…
The words and the legal and accounting interpretation of such words should be concise, clear, and bear accountability.
I believe if you prohibit any company, organization, or person who receives ANY federal money (business, grants, or service) from spending money on candidates, PACs, or lobbying it would remove the incentive for lobbying once and for all.
First, get rid of corporate personhood via constitutional amendment. Beyond that,
Williams seems too extreme in prohibiting all contributions, period. It essentially calls for public funding of elections. That would require elaborate rules on who is eligible to receive funding, and when, and it could lead to abuse. I worry about how “directly or indirectly” or “independent political contributions” can be defined and enforced. What is the ultimate goal? To equalize the ability of citizens, regardless of their means, to contribute to campaigns? The $100 limit in Lessig pretty much does this. But it seems to leave open the opportunity for high independent corporate expenditures, (subject to “limits” imposed by the Congress) which would become even more important if they were limited to higher amounts than $100. . I’d go for a higher individual limit — say $1000 — and require the limit to include campaign donations and independent expenditures. It would take 1000 donations of $1000 to equalize the current situation, where one person, corporation, or group can donate $1 million independently. That’s a lot of equalizing. Ask any fundraiser how hard it is to raise a million dollars from the 1000 crowd vs a million from one member of the glitterati.
Why are corporations taxed at 35% if they have no rights? How can you ban property rights and free speech rights? What about newspapers, they are corporations. If a newspaper publishes an op-ed if could be deemed illegal under Williams amendment. Rather I suggest attacking the root of the problem rather than the consequences.
The problem is our bloated federal government. As I have written previously the larger our government the greater the opportunity for politicians and government employees to become corrupt. It is irrational to increase the size of the government via public funding. The problem is that the government’s tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives and a former lobbyist wants the government to have more power and control? If lobbyists are the problem than I would not go to a former lobbyist as the best person to get us out of this mess.
Freedom without property rights is tyranny and is unconstitutional so this petition may make the signaturs feel better but it is a waste of time. Just as every attempt to legislate campaign finance laws, which ultimately infringe on free speech rights, creates unintended consequences which must be addressed with new legislation etc, etc., so will this amendment create major unintended consequences.
Our government at all levels is larger than either the Federalists of Anti-Federalists envisioned. Return to a limited government and only legislate the enumerated powers in the constitution and the war against money, wealth and capitalism will stop.
I like the wording of the Williams draft better, seems more plain language. But I do prefer to limit contributions to something like the $100 limit the Lessig draft calls for.
Upon review of some of the other amendment proposals I would also like to add a sentence removing corporate personhood.
Something should be added that says something similar to: “Funding of campaigns for federal office shall be provided solely by the federal government.”