|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Oct 28, 2011 7:05:25 GMT -6
William Falberg commented 2 mins ago · Flag
Does anybody want to go back and consider this wording and/or concept for getting money out of politics and into human hands?
Section 1. Incorporated entities are not persons: and as such, they are only entitled to the rights and privileges granted to them under the terms of their individual charters.
Section 2. Incorporated entities other than those expressly chartered to promote candidates for political office shall be forbidden to engage in, interfere with, or petition legislation in the affairs of a duly constituted government, official, agency, or representative thereof.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(And do we still really need Sec. 3? )
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Oct 28, 2011 11:44:27 GMT -6
William Falberg commented 2 mins ago · Flag Does anybody want to go back and consider this wording and/or concept for getting money out of politics and into human hands? Section 1. Incorporated entities are not persons: and as such, they are only entitled to the rights and privileges granted to them under the terms of their individual charters. You would allow state law to create rights and privileges willy-nilly and have ZERO constitutional control over incorporated entities. Just substitute a period for the full colon and remove the rest. But then, you have a weaker version of `simple rev Section 1.' Section 2. Incorporated entities other than those expressly chartered to promote candidates for political office shall be forbidden to engage in, interfere with, or petition legislation in the affairs of a duly constituted government, official, agency, or representative thereof. You would allow free lobbying simply by claiming the corporation is created to support a candidate. Exactly what advantage does that have for the rest of us? Legal entities are not people; simple and complete. Adding BS that allows a full end run around the aim of controlling undue influence is not acceptable. No person except a citizen may contribute, they must make public their name, what they have contributed, to what political purpose. That will work, through the action of the electorate. Where is that restriction in what you propose? Your two proposals fail in the general principle of stopping the mess we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by William H. Falberg on Nov 5, 2011 10:51:11 GMT -6
@rusty......
We're not talking about state constituons and I don't have time to quibble with sophist arguments. Your point is clear: save personhood at all costs. I get it. Pile on the words; but know you're philosophy is exposed for all its flaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 6, 2011 16:44:19 GMT -6
@rusty...... We're not talking about state constituons and I don't have time to quibble with sophist arguments. Your point is clear: save personhood at all costs. I get it. Pile on the words; but know you're philosophy is exposed for all its flaws. Exactly what are you referring to? Where do I mention state constitutions? Which aspect of the many meanings for `sophist' do you mean? Claiming you do not have time to explain your objections, `quibble' as you put it, is NO argument whatsoever. Please, explain how any wording of the two sections I have written above "Pile on the words?" Even further, how do the two sections "save personhood at all costs?" Some detailed explanations would be helpful. Claiming lack of time does not cut it! |
|
