|
Post by Lam on Oct 27, 2011 17:07:21 GMT -6
29th Amendment (Campaign Finance Reform) Sec 1. Only U.S. Citizens shall be allowed to contribute to a candidate for public office, or to contribute money to an organization engaged in influencing the outcome of an election or legislation, or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials, organization, or legislation. Sec 2. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more than sixteen times the federal hourly minimum wage, in contributions of any form, excluding volunteer hours, for any purpose, from any singular citizen of the United States of America during the same election cycle; all contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source. Sec 3. No appointee or nominee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall accept gifts or compensation to their personal accounts save their duly awarded salary from said government body; they may receive campaign contributions in a separate campaign account subject to disclosure. Sec 4. All campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign contributions. Candidates as private citizens may contribute to their campaigns within the limits and restrictions of this amendment and shall be permitted use of personal forms of transportation. Sec 5: All campaign contributions, to candidates or to organizations engaged in influencing the outcome of an election, must be raised from the constituents of the elected office in question. Sec 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Oct 27, 2011 17:50:56 GMT -6
Here's my take, using the modifications we had proposed and yea'd up on the previous forum.
Sec 1: Only U.S. Citizens shall be allowed to contribute to a candidate for public office, or to contribute money to an organization engaged in influencing the outcome of an election.
Sec 2. No candidate for any elected office, or organization engaged in influencing the outcome of an election, shall be permitted to receive more than one half of one percent of the average income of the poorest fifty percent of all adult citizens in the United States of America, in contributions of any form, excluding volunteer hours, for any purpose, from any singular citizen of the United States of America during an election cycle; average income of the poorest fifty percent of American shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. All contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source.
(Comment: I think this should be simpler – 1/5 of 1% of median income ($100) or 16 hours at fed min wage ($116))
Sec 3: All campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign contributions. Candidates as private citizens may contribute to their campaigns within the limits and restrictions of this amendment.
Sec 4: All campaign contributions, to candidates or to organizations engaged in influencing the outcome of an election, must be raised from the constituents of the elected office in question.
Sec 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Oct 27, 2011 18:09:12 GMT -6
29th Amendment (Campaign Finance Reform) Sec 1. No person, corporation, for-profit entity, non-profit entity, or entity of any type, domestic or foreign, other than a United States citizen, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any individual hereafter referred to as, ‘candidate’ or ‘elected official’ for state or national public office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials. Sec 2. No candidate for any elected office shall be permitted to receive more than one half of one percent of the average income of the poorest fifty percent of all adult citizens in the United States of America, in contributions of any form, excluding volunteer hours, for any purpose, from any singular citizen of the United States of America during the same election cycle; average income of the poorest fifty percent of American shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. All contributions must be fully disclosed in amount and source. Sec 3**. No candidate for federal office, in any election cycle, shall raise or spend more than a sum equal to one thousand times the median household income in the United States of America. The limit shall be five hundred times median income at the State level, and two-hundred and fifty times median income at the Municipal level; median income shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Sec 4. No appointee or nominee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall accept gifts or compensation to their personal accounts save their duly awarded salary from said government body; they may receive campaign contributions in a separate campaign account subject to disclosure. Sec 5. All campaign expenditures shall be comprised entirely of campaign contributions. Candidates as private citizens may contribute to their campaigns within the limits and restrictions of this amendment; and shall be permitted use of personal forms of transportation. Sec 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. **Note the multipliers to median income are simply placeholders. They were chosen arbitrarily in the early draftings of the amendment and we've all been too lazy to do research to pick better multipliers. It's, like, totaly up for debate and stuff. This article reads like a zoning proposal; far to complex and protective of privilege. The constitution does not need this legislative verbiage; you negate Sec 6 with all the detail in this article. Don't you trust the people to know what is good and see that it is done?
|
|
|
Post by reddwarf2956 on Oct 27, 2011 18:38:15 GMT -6
I have problems with this:
"average income of the poorest fifty percent of American shall be defined by the most recent enumeration as detailed in Article 1, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution"
First of all, the enumeration in Art 1 Sec 2 is just a count of people and not a count of income or wealth. Second, by law, it is the 16th Amendment which authorizes income taxes. Any references to income should be connected to 16th Amendment.
I also see a issue with the way this worded and how this is worded:
Sec 4: All campaign contributions, to candidates or to organizations engaged in influencing the outcome of an election, must be raised from the constituents of the elected office in question.
The problem is related to poor/rich districts. Think about the income of the nation is different from each district, and the wealth of each district.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Oct 27, 2011 18:51:24 GMT -6
I've made all the changes permitted by the older, crude process of adding and removing sections and stuff on the wolfpac site. It should be up to date now, I think.
That means from this point on, the new convention process will be in effect. Yay!
|
|
|
Post by minorheretic on Oct 27, 2011 19:32:02 GMT -6
Please take a look at my 1st mod of the 29th and see what you think.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Oct 27, 2011 19:45:42 GMT -6
The only difference I see is I have this in the main amendment:
Sec 3. No appointee or nominee to, or holder of, any office of any government body shall accept gifts or compensation to their personal accounts save their duly awarded salary from said government body; they may receive campaign contributions in a separate campaign account subject to disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by reddwarf2956 on Oct 28, 2011 0:31:56 GMT -6
Just thought of something else. To stop the I's - incumbents:
All campaign debts must be paid for by the campaign. Campaign debt can not exceed contributions .... (I know there is a problem with my statement in that it allows someone to raise 50% of the total used money and forces the failed campaign to go bankrupt in the end. Some how a statement can be stated in a way that places limits to the debt a campaign can make without allowing them to pull out more than the candidates contributions.)
Contributions and debts to one campaign shall not be rolled over and used for another campaign (even if it is to the same person running for the same office).
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 15:34:25 GMT -6
I hate to break up the party, but uh.....you may want to think about this: Barack Obama (D) Bundlers Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle." Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, with Obama and McCain posting bundlers by ranges, indicated in this chart with the "max" and "min" columns, and with the top ranges being simply "$500,000 or more." Together, 536 elites have directed at least $75,750,000 to McCain, and 560 have gathered at least $76,500,000 for Obama. www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638Read more: tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=28th&thread=3&page=1#ixzz1c7ABOmnM
|
|
Lam
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Lam on Oct 28, 2011 15:43:06 GMT -6
Just thought of something else. To stop the I's - incumbents: All campaign debts must be paid for by the campaign. Campaign debt can not exceed contributions .... (I know there is a problem with my statement in that it allows someone to raise 50% of the total used money and forces the failed campaign to go bankrupt in the end. Some how a statement can be stated in a way that places limits to the debt a campaign can make without allowing them to pull out more than the candidates contributions.) Contributions and debts to one campaign shall not be rolled over and used for another campaign (even if it is to the same person running for the same office). Hmm...never though about that. Candidates can just bypass the de facto spending limits by going into debt. There should probably be some sort of provision against that. "All candidates and associated campaigns shall pay off expenditures for their respective campaigns in full." Just a off-the-top-of-my-head rough draft. ?
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 16:14:55 GMT -6
Here's the reality folks: If you don't believe We The People can form a partyless party based on a Consensus Platform and by running Consensus Candidates and defeat the Republicans and Democrats, then you have no lawful recourse left. Then it's time to refresh the Liberty Tree. I don't believe it's time to refresh the Liberty Tree. I believe it's time to form a partyless party based on a Consensus Platform and run Consensus Candidates to defeat the Republicans and Democrats. There are no shortcuts. There are no viable other options. For example, www.americanselect.orgCapice?
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 16:27:08 GMT -6
Go tell Cenk: Hey, this stupid guy keeps buggin' me about bundling? What say you?
Apparently I have to spell it out for you:
Bundling also works like this: the CEO of a corporation (or his assistant.etc) goes around the office and hands everyone a $100 bill and tells them to write a check to such and such. The checks are collected or "bundled" and sent in.
Hello? Is this mic on?
I thought Cenk (and you) knew this.
btw, you can hate my delivery style and tone, but don't hate the message.
|
|
|
Post by fieroetnl on Oct 28, 2011 16:53:29 GMT -6
I do not like the text of this amendment as it is currently written.
For section 2, including specific numbers like a multiple of the minimum wage is very wonky, and it does not fit with what I see as the spirit of the Constitution in being concise and letting Congress work out the details of legislation to implement the spirit. I also prefer making financial contributions anonymous rather than transparent; that seemed to be the point Lawrence Lessig was making in the chapter "Reforms that Won't Reform" from his book, that transparency would do nothing. That said, I would also leave this up to Congress to control through legislation.
I understand the point behind section 3, but it seems awkwardly worded to me for some reason.
For section 4, the second sentence seems superfluous since any restrictions on how much a citizen can contribute would apply to citizens who are candidates for office.
I don't think section 5 is necessary. What if I'm a Republican living in a Congressional district or a state that is heavily Democratic? My contributions could be completely worthless in terms of helping a candidate I support get elected. Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers, the godfathers of Lawrence Lessig's democracy voucher proposal, thought it was a great thing that people could contribute to races they could not vote for by constituency as it could lead to an increase in competitive elections.
|
|
Lam
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Lam on Oct 28, 2011 16:57:38 GMT -6
Go tell Cenk: Hey, this stupid guy keeps buggin' me about bundling? What say you? Apparently I have to spell it out for you: Bundling also works like this: the CEO of a corporation (or his assistant.etc) goes around the office and hands everyone a $100 bill and tells them to write a check to such and such. The checks are collected or "bundled" and sent in. Hello? Is this mic on? I thought Cenk (and you) knew this. btw, you can hate my delivery style and tone, but don't hate the message. Oh, that's what it's called. We actually had a provision a while back that indirectly addressed. The provision simply limited total possible contributions a candidate or his/her campaign could receive. That way if a corporation does "bundle" contributions from their employees, the effectiveness of the bundling would only give their candidate a small advantage at best. Do you think we should reinstate that provision? Or do you have a different idea to address it. And no, lol, I don't hate your delivery. But keep in mind a respectful, mindful, and well articulated message will make people more receptive to your idea. You may not win people to your side being overly aggressive. Just something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by occupationamerica on Oct 28, 2011 16:59:33 GMT -6
You either have 100% public financing of campaigns, or you don't.
This Amendment proposal, however well-intentioned, will NOT do the job or pass.
Guess what? You're leaving the bi-partisan crimewave in Power in Washington.
|
|