Good Job California!!! Get the money out of Politics!!!

California has now become the 2nd state passing legislation to get the money out of Politics!! Let's go you other 48 states. All we need is just 32 of you to amend the Constitution and stop Big Money from buying our Government.

California Passes Historic Measure To Change The Constitution


Historic Anti-Corruption bill AJR1 Passes in California - Article 5 Convention State 2


www.wolf-pac.com...

a reply to: mOjOm

Great news! This is monumental! SnF

For those who don't watch videos, here's another source:

Cali fornia Legislature Passes State-Initiated Measure to Overturn Citizens United

SACRAMENTO, Calif. /California Newswire/ — When Calif. Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles) introduced AJR 1 in December 2012, he was the first legislator in the United States to employ a unique procedure in the U.S. Constitution that allows state legislatures to command Congressional action. Specifically, AJR 1 would require Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution, to address the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Today, good-government advocates are celebrating after AJR 1 passed the California State Senate by a vote of 23-11. AJR 1 has already prompted Vermont to pass a resolution modeled after it, and in Illinois a similar resolution is currently making its way through its legislature.

The SCOTUS ruling in FEC vs Citizen's United made a bad problem exponentially worse. Reversing the damage done would be an excellent first step.

This is a good start anyway, even though I doubt if other states will follow suit. The fact that corporations can pay into campaign contributions is not good. My question is who actually allowed this in the first place and why are they still working for our government. This policy also gives bigger contributing corporations more edge in bidding government contracts. Maybe the contract should not even be given out in the first place, is it really necessary.

I see big waste in this country still happening. I see constant changing of computer programs going on, making it easier to hide deceit.

Please, someone here draft and post as a reply a lettercwhich may be copied/pasted into an email, for sending to one's Senators & Representatives asking for them to do the same thing.
I'd do it but am frustrated as a big post I'd typed out in anotger thread got lost before I hit REPLY, thanks to this tiny phone screen.

a reply to: mOjOm

Lettercwhich & anotger. Yes, leave the typos be! Am only as literate-seeming as my thumbs allow! Which is not for much! Yet, the cursor hover to edit on an iphone is a battle I shall not wage.

That's excellent news, I didn't even know this was going on, but I just looked up my local chapter of it. I've said it many times on here in the past, the whole problem in the US government is lobbying. Put an end to the lobbyists influence and we might have a chance to actually fix our country.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Interesting...

Even more so considering the states involved so far.

California... Illinois... Vermont..

States that are traditionally Blue States pushing to remove money from politics.

With that said if its on the up and up then I completely support this action. My only concern is a constitutional convention type deal where once the "constitution framework" is opened in such a manner to make changes, will it turn into Pandora's box -

* - Abortion
* - Gay Rights
* - Who can own guns
* - Who can be President by clearing the confusion of what we see now as a requirement.

WARNING WARNING WARNING.

This AJR1 is very BAD.

Its 100% pro liberal pro democrat, anti republican.

It takes money sources from the republicans and tea party and allows the democrats there massive treehugger, union, and special interest money to continue,

This is just a new legal form of the same thing as the IRS scandal.

using or making new laws to control the US and make the US a one party country.

Your looking at the rise of TPTB.

Open your wallets because they want your money.

originally posted by: ANNED
WARNING WARNING WARNING.

This AJR1 is very BAD.

Its 100% pro liberal pro democrat, anti republican.

It takes money sources from the republicans and tea party and allows the democrats there massive treehugger, union, and special interest money to continue,

This is just a new legal form of the same thing as the IRS scandal.

using or making new laws to control the US and make the US a one party country.

Your looking at the rise of TPTB.

Open your wallets because they want your money.

You are so wrong it's almost laughable. Only I don't find your misinformation to be funny at all in this case.

But rather than waste my time arguing , let's just all read the bill for ourselves shall we.

Bill Text AJR-1

This measure would constitute an application to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited.

This measure would state that it constitutes a continuing application to call a constitutional convention until at least 2/3 of the state legislatures apply to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention for that sole purpose. This measure would also state that it is an application for a limited constitutional convention and does not grant Congress the authority to call a constitutional convention for any purpose other than for the sole purpose set forth in this measure.

This isn't about towing the some party line ANNED. This is about stopping corporate interests from buying up our government regardless of what agenda they might have.

a reply to: mOjOm
Yep, it removes the supreme court ruling that corporations are people, and as such are allowed to use their massive economic pull to outvote/lobby the common man.

Any one disagreeing with this answer me one simple question.
Why should shareholders, CEOs, etc... basically get to have not only multiple says (personal plus corporate) in your governance, but also have more pull per each say, then the common public?

Since that may not be clear, let me explain. If I am rich enough to sit on the boards of several corporations, not only do I get to use my personal money to lobby support of my opinion, but I can also use the influence of all my corporations as well. Not only that, but I may also have significant influence over all my employees. My opinion then outweighs thousands to millions of other American voters. This inequality was put in place by the supreme court when they ruled that corporations have the same rights a person.

And unions are not corporations.

How about George Soros
I will bet they add a loophole so they can still get his money even though he controls of a number of corporations.

a reply to: ANNED

“Now I understand why the republicans get 1% of the vote, the richest 1%, that other 49% someone will have to explain to me.”

The next step is to stop the $10,000 to $100,000 a seat dinners.

When you empower a culture of control then the want to Influence becomes re-actively compulsive and by the nature of control compelled to continually escalate.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm not sure I would have had the courage to offer this up as a topic. Congratulations to you, now, let's see if you can make it work.

By the way, does anybody remember what Citizens United actually said? It's claimed, loudly, that it allows business to buy politicians, corrupt the process, and lobby legislators. It doesn't.

The case didn't have anything to do with money given by corporations or unions directly to parties or candidates. That's still illegal.

The case was about a lobbying group that wanted to make and show an anti-Hillary movie, back in the 2008 election cycle. The District Court said that the government could stop Citizens United from advertising the movie or paying to have it shown within 30 days of the Democrat primary because it just mentioned a candidate. The Supreme Court decided it four years ago.

Not surprisingly, Citizens United asked, "WTF? You telling us we can't express our opinion to the public?" The Supreme Court said, basically, "Yo, dudes, chill. 'Course you can talk to the peeps. What's this country comin' to if you can't speak truth to power. Go for it." Is there any difficulty with that?

First, what is it exactly that California has passed? It's not a law, or what is known to nearly everybody as "legislation." It doesn't change any rule or law anywhere, and may very well have absolutely no effect ever.

From what I can tell, the California legislature (known for pretty much destroying it's own economic and political system) has written a letter to the US Congress saying, "Pretty please? Will you call for a meeting of the States to discuss this little issue? We promise we won't talk about anything else, and we don't want you to allow anyone else to talk about anything else. Are we still BFF? Bye."

ANNED may or may not be right, but that's not the point.

First, AJR 1, by itself, changes nothing.

Second, it attempts to tell Congress what purposes it can call the conference for, which it doesn't have the power to do. Regardless of what California says, Congress can do what it wants. Congress could even call for a Constitutional Convention today. It would still require 38 states to ratify anything coming out of the convention. Good luck getting that to happen.

There is serious doubt that Congress has any authority over the convention once it is called. The California resolution is basically, a call for a convention to change the Constitution. There is nothing else of substance in it. California can write that the resolution doesn't give Congress the authority to call a convention for any other purpose, but no one seriously believes that a State is going to overrule Congress.

Oh, and Citizens United? Is the objection to corporations and other large organizations putting money and other resources into influencing elections? I'm not sure, but I think Conservatives would accept that.

Consider, The New York Times and other newspapers might have to stop printing anything recommending a candidate, they're corporations after all. If corporations can't put out video or written material about a candidate, why should Hollywood, or the Sierra Club, or Planned Parenthood, or anyone else? Unions would have to stop their campaigning and door to door solicitations. Why do those corporations get special consideration and other corporations don't/

Naw, California's resolution doesn't really do anything at all, and that's probably for the best.

There are other problems, but this seems more like a campaign issue and publicity grab than anything of substance.

This is about stopping corporate interests from buying up our government regardless of what agenda they might have.

Well, no, it's actually not about that. It's an attempt to allow some groups to have political speech rights while denying it to others. It has nothing to do with giving money to candidates or parties.

originally posted by: ANNED
WARNING WARNING WARNING.

This AJR1 is very BAD.

Its 100% pro liberal pro democrat, anti republican.

It takes money sources from the republicans and tea party and allows the democrats there massive treehugger, union, and special interest money to continue,

This is just a new legal form of the same thing as the IRS scandal.


using or making new laws to control the US and make the US a one party country.

Your looking at the rise of TPTB.

Open your wallets because they want your money.

If its California and Illinois I want no part of it. Two of the worst run states in the World.

originally posted by: nfflhome

originally posted by: ANNED
WARNING WARNING WARNING.

This AJR1 is very BAD.

Its 100% pro liberal pro democrat, anti republican.

It takes money sources from the republicans and tea party and allows the democrats there massive treehugger, union, and special interest money to continue,

This is just a new legal form of the same thing as the IRS scandal.


using or making new laws to control the US and make the US a one party country.

Your looking at the rise of TPTB.

Open your wallets because they want your money.

If its California and Illinois I want no part of it. Two of the worst run states in the World.

Exactamundo!!!

The movie at the heart of CU was more than a biography of Hilary Clinton, it questioned her qualifications for POTUS, thus putting it in violation of campaign law re time frame for showing. Activist judges on the Supreme Court took the ball and ran with it, overreaching, as Justice Stevens in the dissenting opinion wrote

Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality.
....

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

source

Good for California to speak out! Restore reasonableness and common sense!

There is also a campaign in the State of Washington to Amend the Constitution. WAMEND

originally posted by: nfflhome

If its California and Illinois I want no part of it. Two of the worst run states in the World.

Good point! California is run horribly so KEEP CORPORATE MONEY IN POLITICS?? That's your message? Wow, so much wisdumb.

Yep,get the corporate money out of politics but let the State unions do as they want that way there will be guaranteed one party rule in California forever.Let us all rejoice in scientific dialectical materialism!The workers paradise is at hand!

LOL

Does anyone really believe that just because it's officially supposed to be so that it won't happen anyway? People are awfully naive about politics these days.

More than that, this garbage does more harm to freedom of expression than it would be worth even if it worked.