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

page: 4
129
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Best news I have heard in a while... thank you..




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


i suggest a retrospective introduction,
we know they are being bribbed,
make the legislation retrospective and rout out the bribers and bribbed

many laws are passed retrospectivly if they help the politicians,

we have the power

xploder



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
plz add unions and superpacks(thank u stephen colbert).



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


beezzer - is that you?


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


well - I'd love to see you decked out in tie-dye and granny glasses - but a grudging not quite but almost will do

seriously - you made me smile just then

even with all the conditions, caution and won't-be-caught-with-my-pants-down seriousness

:-)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


This is why you add riders that ban bribery and corruption!



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


It's NOT OVER.


:-)

I guess sometimes the rain-dance works after all

too early to uncork the champagne - but - this made my day - thank you LazyGuy

bits more trickling in...

House Democrat: Occupy the Constitution!
Occupy Wall Street’s popularity with the public may be sinking, but the group’s still making inroads in Washington. On Friday, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced the first piece of federal legislation directly inspired by the movement. Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) would amend the Constitution to outlaw the use of all corporate money in elections, not only undoing the biggest changes under Citizens United but also going after the legal concept of “corporate personhood” altogether. I talked to Deutch about the OCCUPIED amendment on Friday afternoon

Suzy Khimm: I understand this amendment was directly inspired by Occupy Wall Street. Tell me more about how this all came to be.

Ted Deutch: One thing that’s been clear throughout the protests all across the country is that people are tired of a political system that they believe doesn’t respond to their needs, that doesn’t reflect the interests of the American people, and that caters to the corporations that have occupied Washington for far too long.
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It leaves a backdoor for PAC money to which corporations will still be allowed to donate. Eliminate PAC money and he's got the right idea. Everyone should write to him and ask him to include a ban on PAC monies too!



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


Yes and everyone who supports the amendment should email their rep and tell them they want it passed. Have to at least try, right?
edit on 20-11-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Great bill! Don't think it'll pass, but that just shows that people need to keep up putting pressure on the government to act...eventually they'll have to cave in


It does not need to pass in order to succeed! A bill like this one is a double edged sword to politicians. If they vote against it or obstain or do not show up to vote, their name is placed on a list that does not support democracy or the voice of the people that elected them.....a difficult place to be in come election time.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


please add,
people have the right to assemble at any hour at any public location for any period of time,
and if the state has issues over sanitation,
it is their responcability to provide for the people

protect the right to occupy
change laws if nessacery

xploder



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Take out all the money and you have my support.....we need politicians who want to change things for the good of the people, not get a political position and start lining their own pockets.

But seriously, this isn't going to pass unless there are some huge loopholes, the power elite are not going down this easy. (your going to have to drag them out kicking and screaming - then put a bullet in their head)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
It's a delight to see you guys united for something instead of at each other's throats for a change


Suits you well USA.

ETA:
I also agree with the further amendments mentioned in this thread, including ALL kinds of lobbyists and PACs in the Bill. The people should be the only lobbyists affecting politics.
edit on 20-11-2011 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Although I like the idea, talk is cheap. Getting our bought politicians to support such a bill is another story.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
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.


How could you consider that with this provision:

or other private entities established for business purposes


The bill is draconian by including that text. There is no way to hell and back that any right-winger, libertarian, or left-winger could possibly support a bill like that!

From a left-wing perspective, it tramples on free-speech rights. From a right-wing perspective, it regulates businesses. From a libertarian perspective (mine) it tramples on free speech rights. Nobody should support this bill, period, unless the text about private parties is taken out.

From my perspective, its fine to regulate corporations (but not tax them) to any degree imaginable. Corporations should not exist. But as for the government telling me what I can and can't do with my own money in who I will support, hell no. I won't obey and it would be unethical of them to trample on my property rights like that.

The bill claims to be about keeping out big-business and corporate interests, but the author is a filthy liar because it applies to small private interests as well!

As always, the title of a bill is exactly the opposite of its meaning. If a bill is named "Hope America Amendment" for example it, what it means is that it is the "America Will be Hopeless and Destroyed and You're Done For, Losers Amendment".

The bill has all the teeth it needs to screw over "Martha the bed & breakfast owner" who wants to send a $5,000 to Ron Paul for example.

This is why I can't support Occupy Wall Street in full. They claim to be bashing big corporate interests and then when they tell you the truth like when they write a law its all about screwing over you and me.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


I'm strongly against this bill since it affects 10 times more small and start-up business owners as it does the corporate elite. Why does it include the text: "or other private entities established for business purposes"? Its to screw over Joe public, thats why. The first OWS bill comes out and shows you what happens when real-life politics and real life "solutions" even starts to get mixed in. I'm in favor of the bill being renamed to "Screw You, Sally the Stylist Amendment" in light of the fact the smallest of the small are specifically targeted for a screwing in the amendment.

As always, another politics panderer pretending to be for the little guy writes a bill that screws him over more than anybody else.

Edit- Under this amendment it would be constitutional to say that if you own a business you can't donate any money to any person. Its obscene! I was very happy until I got to the SCREW YOU ALL portion of the bill. Its why I don't do politics.
edit on 20-11-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


Let's see:

Democrat: Ban corporate money and take away corporate "personhood"

Republican:Occupy crowd should take a bath and get a job


Many ATSers: Both parties are the same.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
If this actually gets passed I would be very pleased. This is an excellent step in the right direction.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


Martha's B @ B ain't gonna be donatin' nuttin', it's going to be the owner of that B @ B donating $5000.00 to the candidate of their choice, nothing wrong with that, Just like the stockholders of corporations (not the corps.) can donate to the candidate of their choice.....get it?
brice



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
If this bill passes , i think it would be the best thing that has ever happened since the founding of the constitution , however , can some one list some consequences of this bill? What does no Corporate Money mean? I know it means it will HELP cut back on buying out politicians , but what benefits does it provide? Any one know?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


It doesn't necessarily trample on 'free-speech'. If you consider monetary donations 'speech' then you're giving a billionaire more 'speech' than me or you. If someone is 'free' to spend the sum of my annual income on an ad campaign opposing my candidate what am I to do?

How many good candidates do we lose because of money? The biggest question for candidates is "How much money have they raised?" Why the hell should that matter? Look at Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson, if no one talks about them they don't get money, if they don't get money no one talks about them.

Money is speech my a##, that's like saying only landowners should vote.

As to others concerns regarding unions and PAC's and so on, I refer you not only to my earlier post on the first page but to Rep. Deutch's own words from an earlier posted interview:

SK: So corporations don’t have any right to participate in elections? Why should they be treated differently than, say, labor unions or nonprofit organizations? Unions also benefited from Citizens United, but, as I understand it, they wouldn’t be affected by your amendment.

TD: Corporations that are formed for the purpose of earning profits do not have the constitutionally protected rights that natural citizens have. They should not spend their corporate dollars, Treasury dollars to influence outcome of elections.

(As for unions and nonprofits), the amendment gives Congress the authority to create a campaign finance system that ultimately is fair across the board . . . that gives the government back to the people. The amendment specifically reverses Citizens United in making clear that for-profit corporations shouldn’t be spending money on elections. Any other group of people, group of individuals, is going to be in same position as they are now.





top topics
 
129
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join