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

page: 1
129
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+90 more 
posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The call to remove corporate greed from our politics has taken a step towards making it happen.

The 99% movement isn't going to just fade away like TPTB would like. The message has been heard by too many people.


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

In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.



Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.

So urce


Full PDF
Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy
edit on 19-11-2011 by LazyGuy because: Added additional quote



+16 more 
posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
+Ban Union contributions and I think the bill would be just swell.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Giving this bill a strong, positive showing here on ATS is a start in pressuring congress to back this. If we flood this thread, it will catch on in other sites and venues, and who knows, maybe make it to primetime media.

This is a much needed bill in the right direction.

So do you all agree?



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Giving this bill a strong, positive showing here on ATS is a start in pressuring congress to back this. If we flood this thread, it will catch on in other sites and venues, and who knows, maybe make it to primetime media.

This is a much needed bill in the right direction.

So do you all agree?


Actually, I had thought about a thread where the idea that ATS had failed to help the OWS movement when I made this topic. It's NOT OVER. This bill is proof. It's up to ALL OF US to do our part.
ATS: We Have Failed!

If Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube can bring about powerful change such as the Arab Spring then I'm certain that the resources at the capable hands of the people here at ATS can bring change as well.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube’s role in Arab Spring (Middle East uprisings)
edit on 19-11-2011 by LazyGuy because: Added Comment


+17 more 
posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I can almost support this bill, except for one major inherent problem- the "for-profit corporations" thing. For one thing, super PACs are non-profit. Any corporate entity can funnel their funds via the guise of "non-profit."

Union money out as well.

Only natural persons.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


At least they have their fall back plan... Insider trading.
edit on 19-11-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 

This is awesome. Everyone should call their respective congressman and voice their support for this bill. I am amazed that this bill was introduced after only two months of protests. This is a great sign. Ending corporate personhood is a GIANT leap in the right direction. NO MONEY IN POLITICS!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
This is a second major victory for #OWS. The first is forcing Bank of America and other major banks to scrap the $5 fee they wanted to tack onto all their debit card holders.

reply to post by Fitch303
 


Unions are incorporated. So "Corporate money" would include that as well.

I do agree with one of the posters above that non-profit PACs need to be included as well. That's where the big money influence comes from.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Except that the BoA thing wasn't much of a victory considering they had no problem coming out and saying that those $5 fees would be made up for in other places as more small hidden fees


But this one is a more pronounced victory, if AND ONLY if it was tweaked... as it stands now, if it passed it would be a magnet for loophole-seekers!!



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ladykenzie
 


You have to take the small victories when and where you can get them, it was public pressure that forced them to back off those fees, and public pressure will have to remain vigilant for when they try to sneak them back in. It also woke people up to the fact these banks were doing this, and led to the Nov. 5th "Bank Transfer Day" - another protest brought to you by Anon and #OWS.

If you want to avoid those hidden fees, take your business to a smaller bank or CU.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Excellent! This is indeed a step in the right direction. Corporations are not people, therefore their money cannot be considered "free speech" dammit! I can't believe this wasn't originally in our constitution. Perhaps our founding fathers simply thought that the people couldn't possibly be stupid enough to allow government to twist the constitution the way they did by allowing corporations to lobby the congress under the protection of the 1st amendment.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776
 


Agree with your comment, but really just wanted to tell you I like you screen name. At first glance I just thought it was a bunch of numbers, and thought, "Why would he want to remember such a screen name?'
Took me a second.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303
+Ban Union contributions and I think the bill would be just swell.


Unless every cent for every candidate regardless of the party affiliation comes from the SAME publically funded pool of money, each getting the exact same amount as an opponent, there will be political favors, paybacks, smokey back room deals, graft, corruption, earmarks, etc.

Candidates cannot use a cent of their own money. Maybe there will be other politicians other than rich.
edit on 19-11-2011 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hey, I'm with you 100%!! I moved my money to a CU a long time ago. I just meant to emphasize exactly what you said, that people need to be vigilant and smart, and not 'forgive and forget' big banks ("you retracted the $5 fees, you listened, I'll stick with you after all!"). You can't change the hearts of the bankers. You have to abandon them. They won't join you, though they may put up a nice pretty facade. The only way to win is to take them out completely (run them out of business, though it sounds like a wild goal)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny

Unless every cent for every candidate regardless of the party affiliation comes from the SAME publically funded pool of money, each getting the exact same amount as an opponent, there will be political favors, paybacks, smokey back room deals, graft, corruption, earmarks, etc.

Candidates cannot use a cent of their own money. Maybe there will be other politicians other than rich.
edit on 19-11-2011 by tkwasny because: Addition


That sounds like a great idea.

I say:
Let everyone write down their goals on paper. No media involvement at all. (Anyone skilled in acting or rhetoric can easily gain more supporters by lying.) Put dates for the goals. Set consequences if those goals are not met within their timeframes. Accept 100% responsibility for them if they aren't met, even if it's "not your fault." Pledge to leave office if you meet your biggest promise / goal by the deadline.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny

Unless every cent for every candidate regardless of the party affiliation comes from the SAME publically funded pool of money, each getting the exact same amount as an opponent, there will be political favors, paybacks, smokey back room deals, graft, corruption, earmarks, etc.

Candidates cannot use a cent of their own money. Maybe there will be other politicians other than rich.
edit on 19-11-2011 by tkwasny because: Addition


I've thought this for a long time. Any and all campaign contributions should go to a general fund to be equally distributed among all candidates. No personal money and no direct contributions allowed. That would give all candidates, regardless of party, a fair and equal chance to be heard.

I would support this bill on the grounds of repealing corporate personhood. It's a step in the right direction.
edit on 19-11-2011 by N3k9Ni because: edited for clarity



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
For a little history:

Released on January 21, 2010, the Court’s decision (Citizens United vs. FEC) struck down legislative and judicial restrictions that have been in place for decades, preventing corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds on political speech during federal elections.


Section four of this proposed amendment would allow congress to overturn that decision:

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.


There were laws in place to limit the spending a PAC could do. The supreme court overturned those laws. A constitutional amendment would tie the hands of the supreme court.

As to complaints about unions not being included:

SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.


A union is a private entity, as such, they would be barred just as a corporation would be from making direct contributions to candidates or ballot measures.
edit on 19-11-2011 by links234 because: Coding.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I agree....if corporate money is out...union money has to be out as well. Fair is fair. I am not anti-union....but to make this happen, it has to be a clean slate. No entity, non profit or not, corporate, union, etc....simply cannot contribute funds to campaigns or run ads in the guise of superpacs or any other nonsense.

A max contribution of 20 or so dollars per person MAX. That money could also be matched with public funds to make it adequate enough to run a campaign.

Level the playing field.

Another S/F from me. Thanks for sharing.
edit on 19-11-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Corporations, unions, PAC's, special interest groups, lobbyists.
They all need to be specifically spelled out.
If not? Then it'd be just a partisan move and illustrate how partisan OWS is.

Be specific, and I may even support a move like this.

But as it stands now, it is too weak, too lame, too toothless to make a real impact.





new topics

top topics



 
129
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join