WolfPAC Forum - The Revolving Door

The forum will be undergoing some restructuring in the days to come.
Individual boards for the states will be added among other things.

Feel free to post anywhere though.

WolfPAC Forum :: Constitutional Convention :: Other Issues :: The Revolving Door

Author

Topic: The Revolving Door (Read 224 times)

decora
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 1
Karma: 0

The Revolving Door
« Thread Started on Oct 30, 2011, 8:33am »

James Newsome was running the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, a government body that is supposed to regulate the groups that trade oil, gas, corn, wheat, frozen concentrated orange juice, etc.

The New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex), which traded oil & other commodities, was being investigated by the government when Newsome was running the CFTC. Suddenly, the investigation of Nymex stops. Newsome had been spending a lot (a lot) of time with some of the top people at NYMEX.

Next thing you know, who is the new president of Nymex? Earning a huge salary, more than he could ever get in government?

James Newsome. He quit his job at CFTC and went right to work at the company he had just been supposed to be regulating.

This is described in Leah McGrath Goodman's book "The Asylum" - a book for which she is getting a huge amount of flack from certain vested interests.

Similar revolving door situations have occured in every part of government. I'm sure the reader can come up with many other examples (post below?)

It is ironic that so many private corporations force relatively low level engineers and computer people to sign non-compete agreements, where they cannot work for competitors for x number of years after they leave their current employer. However, if you work for a government regulator, nobody seems to bat an eye if you go to work for the same company you were supposed to be regulating only months earlier. Once again we see that one group in society, well connected politicos, are "more equal" than others.

IMHO if you want to get money out of politics, it is not enough to stop campaign contributions - because the revolving door has almost exactly the same effect - the decisions that politicians make are guided by their aspirations for a wealthy future career in the private sector, instead of being disinterested public servants.

« Last Edit: Oct 30, 2011, 8:46am by decora »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

jacqueline
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Female

Posts: 2
Location: Minnesota
Karma: 0

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #1 on Oct 30, 2011, 3:54pm »

Good foresight. I'll come back to this point once campaign finance reform is accomplished.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Lam
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 95
Location: North Dakota
Karma: 13

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #2 on Nov 2, 2011, 2:40am »

This is something we've foolishly left out in our amendments. We will address this very soon, right after or others figure out how to word it into a constitutional amendment.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

To make things clear...

I'm not TYT staff.
I'm not an official movement leader.
My ideas are not that of TYT and I do not speak for them or the movement.
My words have no more bearing than yours.
I'm only a volunteer who shares the same goals as you.
Now check out my epic amendment.
-----
Amendment XXVIII

Sec 1. Only natural persons shall have rights of persons.

mrsous
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 7
Karma: 0

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #3 on Nov 19, 2011, 12:24pm »

>This is something we've foolishly left out in our amendments. We will address this very soon, right after or others figure out how to word it into a constitutional amendment.

What amendments are you talking about? The anti-corporate money amendment has already been written? What was the process for crafting it and by whom was it carried out?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Lam
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 95
Location: North Dakota
Karma: 13

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #4 on Nov 19, 2011, 12:31pm »

They're in the process of being crafted right now and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Here's the 28th, which revokes corporate and union personhood, and the 29th, which we're somewhat less focused on. It focuses on campaign finance reform:
28th.
29th.

If you or anyone doesn't like them as they are, we have a process for making changes:
Crafting procedure.

And in my signature, is my own proposal which I haven't gotten around to actually proposing yet. Check it out!

« Last Edit: Nov 19, 2011, 12:33pm by Lam »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Navigateur
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Feb 2012
Gender: Male

Posts: 1
Karma: 0

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #5 on Feb 7, 2012, 3:33pm »

Lam, may I propose such an amendment which addresses all corruption issues in one (incl. revolving door and all the rest)? It is as follows:

Section 1. A government guided only by conscience; no elected official within the United States shall be permitted to raise, or benefit from, any wealth in whatever form or however used, offered by anyone during or after their time in Office as a result of any decision he or she was expected to make or made while in Office.

Section 2. Each person who shall have officially declared candidacy for elected Office within the United States shall be given an equal amount of wealth as each of his or her competitors to campaign for Office. No candidate nor prospective candidate shall have been permitted before the end of the election, including before his or her official declaration of candidacy, to have spent any wealth outside of this amount to campaign for Office, nor to have compelled any other entity or person to do so.

Can you scrutinize this and reply? Isn't it preferable to deal with all corruption in one go, as it is more difficult for opponents to pick off, as might be the case in deciding whether Citizens United ever truly relied on corporate "personhood", the appropriate limit for a political "donation" (to which we all know the real answer is zero, if we truly don't want "money to buy politicians"), etc.?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Lam
Administrator

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 95
Location: North Dakota
Karma: 13

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #6 on Feb 9, 2012, 2:46am »

Sure thing, Navigateur. I'll break down my critique line-by-line so it's easier for you to understand which parts I'm referencing exactly. Feel free to debate or mock any part of my analysis.

In your Sec. 1:

Quote:

A government guided only by conscience;

Well first off, there are problems with the wording. Acting in accordance with your conscience doesn't necessarily mean acting with the best interests of Americans in mind. My dictionary defines conscience as "an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior". What if a congressman is inherently immoral?

The second problem comes from this line's attempt to regulate thought and motive. It's not something we can prove or enforce in any way and since people tend to lie or spin the truth, especially politicians, asking them is a bit impractical. I think it's best if we attempt to regulate things that can be regulated, such as campaign contributions.

Quote:

...no elected official within the United States shall be permitted to raise, or benefit from, any wealth in whatever form or however used, offered by anyone during or after their time in Office as a result of any decision he or she was expected to make or made while in Office.

The most obvious problem is that this line conflicts with this line, from your Sec. 2: "Each person who shall have officially declared candidacy for elected Office within the United States shall be given an equal amount of wealth as each of his or her competitors to campaign for Office."

The second problem I see is that this line, as written, would bar elected officials and former elected officials from receiving income. The line "as a result of any decision he or she was expected to make or made while in Office" would be hard to enforce or use and, in my opinion, poorly worded. People giving money to an elected official can easily cite some other reason for their contribution.

------------------------------
In your Sec. 2:

Quote:

Each person who shall have officially declared candidacy for elected Office within the United States shall be given an equal amount of wealth as each of his or her competitors to campaign for Office.

I take it you're trying to establish public financing of campaigns. The problem with the way you worded it, anyone can declare candidacy and automatically receive tons of money even if they're unpopular or plan a lackluster campaign. A better way to word this would be to add qualifiers on who can receive that money. Although personally, I like being able to donate money and I believe the states, not the federal gov't, should have the power to determine whether or not a state's elections are publicly financed.

Quote:

No candidate nor prospective candidate shall have been permitted before the end of the election, including before his or her official declaration of candidacy, to have spent any wealth outside of this amount to campaign for Office, nor to have compelled any other entity or person to do so.

This sounds okay to me until that last part, "nor to have compelled any other entity or person to do so". It's like that law that says candidates can't direct or plan with super PACs. If a candidate denies it and there are no records (as is usually the case), it's unenforceable.

If I misinterpreted any part of your draft, let me know.

« Last Edit: Feb 9, 2012, 3:16am by Lam »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Navigateur
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Feb 2012
Gender: Male

Posts: 1
Karma: 0

Re: The Revolving Door
« Reply #7 on Feb 12, 2012, 10:09pm »

Thanks for replying! I hope you can answer my answers to your analysis:

As to "what if a congressman is inherently immoral"? Then they should still legislate purely by that conscience, as long
as they're not bought. Isn't that (corruption vs conscience) the entire essence of anti-corruption? Is there any other factor in a representative democracy? The whole idea of representative legislature is that conscience can be swayed by reason and discussion, but corruption not so much. That's why corruptionis a force of ignorance in the system. In fact that is the one and only problem with it.

To your broad point about enforceability. You can't solve every murder. That doesn't mean it should be legal. The point is that if enshrined in law as "shall not be permitted", it sets off every humanly possible effort to enforce it now and in future, otherwise it's left completely alone. At worst it immediately acts as a deterrent under risk of being secretly filmed. At best, and likely, ingenious devices and systems are designed in future to produce the target outcome as enshrined in the law. Both scenarios are far better than omitting the principle entirely. Right?

To your other points about overshoot... can elected officials receive any income now and in future under this wording? My interpretation is absolutely yes (I'll explain why next). Does campaign money of Section 2 conflict with Section 1? My interpretation is absolutely not. Section 1 only specifies money "offered as a result of decisions made or were expected to make while in Office", not about other incomes, nor the money designated for campaigning in Section 2 (which doesn't meet this criterion) - I don't see how that could be any clearer? Surely a deep reading of the existing wording would reveal this to any supreme court or official. Is this still wrong?

As to your other point about allowing states to have, frankly, corrupt elections while making it only a requirement for federal elections - if it is a right for everyone everywhere to live in a truly representative democracy, then it puzzles me as to why it would make any sense to allow corruption or money to influence political outcomes anywhere in the USA? It seem unconscionable and even counter-productive as all the corruption flocks to the state level.

As to candidate-eligibility, once a candidate has been legally accepted as one, there should be prejudicial neutrality. If there is any barring, that candidate should not be allowed at all in the final round e.g. if there's a legally mandatory primary elimination process etc. There's no way of defining or predicting a "lacklustre campaign" or whether a candidate will be "unpopular" after campaigning - that's the whole point of equal money. Besides which the amount isn't specified - it could be $1 each and left purely to media debates, or more. So it needn't be "tons of money", just as long as it's equal. By the way, it's specifically designated for campaigning - applying for vouchers etc., not actual cash in any case.

Do you agree that Citizens United may otherwise be upheld even if corporate personhood is revoked, based only on the "free press" part of the First Amendment? And that allowing unequal campaign resources means money still buys lawmakers?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged