Proposed amendment to get money out of politics

[OzmO]

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

[loco]

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

No Person?  So the wealthiest candidate wins, no matter how incompetent he is, no matter what the people want?  Maybe people should be allowed to donate to their candidate of choice.

[Hugo Chavez]

No Person?  So the wealthiest candidate wins, no matter how incompetent he is, no matter what the people want?  Maybe people should be allowed to donate to their candidate of choice.

that's what I was thinking.  For this to work, candidates would have to all be limited to a set amount on what they could spend.  Otherwise this would just take the possibility of a good candidate with little money winning away.

How about something that prevents the media from manipulating the elections as much as they do.  I don't know how that could be done without raising first amendment issues, but I'm sick of the shit they pull each election.

[George Whorewell]

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but all that amendment will do is ensure that the richest candidate with the most personal wealth will win every single time.

[Dos Equis]

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but all that amendment will do is ensure that the richest candidate with the most personal wealth will win every single time.

Yep.  Well intentioned, but would not work.

[Skip8282]

that's what I was thinking.  For this to work, candidates would have to all be limited to a set amount on what they could spend.  Otherwise this would just take the possibility of a good candidate with little money winning away.

How about something that prevents the media from manipulating the elections as much as they do.  I don't know how that could be done without raising first amendment issues, but I'm sick of the shit they pull each election.

That might be the best compromise, but it's not really going to get to the root of the corruption problem.

Could be a good starting point though.

[Fury]

Every candidate should have a set limit to spend. Something like $50...in pennies.

I also support a one-time 100% wealth tax of all earnings earned after taking office for elected officials. Another good way to get money out.

[GigantorX]

Publically funded elections

[Emmortal]

Doesn't say anything about insider trading in Congress either, shitty bill is shitty.

[Skip8282]

Publically funded elections

Yeah, I thought about that, but then how do you decide who gets the money?  Hell every Tom, Dick, and Harriet would be claiming that they are running for Prez.

[OzmO]

Yeah, I thought about that, but then how do you decide who gets the money?  Hell every Tom, Dick, and Harriet would be claiming that they are running for Prez.

maybe require a certain amount of signatures?

[OzmO]

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/10/05/ron-paul-on-amending-the-constitution-to-get-money-out-of-politics/

Ron Paul commenting on it and the WS protests


starts at about 2:25

6 min vid.

[Skip8282]

maybe require a certain amount of signatures?

Now we get into questions about electronic signatures and should they count.  Plus there has to be a massive infrastructure in place to prevent against fraud.  If millions are on the line, I can easily envision millions of people getting the necessary signatures.

Then we all have to agree on how the money can be spent.  Then there has to be a mechanism in place for auditing the expenditures.  Questions about who can contribute, etc.

Maybe it can be done, but the investment, IMO, would be massive.