The 28th Amendment - Get Money Out of Politics

Do you support or oppose this as the 28th amendment to the US constitution?

  • Total voters
    8
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Wolf-PAC is a political action committee formed with the goal of removing money from politics. It began with an announcement at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York City by activist Cenk Uygur. Its goal is to amend the United States Constitution by adding a 28th amendment. It calls for a convention of the States, which is a procedure outlined in Article V of the current constitution; this is in contrast to the usual route of amendments passing at the behest of Congress. The group describes itself as nonpartisan. One view is that a main impetus for the group was the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court in 2010.


Support or oppose as the 28th amendment to our constitution? Why?
 
B

Beagler

Active Member
So a political action committe is seeking to remove political action committes from spending money on politics?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
I see no links, I see no definitions, only a general idea.

Care to elaborate and provide the exact text of this proposed amendment, is there an exact text?

I don't really feel like digging for it. It sounds good, but my 'support' would depend on the language.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
I see no links, I see no definitions, only a general idea.

Care to elaborate and provide the exact text of this proposed amendment, is there an exact text?

I don't really feel like digging for it. It sounds good, but my 'support' would depend on the language.
Click to expand...
Our Ultimate Goal:


To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country. There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our federal government (2) Go through our State Legislators via an Article V. Convention of the States.


Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our federal government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a suffient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 87% of the country wants...take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
You mention public financing of all campaigns.

Do you mean just the president, or even my congressman?

Public financing, to this point, has only served to limit the third party.

Obama was the first candidate (from one of the two major parties) in a long time to not chose the public finance option in 2008.

I think it is safe to say this has put the republicans and democrats at a major advantage over anyone else.

I think america would benefit the most from a viable third party.

I would like to see a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party arise.

But any third party would benefit America more than just about any other thing we could do.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
You mention public financing of all campaigns.

Do you mean just the president, or even my congressman?

Public financing, to this point, has only served to limit the third party.

Obama was the first candidate (from one of the two major parties) in a long time to not chose the public finance option in 2008.

I think it is safe to say this has put the republicans and democrats at a major advantage over anyone else.

I think america would benefit the most from a viable third party.

I would like to see a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party arise.

But any third party would benefit America more than just about any other thing we could do.
Click to expand...
Yes, every election

I think third party candidates would have a much better chance if corporate personhood ended

When multinational corporations can give substantially more money to democratic or republican candidates, it essentially ends any third party candidates run before they even set foot in the door

I think it makes a more equal playing field and a candidate would have a better chance at getting elected on the basis of their platform and ideas instead of how much money was spent on their campaign
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, every election

I think third party candidates would have a much better chance if corporate personhood ended

When multinational corporations can give substantially more money to democratic or republican candidates, it essentially ends any third party candidates run before they even set foot in the door

I think it makes a more equal playing field and a candidate would have a better chance at getting elected on the basis of their platform and ideas instead of how much money was spent on their campaign
Click to expand...
Corporations cannot give money to candidates.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, every election

I think third party candidates would have a much better chance if corporate personhood ended

When multinational corporations can give substantially more money to democratic or republican candidates, it essentially ends any third party candidates run before they even set foot in the door

I think it makes a more equal playing field and a candidate would have a better chance at getting elected on the basis of their platform and ideas instead of how much money was spent on their campaign
Click to expand...
Well, if you go digging into campaign rules and all of that, you will see the Republicans and Democrats have worked together really well to make entry into the election very difficult for anyone outside of the two parties.

Your amendment is useless so long as we maintain the status-quo among the two major parties. The left likes to bitch about the citizens united ruling because the "outcome" helps the Republicans more than the Democrats. Basically they allow the unions to do the exact same thing, and the unions have done for decades. However, unions are on the decline, so they can't help as much.

Half a century ago when the unions were massive, this was not an issue. Corporations get big, start doing what unions have done for a long time, someone passes a law against it, citizens united fights the law, and wins. Suddenly democrats have a big problem with it because Unions can no longer keep up.

That decision came out while I was in law school, I read it. It is a very sound decision.

If you have not read it, I challenge you to do so, have you?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Corporations cannot give money to candidates.
Click to expand...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.


The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".


The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.


I think we're both half right, it would appear from the wiki article citizens united didn't involve the federal ban. I'm going to do more research about this..
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
That decision came out while I was in law school, I read it. It is a very sound decision.

If you have not read it, I challenge you to do so, have you?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the goal is, getting rid of the status-quo and creating a more even playing field for 3rd party candidates

Why did the decision receive such little public support if it was a sound decision when it passed?;



I have read it, but it's been a while

Are you a lawyer?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what the goal is, getting rid of the status-quo and creating a more even playing field for 3rd party candidates

Why did the decision receive such little public support if it was a sound decision when it passed?;



I have read it, but it's been a while

Are you a lawyer?
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer, I stopped law school after three semesters.

As to your question about "if its a sound decision, why isn't it more popular?"

Well, I really don't know how to begin on that one. I guess to avoid a tl/dr answer I will just say this; the opinion of the population has no bearing on the meaning of the constitution.

The job of the judges is to decide a case in front of them. The facts have already been established, and the judges compare those facts to the law, the facts here is the McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and the law is the Constitution.

Public opinion should be the last thing on the judges mind.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".

The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.


I think we're both half right, it would appear from the wiki article citizens united didn't involve the federal ban. I'm going to do more research about this..
Click to expand...
You're confusing independent expenditures with contributions to candidates. Even after Citizens United corporations cannot make contributions to candidates.
 
B

Beagler

Active Member
Might be wrong about this, but I think Norway bans political tv ads and France has many restrictions on them.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, every election

I think third party candidates would have a much better chance if corporate personhood ended

When multinational corporations can give substantially more money to democratic or republican candidates, it essentially ends any third party candidates run before they even set foot in the door

I think it makes a more equal playing field and a candidate would have a better chance at getting elected on the basis of their platform and ideas instead of how much money was spent on their campaign
Click to expand...
So, you believe it is better for the government to forcibly collect taxes to spend on the candidates with no input from the citizens?? Another involuntary cash grab in the name of fairness??? Dont make me laugh...
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So, you believe it is better for the government to forcibly collect taxes to spend on the candidates with no input from the citizens?? Another involuntary cash grab in the name of fairness??? Dont make me laugh...
Click to expand...
Uuuuggghhhhh

Koch suck much?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Uuuuggghhhhh

Koch suck much?
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you are butthurt that the Unions cannot continue their lopsided campaing advertising but IT IS SETTLED LAW LIKE OBAMACARE... So as you like to tell me, shut up and deal with it....
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
In the 21st century, money is speech. If you can't buy TV and radio time to run political ads you are anonymous and unelectable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top