Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics

It won't work. Do you really think this is all it takes to end corruption? It is naive to think this will have any effect.

Originally posted by seachange

How could you consider that with this provision:

or other private entities established for business purposes

The bill is draconian by including that text. There is no way to hell and back that any right-winger, libertarian, or left-winger could possibly support a bill like that!

From a left-wing perspective, it tramples on free-speech rights. From a right-wing perspective, it regulates businesses. From a libertarian perspective (mine) it tramples on free speech rights. Nobody should support this bill, period, unless the text about private parties is taken out.

From my perspective, its fine to regulate corporations (but not tax them) to any degree imaginable. Corporations should not exist. But as for the government telling me what I can and can't do with my own money in who I will support, hell no. I won't obey and it would be unethical of them to trample on my property rights like that.

The bill claims to be about keeping out big-business and corporate interests, but the author is a filthy liar because it applies to small private interests as well!

As always, the title of a bill is exactly the opposite of its meaning. If a bill is named "Hope America Amendment" for example it, what it means is that it is the "America Will be Hopeless and Destroyed and You're Done For, Losers Amendment".

The bill has all the teeth it needs to screw over "Martha the bed & breakfast owner" who wants to send a $5,000 to Ron Paul for example.

This is why I can't support Occupy Wall Street in full. They claim to be bashing big corporate interests and then when they tell you the truth like when they write a law its all about screwing over you and me.

I would support this measure if it was across the board. Right now, it isn't. There are too many unanswered questions, loopholes.
PAC's, lobbyist firms, and the issue with small private interests?
IF ANY and I mean ANY loophole remains, politicians of every stripe would use it.

There have been a few posters here shocked that I could support a concept like this.



But a bill like this would level the playing field.

Special interest groups, PAC's, unions, and yes (even corporations) have over-run our country with self-promoting legislation.

It's time to stop it.

reply to post by beezzer


beezzer,
i have never agreed with you,
and i agree with you now if two people like us can find common ground for the better good
then anyone can

we are all frank paulson

xploder

reply to post by beezzer


Did you know the only reason for corporate money and lobbyists is because the Governmnt has grown to big and has too much power. The ideal behind lobbyists was to give a business the say so in the laws that the Government writes.

For those who want to get rid of "Corporate" money shrink the Government then there won't be a need for lobbyists,pac's.

It was a simple message that was screamed loud and clear for the last 3 years by that party that no one ever listened to if they had this wouldn't even be and issue or necessary but then agian what do laws matter since Congress is above them.

Waste of time and effort that Amendment is.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer,
i have never agreed with you,
and i agree with you now if two people like us can find common ground for the better good
then anyone can

we are all frank paulson

xploder

I've been getting alot of this lately.

Do a rewrite on the bill. Have it include everyone, everything. From churches to GE.

If an individual wants to contribute? Awesome. Place your social security number next to what you want to donate. (trust but verify)

It would be better to have 310 million people influence politicians with their money than a single union, corporation, PAC, or lobbyist firm.

reply to post by LazyGuy


This isn't a show that they are having an impact, it's a show that power hungry people will use any excuse to take more control. Of COURSE a (D) is going to try and pass a bill to limit corporate spending in elections, it limits the ability of his opponents to raise funds and gives the (D's) more control to take MORE of your rights away.

What they need to do is sponsor a bill that takes corporate AND union money out of the political process. If the unions want to use money from their membership, then allocate a specific amount that EACH contributing member can choose what candidate to donate to.

Same with corporations. If the corporations want to donate to political causes, give the money you wish to allocate to the candidates that the individual stock holders wish THEIR percentage to go to up to the maximum individual donation amount allowed by law.

Jaden

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer

 

Did you know the only reason for corporate money and lobbyists is because the Governmnt has grown to big and has too much power. The ideal behind lobbyists was to give a business the say so in the laws that the Government writes.

For those who want to get rid of "Corporate" money shrink the Government then there won't be a need for lobbyists,pac's.

It was a simple message that was screamed loud and clear for the last 3 years by that party that no one ever listened to if they had this wouldn't even be and issue or necessary but then agian what do laws matter since Congress is above them.

Waste of time and effort that Amendment is.

edit on 20-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

But the whole process has become bastardized. Now special interest groups have more say than regular Americans.

Just look at Obamacare. If we didn't have unions, PAC's and shills for lobbyists, tripe like that would have never passed.

I may get some grief from you and other conservative breatheren, but a simplified process (I'm simple, it helps) would allow us to get hnest, real people into congress, the White House.

I believe the true majority of America is conservative. If given the oppourtunity to eliminate small voices made laege by money (Soros) then the REAL majority, conservatives, would finally have a say.

reply to post by beezzer


By their doing as in Government man look at it this way they created the laws and passed them on to us they created the problem so what is the solution?

Create more laws to supposedly fix the problem that they caused in the first place.

This is all by design people don't want to believe this but the most powerful thing in this country is our own government.

They created the problems so they offer no real solutions special interest is indeed a problem but it is the Congressman own self interest is the problem.

Of course everyone is free to make up their own minds on this subject i blame those with a 9% approval rate.

No grief from me man freedom of thought.

reply to post by neo96
I will add this caveat; If this bill just targets corporations, with no thought to unions or PAC's, then it'll be the death knell to OWS and illustrate their partisan political backing.

Beware!

Beezzer will be watching!

reply to post by LazyGuy


Yeah yeah.. haha. I should have added "today" to the end.
Kinda depressing. It would be mocked soo much on the news. Like straight up laughed at.

reply to post by seachange


Martha the person can still send the money she owned. Her personal money.

Originally posted by CB328
As overjoyed as I am to hear this, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Even the democrats would have a hard time getting a majority to back this, but republicans will probably be 100% against it, of course.

A bill like this, isn't a serious bill either.

It's a "safe bet", to let the public smell a flower and like Mr. Nice ... and you'll have a couple of democrats and republicans to vote with the bill, for the purpose of upping their popularity. In reality, you'll have on both side of the alley, democrats and republicans ... popular presidential candidates, voiting for the bill. Knowing pretty well, it's a safe bet because the bill doesn't have a chance in hell ... but, it'll make them personally look good and popular. And they'll even stand up and talk about, how outrageous they think it is ... that a bill like this isn't going through, and that they will work hard on getting such a bill through in the near future ... 5 or 10 years.

Which means, that in the coming years, the election mechanism will be changed in such a way, that corporate money is not needed for campaigning. But they'll get it, none the less ... through other means.

reply to post by LazyGuy


And it begins... So a Democrat, and from a site "think PROGRESS" the same kind of people who actually put corporations and the rich bankers in power now are the ones to offer another solution... Who knew?...

Should we take a look at what the bill says?...

The following is an abstract of the bill.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly
exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons
by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending
in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States
to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election
contributions and expenditures.

teddeutch.house.gov...

So not only will the bill give more POWER to the government to regulate ALL corporations, which btw most corporations are not even part of the "1%", but it will also give Congress and the states the power to REGULATE and LIMIT all election contributions and expenditures...

Does noone see the problems with this?...

Since Congress and the states will be able to regulate and limit contributions, who is to say that they won't have favorites and give more money to a certain type of politicians?...

Are you all so eager to accept ANY CHANGE that you would blindly support something like this?...

Anyone knows the definition for corporation?...

cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/

Noun:

1. company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

2.A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.

Link

So pretty much EVERY business, as well as profit and non-profit groups etc, can be viewed as corporations, which would mean that Congress, and the states will have more control over every business, as well as political rallies...

You actually think the top corporations will be controlled by this?...

BTW, as I wrote in another thread, similar REGULATIONS were put in place to control ALL BUSINESSES in the 1930s and eventually led to a recession in the U.S...

Those REGULATIONS were written into law by a mayority DEMOCRAT Congress, and under Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, both who were PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS...

Now we are under ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT President and administration and we are being told similar REGULATIONS, and CONTROLS will solve the problems...

Things that make you go humm no?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Nice find!

Gimme a Sharpie and I can do a quick rewrite for this guy.

So what's stopping anyone from writing to this guy and making suggestions or telling him you won't write to your to your rep. endorsing it until___ is added or subtracted? I have done so because I think it should include unions and PAC's. In no way shape or form should any group be able to "speak" with dollars, over individuals. It's a baby step, weaning our politicians off the drug of their choice. Next step would be a cap on donations. It may not pass, it most likely will not pass however, I think getting this amendment in the media will further expose the corruption that we all have to find a way to eradicate, by seeing who doesn't vote for it we know who not to vote for in elections.

reply to post by neo96

Did you know the only reason for corporate money and lobbyists is because the Governmnt has grown to big and has too much power. The ideal behind lobbyists was to give a business the say so in the laws that the Government writes.

For those who want to get rid of "Corporate" money shrink the Government then there won't be a need for lobbyists,pac's.

They don't give a rat's ass about the size of the government, they just want to push through regulations that makes them more $$$. So if by smaller government you mean get rid of all environmental regulations for example, you'd be so wrong, it would almost be comical.

They want to make more $$$, at all costs. Even if it means they destroy the environment or people's health in the process. The Koch brothers and their pending lawsuits are a great example of that. They'd be even worse without regulations...

And let's not forget, it's a LACK OF REGULATIONS that got us into this economic crisis!!!!

reply to post by LazyGuy


"for-profit", that's the rub here, what about the non profit organizations? Off hand I would say most of the non profit organizations support the Liberal Agenda and DNC, this is just a Scam on the Democratic Congresswomans part to take away campaign contributions from the RNC, this woman is just as crooked as the rest of Congress.