Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:07 pm
Declaration of Independence

Our politicians are bought. Everyone knows it. Conservatives know it just as much as liberals do. And libertarians have probably known it all along. The Democrats are bought and the Republicans even more so. They don't represent us. They represent their donors. We have taxation without representation. Our democracy is in serious trouble.

We must regain our ability to make a difference, to have our votes count. Right now, corporate interests and special interests dominate our politics because they can spend unlimited money. Unfortunately, in this current system money speaks louder than words. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the checkbook is far mightier than the pen. In the congressional races in 2008, the candidate who had more money won more than 93% of the time. Our representatives don't serve us; they serve the people who pay them -- their corporate funders.

So, how can we change that? Well, we can build an army of American citizens willing to fight back against the corporate machines. We can also fight money with money. But we have to concentrate all of our resources into one single attack -- making sure we take corporate money out of politics. Now, you can never stop rich people from spending their own money on their political ideology. But that has happened throughout our history and we have survived that. What has changed in the last 30 years is the power of corporate money, which is nearly unlimited.

Starting in 1978, the Supreme Court opened the spigot to corporate spending in politics. Since then, the average American has seen their wages stagnate and their share of taxes rise significantly, while corporations have seen their tax burden shrink and the top 1% has literally tripled their income. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. And it's going straight to the top.

There is one answer though. It is the one thing that is above Congress and the Supreme Court -- a constitutional amendment. We must pass an amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians. Corporations have no soul. They are profit-making robots. They are not endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. They are legally created fictions that are charged with maximizing profit without any concern for morality. They can and they must be stopped before they destroy our democracy.

We are not against the existence of corporations, we are only against their ability to buy and control our government. Robots can be useful, but that doesn't mean we should let them run our democracy. We must not allow multinational corporations to infringe upon American sovereignty. This is supposed to be a democracy run by citizens, not by international, unaccountable business and financial interests.

The objective of Wolf Pac will be to raise money and raise an army for the sole purpose of passing this amendment. We need a constitutional revolution. Please join us and help retake our democracy.


28th Amendment

Corporations are not people. They have none of the constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

Join the Fight

Now, in order to make this amendment a reality, we must take a series of concrete steps. The objective of Wolf Pac is not theory, it is results. We will pass the amendment and we will regain our democracy. Here is how we're going to do it.

We must gather up an a fighting force. We need programmers and organizers and lawyers and leaders. We need this movement to be in all 50 states. So, first we are doing a call for generals in this army. Please write into us and tell us what your expertise is and how you can help. If you can volunteer, great; if you can contribute, great. But we need you no matter what. There is no secret money behind this. There is no profit in it other than for our democracy. That's why this movement must be people powered.

Unfortunately it appears that our Congress is completely infected with the virus. So proposing an amendment through Congress seems hopeless. But luckily there is another way. We can do this purely at the state level. The states can call for a constitutional convention and they can ratify an amendment that comes out of one. And there is nothing our corrupt federal government can do about it.

We are hoping that the first wave of volunteers help us organize at the state level. Let's go occupy the states! Can you imagine all 50 state houses occupied until the people get what they want -- their democracy back! It can happen. You can make it happen. Joint the fight. Now, it's our time. Get up, it's time to get them back.



Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter

 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:14 pm
Quote:
28th Amendment

Corporations are not people. They have none of the constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.


This is the wording? If it is, it is the most poor written ever offered.

Joe(Get me rewrite!!)Nation
0 Replies
 
smcmonagle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:18 pm
@edgarblythe,
Let me tell u one problem with this. The only ones of us that care enough to assist in this noble effort, such as myself, cannot take time off from the 60 hr work week these same corrupt people have me stuck working to pay for the standard of living these same asses decided was right. Any other way i can help?
I took time to occupy philly and am down there once a week donating food and have little time to truely occupy. Any suggestions. I want to join this revolution!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:36 pm
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 12:50 am
@edgarblythe,
Edgar. Check out BBB's new topic "Chicago occupy chicago clarifies its mission".
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 05:10 am
Obviously, the two missions will have to merge at some point.
0 Replies
 
smcmonagle
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:24 am
@edgarblythe,
done! thanks
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
Well, it's a start.

It's a Quixotic start, but one that could keep them very busy for quite some time.

It's certainly better then the endless occupation of a few parks around the country and marching up and down streets with cardboard signs and animal skin drums.

What does Uygur think about massive campaign funding by Unions?

edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
What does Uygur think about massive campaign funding by Unions?

I did not ask him, but I assume the intent is to stop all big money from stealing elections.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Don't be so sure.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Can you show where union money is a larger sum than the financial money. You know, industrial, banking, and wall street?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:59 pm
Top all-time donors....1989 - 2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 03:12 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Top all-time donors....1989 - 2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


Thank you Irishk

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 03:24 pm
@RABEL222,
What difference does it make unless the evidence shows that one of the two sources of campaign funding is insignificant?

If one source "bought" 100 individual elections in the past 5 years and the other only bought 50, does it make any sense to only focus on the source that has been more active?

It's not as if OWS is advocating sending out posses to gather up all of the offenders and we need to prioritize our resource usage. A law that prohibits one source from finance contributions can just as easily include two or more.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 04:19 pm
Quoting from the first post on the thread:
No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity.

Seems that covers unions and the like.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 04:45 pm
Quote:
No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity.
These bubble-heads supposedly work for us. Like, we pay their salaries. It's too bad we can't just send them a memo with the above sentence and tell them it's an order....from their boss.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:00 pm
@edgarblythe,
True, but I still wouldn't count on it being written that way.

Thanks for pointing that out though, since it proves me wrong in thinking that the guy was reasonable enough not to try and tell people what they can spend their own money on.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 09:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It was a pleasure.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The Supremes have already held that there is a compelling interest in democratic institutions which overrides the freedom of individuals to spend their money as they choose, in former challenges to campaign spending limit laws.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 12:39 am
@Setanta,
True enough.

They've also decided that eminent domain can be invoked to seize private property for alternative private use. It's, obviously the law as it now stands but I don't have to agree it should be. I'm sure you understand this and there may very well be decisions in effect that you disagree with despite your respect for them as the law of the land.

Your point though raises further question as to the need and intent of this proposed amendment.

As you no doubt are aware, the issue of Corporate personhood existed well before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the rights that have been afforded to corporations through prior decisions are not limited to the area of campaign contribution.

Clearly the proposed wording of the amendment is intended to restrict corporations from making any contributions (hard or soft) to political campaigns. The ostensible reason is to not allow corporations to “buy and control our government.” Cenk Uygur would be hard pressed to show how the contractual rights afforded to corporations under Dartmouth College v. Woodward are being used to buy and control the government, but his 28th Amendment would nevertheless do away with them.

As Joe Nation commented, the proposed wording of the amendment is terrible and it’s pretty obvious that if this effort ever moves forward it will need to be rewritten, but I suspect that Uygur’s position (if not also that of CWS) would be that it is essential that corporations be granted no rights under the US Constitution and therefore any rights, unrelated to campaign finance, which may still be in order for corporations should be provided on a state by state basis.

I’m not as sanguine as edgar that Uygur and CWS are as concerned with Unions buying and controlling our government as they are about corporations, and once again the proposed wording doesn’t make their intent clear, but then I don’t think it can be said that Uygur speaks for CWS or that CWS even has a coherent position on this topic, and so we are back to wondering if there is really any point in discussing the positions and goals of #Occupiers (as Art likes to call them).


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The 28TH Amendment
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 07:30:47