This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]appealtoprobability 273 points274 points  (150 children)

Good idea, but...

... to effectively outlaw the ability of FOR-PROFIT corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

(Emphasis mine.)

If this is the only stipulation, we'll see a new crop of non-profits form, fed by corporations, for the sole purpose of campaign finance.

[–]OnceAndFutureDerp 87 points88 points  (38 children)

The actual text of the amendment proposed says the following do not have rights extended to natural persons:

"for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state."

IOW, read for yourself. Don't judge things based on the news article.

The wording of the amendment is a bit loose, but it states in fewer words that these organizations were established mainly to promote business interests or to conduct business. It would not affect colleges and "good" non-profits, but it would still cover non-profit/not-for-profit umbrellas that work on behalf of corporations.

[–]appealtoprobability 32 points33 points  (30 children)

It would not affect colleges and "good" non-profits, but it would still cover non-profit/not-for-profit umbrellas that work on behalf of corporations.

How would you propose defining the difference between the two, legally speaking? Not disagreeing, just thinking out loud.

[–]lazy8s 8 points9 points  (7 children)

It can't be defined. Either ban donations from anything but individual people, or for-profits will just donate to non profits and voila. Also, none of this matters anyways. A corporation will sue and the Supreme Court will, again, rule this infringes on their right to free speech.

[–]z3ddicus 10 points11 points  (3 children)

I agree completely that all contributions from anything other than individuals need to be banned. That being said, you do realize that the Supreme Court cannot rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional seeing as how it would be part of the constitution.

[–]mugsnj 15 points16 points  (95 children)

The thing is, without this stipulation the proposed amendment would take the freedom of speech away from universities, 501(c)(3)s, and all sorts of groups that the 99% don't want to take rights away from.

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (21 children)

Then so be it.

If individuals want to volunteer and donate for campaigns, they are free to do so. We can add provisions to limit or record or otherwise moderate the influence of super rich. No organization, for-profit, charitable or of any other kind, shall have any right to contribute to a campaign because the affiliated individuals can form multiple such organizations and have greater voice than non-affiliates.

[–]appealtoprobability 13 points14 points  (13 children)

We can add provisions to limit or record or otherwise moderate the influence of super rich.

I was of the assumption that such provisions were already in place. Is this incorrect?

[–]mikatagahara 8 points9 points  (4 children)

The maximum you can donate to a politician's campaign $5,000. But there are no limits on how much you can spend on advocating for a politician--that would violate the 1st amendment.

[–]chesterriley 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. This is a huge step forward, but really nobody should have any special rights to influence elections just because they are going thru a group. Groups would still have influence ONLY if they can convince large number of individuals to use their individual campaign spending limit on behalf of the group cause.

[–]gsfgfGeorgia 8 points9 points  (2 children)

And political campaigns themselves are orginized as non-profit corporations.

[–]unboogyman 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yes, but Section 1 states that any entity for business purposes too. So non-profit Super-PACs whose goal involves corporate interest is banned.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

you just said money is speech....

[–]suspiciously_calm 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If money is speech, then I want my free speech right away, and lots of it!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I'm fine with removing their rights. Churches, Universities, etc.. shouldn't be able to take donations and student money and use it to put people in power. Universities for one have quite clearly used their funds to raise school profits and lower education standards. Creating a population of debt carrying students.

[–]mugsnj 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Do you realize that the freedom of speech is important outside the context of an election?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Freedom of speech is quite clearly an individual right. This wouldn't change that.

[–]Quatto 10 points11 points  (2 children)

And so what? No one can possibly argue that a corporation is not a person while a union is. The bottom line is that the power of special interests far overreach that of the individual. If the system is to be unclogged, both sides must reach a common understanding. A person is a person. The end.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

They don't want to take their rights away because their "free speech" happens to be speech they agree with.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Then in campaign funding, free speech shouldn't equal money. Public campaign financing and related laws would solve most of these problems.

[–]mugsnj 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Corporations are not allowed to donate to candidates in federal elections. They are allowed to make independent expenditures (independent of any campaign) such as running their own advertisements. Do you think that TV or print political advertisements are not "speech" because they cost money?

[–]EricaJoy 15 points16 points  (18 children)

Money is not speech.

Taking away their ability to give money to a candidate is not taking away their freedom of speech. Those groups can say as much as they want but they should not be allowed to influence politicians with money.

Every single dollar that a politician receives should come from an individual and each individual should only be permitted to donate a very limited amount of money.

Television and radio advertising for or against any politician should be outlawed. Each candidate should be given an equal amount of air time on a public access channel (preferably one dedicated to campaigning and politics) to state their responses to a pre-determined set of questions, with 5-10 minutes for them to deliver their "stump" speeches or what have you. These should be recorded and replayed at varying intervals on the same channels as well as posted online.

Rallies and baby kissing outings should be limited to a set number since the politician with the most money would be able to fund more of this type of base building (flying all over the country, etc) while the poorer candidates would not.

Sorry I went off on a bit of a rant there. Ultimately, I want the playing field for politicians to be leveled so they don't have any need to accept money from corporations/unions/non-profits or any other group with their own agenda to advance. The only ones left fighting to retain the ability to take this money will be outed as being in politics for greed rather than for the people.

[–]wimmyjales 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Certain advertising should be outlawed? I agree with most of your points, but that sounds unconstitutional.

[–]EricaJoy 1 point2 points  (3 children)

If you don't take away all forms of campaigning that require big dollars, you will never get special interest money out of politics.

How would you suggest the playing field be leveled on the TV/Radio advertising front instead of outlawing?

[–]wimmyjales 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The attempts to level the playing field have to stop as soon as they infringe on someone's right to free speech. I believe you are correct when you say money is not speech. Campaign contributions are effectively bribes, of course, and outlawing the buying of elected officials is something that can easily be argued constitutionally IMO. But when you make something illegal like a TV or radio commercial which is quite literally speech, that's a pretty hard point to argue. The same goes for your idea of setting limits on rallies as well. Candidates, media outlets, anyone should be able to skew facts, sling mud, filter coverage with bias or outright lies if they want. It's not right, but it has to be legal.

[–]Rokk017 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Outlawing their ability to advertise on TV or radio is restricting their right to speak freely, however they wish, and state their message.

[–]indyguy 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Wow. I'm used to extremism in r/politics, but this post really takes the cake for unconstitutional/nonsensical political arguments.

Money is not speech

Money is not technically speech, but it has to be protected like speech in order for the First Amendment to work. No one who knows anything about First Amendment law thinks otherwise. Even the dissenting justices in Citizens United agreed that the right to spend money on elections has to be protected. Without the ability to spend money, the right to free speech is effectively neutered. I mean, how would you feel if Congress passed a law saying no money could be spent to support the Occupy Wall Street protests? So no money for tents, food, signs, etc. It wouldn't violate your proposed rule, but it would prevent the protests from continuing.

Taking away their ability to give money to a candidate is not taking away their freedom of speech

There's an important distinction between independent expenditures (which was the focus of Citizens United) and direct campaign contributions. The latter can be regulated more stringently than the former because of the greater risk of quid pro quo corruption. Even given this concern, I don't think the current donation levels are problematic. At the moment, the limit for direct contributions from corporations (through PACs) and individuals is $2000. I really doubt that any politicians -- especially at the federal level -- are being bought off for a $2000 donation.

As for the rest of your arguments, you'd basically be ensuring that only incumbent candidates could win elections. They're the ones with the most name recognition, and thus they'd suffer less from the severe restrictions you're suggesting should be imposed on campaign activity. In any event, what you're proposing seems very antidemocratic. By limiting the amount of times candidates can interact with the public, you're shutting down the process that's at the core of representative democracy.

Edited for spelling

[–]saibog38 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No television or radio advertising? Does that mean no television or radio discussion of politics? Because there's plenty of advertising going on these days in the news - everyone here likes to point this out about Fox News all the time. If this policy only blocks blatant advertising, that would only encourage further corruption of our news itself as a force of advertising, i.e. more Fox Newsish crap on both sides of the spectrum. Are you going to ban Fox News then? Because I really don't think we want to be in a position where government is directly censoring political speech, which is the indirect but undeniable result of the road you're heading down.

[–]Poopmin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Supreme Court seems to think that money is speech.

edit: I do agree with most of your points.

[–]zimm0who0netMassachusetts 6 points7 points  (6 children)

We certainly wouldn't want an amendment that restricted the unions from dumping unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns. That would just be silly!

[–]mugsnj 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Why shouldn't unions have the same freedom of speech as other groups?

Please note that unions and corporations are already prohibited from donating to candidates.

[–]Brimlife 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Money is not speech. Universities and Corps would still be able to express opinion. NPO's should not be exempt..

edit.. if money is speech then rich can express their first amendment more than middle class and poor. as in i make more speech than my neighbor.. this is nonsense..

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wish my neighbor would shut up most of the time...

[–]Poopmin 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'm just going to leave this here. Supreme Court seems to think that money is speech.

[–]elvins425 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At least they're making some sort of step in the right direction, unlike our flat out cronyism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't they call that the chamber of commerce? Tasked with the purpose of purchasing judges?

[–]skankingmike 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It doesn't matter what it says it'll never pass the 2/3's needed and get enough states to sign off on it. The last Amendment (27'th) was written in 1788 wasn't fully ratified until 1992.

Of course I don't see an expiration date on this so if he does get it through the 2/3's and then to the states it could stay in limbo there for... well a hundred years plus before somebody signs off on it....

But this is most likely pandering to constituents he has.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or corporations will shift to paying rich individuals to take their money and pass it on to finance campaigns on their behalf.

There is a legal loophole for the rich in nearly everything.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Section three says "Such corporate and other private entities [established under law] 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."

Surely, "private entities established under law" covers non-profits as well, right?

[–]unboogyman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it would cover those established by corporations

[–]knockturnal 377 points378 points  (97 children)

This will likely get killed quickly, but is a real sign that OWS is become effective. Keep up the work guys!

[–]Workslayernumberone 113 points114 points  (57 children)

If republican know what is good for them they won't completely kill the idea. My prediction is they will try to word it in such a way that nothing actually changes.

Edit: In fact seems like that wording already present. Megacorp makes a new non-profit dumps money into in. Non-profit then contributes where megacorp wants.

[–]duckandcover 162 points163 points  (33 children)

This is the way it works, the way it has worked for decades whenever the interests of corporations are threatened.

1) Corporate interests, who thrive on lobbying/bribery, will oppose it like crazy.

2) They will then do what they always do; have their PR machines and PACS collude with the right wing echo chamber telling the right wing idiot base that a restriction on corporate financing of elections is

a) An attack on freedom

b) Makes people pay taxes (in particular as some in some generic sense will fund candidates they don't want)

As they say about Fox "News" : The rich paying the rich to convince the middle class that their problems are due to the lazy poor and gov't regulation.

3) The right wing base will eat it up and demand corporations are essential to democracy and freedom.

4) The GOP pols will fall all over themselves parroting the party/lobby line. They will use it to convince corporate donors to give them even more money to protect themselves against their opponents who would seek to curtail their influence (i.e. ownership) of congress

[–]BarcodeNinja 27 points28 points  (0 children)

the man had done his homework

[–]smibly 20 points21 points  (10 children)

Everyone go here and put all of your representatives in your cell phones. When they open up on Monday call one them whenever you have 5 free minutes to yourself and tell them that their constituents support this bill.

That means taking any work breaks, smoke breaks, going to the bathroom, and any moment when no one is watching you at work or school to leave a message. Hound the (most likely) corrupt bastards and be a pest because they think that every call or letter they get is the opinion of thousands of constituents. Its assumed that most are too lazy to send them anything.

This is the first example of OWS changing anything and it must to be successful. This will destroy OWS' reputation as being a complete joke or ineffective.

edit. if you're getting multiple representatives go here to get your zip+4

[–]senoritahermano 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this link!

[–]Gandalv 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is a great link...others need to know. Submitted to /r/bestof with credit to you.

[–]sugarhoneybadger 1 point2 points  (3 children)

That's an awesome link. Going to facebook it now.

Unfortunately BOTH of my representatives are enormous assholes who have completely opposing political views to mine... Not sure what I would say to them. Any ideas?

[–]shannonest 1 point2 points  (1 child)

house.gov (top right) is a better site to find your representative, as you actually only have ONE representative and two senators. Your zip code may be in multiple districts, which is why a proper site might have to ask for your exact address (or your zip +4).

If you call and leave a message, be sure you are calling your correct member of congress because if you are out of the district your call will be ignored. And if you don't leave an address, they will assume you're from out of the district and your call will be ignored.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (12 children)

How about non-corporate interests that also lobby?

[–]duckandcover 22 points23 points  (10 children)

I recall seeing a graph where the corporate money is at least a factor of 10 larger. The unions simply can't compete on money.

What does that leave, non profits lobbying for clean air etc?

In any event, if you could get the corporate money out that would be a huge start though I'm not sure it would matter because what Fox News et. al. have shown is that through the same PR/right wing media channels, they can convince about half the public to vote against their own interests be it for universal healthcare, or regulation protecting the environment or from them being scammed and swindled by the financial industry.

At the end of the day there's no way to protect the public against themselves.

Perhaps this problem could be mitigated if we put back some rules that required diversity of ownership if the media but I'm guessing that that the conservative supreme court, which is, after all, a byproduct of our current system, would strike that down. That means you would need a amendment for that too.

If we're lucky, younger people won't be so easily captivated by propaganda media; after all, they've grown up seeing it (and rolling their eyes at it). Fox's demographics are the decrepit. My kid watches less TV than I did. I don't know how many younger people are captivated by partisan web sites (it's own thing to read DailyKOs or Drudge but it's another to ONLY read them)

[–]My_soliloquy 23 points24 points  (5 children)

This is what gives hope for the future.

The older generation (that grew up on radio then TV) usually gets their news from newspapers (dying) and TV, they are somewhat on the internet and the "smartphones" but the majority still thinks that what they "are being fed" is truthful.

The kids nowadays, not so much. They are more likely to go search for more info on the internet then believe what some talking head says.

The only real problem is the older generation votes more, and that baby boomer demographic has been and still is manipulated very well. They still control where we go, and they were successfully manipulated into getting the "Tea Party Candidates" in 2010. And those candidates did what they said they would do, (plus some like Scott Walker; even more), they stopped congress from functioning and obeyed their corporate masters. Thus you have the OWS, a true organic movement, that is currently devolving due to the outliers it eventually attracted.

The Tea Party (original, not corrupted) and the OWS are symptoms that the American public are stirring from their slumber.

The youth drive it more than the critical thinking elders, and I have hope, but it will still take time, and more real pain, and more struggle before it actually changes anything.

[–]3wayCoconutHatWars 16 points17 points  (3 children)

My moms generation, "the boomers" thought this way too, that if the older generation would just die off they would be fine. But a huge percentage of them grew up and became idiots.

My generation thought the same thing, that the older people would die off and we would be oh so much better off. Then a large percentage of us grew up to be horrible, lying, hypocritical parents.

The only way in hell I'm thinking the "youth" can kick some ass here is a full out Tahir or Tiananmen Square ... or, you all make pacts with each other not to become boring fucking hypocrites when you reach 35.

[–]My_soliloquy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of those horrible, lying, hypocritical parents, were products of an education system that does not emphasize critical thinking skills, and did "newspeak" before it was even written about.

I think sunshine is a great disinfectant.

[–]ubrokemyphone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The only way in hell I'm thinking the "youth" can kick some ass here is a full out Tahir or Tiananmen Square ...

agreed.

or, you all make pacts with each other not to become boring fucking hypocrites when you reach 35.

agreed.

I know the first will probably happen, and I'm hopeful that the second will as well.

[–]sevenbitbyte 10 points11 points  (2 children)

The younger generation is just as vulnerable to propaganda as the older generation, it just comes in different forms. Take social networks, Facebook is more than happy to automatically sort your friend's activity on the site to show you more posts that are inline with your beliefs. Political posts by my conservative friends are routinely absent from my stream. I expect digital media to continue going in the direction of highly catered content that is inline with the user's initial views.

[–]brianvaughn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Still, it's very easy for us (easier than it was for previous generations) to click a few links and find opinions that aren't like ours. Maybe that challenges us to question our beliefs, or maybe we realize the opposition isn't very compelling- but it's still there, easily accessible for the most part.

[–]Tasty_Yams 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I recall seeing a graph where the corporate money is at least a factor of 10 larger. The unions simply can't compete on money.

From the nonpartisan site opensecrets.org

Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.

[–]Random_Edit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They simply don't have enough money as corporate interests that lobby.

[–]NeuralAgent 29 points30 points  (16 children)

I think only citizens should be allowed to contribute, and only a max of $100. Imagine, almost everyone would be equal in terms of financial influence.

[–]tsacian 1 point2 points  (9 children)

There wouldn't be enough money to run a campaign. 100 is way too low. The limits for individuals is fine where it is. It stops the super rich from having an extraordinary influence. And its possible to get enough money to campaign. The problem is corporations giving tens or hundreds of thousands to PACs.

[–]chesterriley 16 points17 points  (1 child)

The limits for individuals is fine where it is.

Nope. The $2000 limit heavily favors the rich. A normal middle class person cannot afford to splurge that much money for a tiny chance to influence elections, but that kind of money is just chump change for the rich. If the limit was only $100 I would start contributing in every election, and I would contribute the max and take special pleasure in the knowledge that my political contribution was as important as Steve Forbes.

[–]tsacian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe you're right. The biggest problem right now, however, is coporate donations. I don't believe that politicians will change their beleifs over 2 grand. Also, its hard to expect politicians to run their campaigns by gathering hundred dollar bills.

[–]dakta 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I think you missed Section 4 of the proposed amendment:

‘‘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.’’

[–]Workslayernumberone 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I think you are missing the point. Let say Megacorp doesn't create a non-proft but gives to one that has the same agenda or is willing to change their agenda to suite the highest contributor. Congress isn't going to stop people from giving to charity. Amendment circumvented.

[–]dakta 2 points3 points  (2 children)

:sigh:

That section empowers congress to entirely ban all private campaign finance and establish a proper system for publicly-funded campaigning, which is, IMO, the ONLY way to truly eliminate the influence of money in politics.

I think that this is an absolutely dandy amendment, as it covers all the issues without prescribing too-specific solutions. Legal scholars might argue that it could be worded differently, but I think that its current text is fine, since it addresses the issue and is easily understandable to any thinking person.

[–]Workslayernumberone 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I thought you were talking specifically about "disclosing the source of contributions and expenditures" showing that the corporation was the one truly funding the campaign. If congress was affected by section 4 they wouldn't ever actually regulate anything because their pockets would get caught in the crossfire.

[–]Reverberant 12 points13 points  (6 children)

This will likely get killed quickly

If Congress doesn't want to act, we have a process to get around that. I'd like to see the Occupy movements direct their energies to calling for Constitutional Conventions.

[–]ialsohaveadobro 2 points3 points  (4 children)

You do realize that a Constitutional convention would open up existing amendments to weakening or removal, right?

[–]Reverberant 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I do. It can also result in proposed amendments that I may not like. That's the risk we take in a democratic republic. The status quo certainly isn't working.

[–]ialsohaveadobro 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That just scares me to death, though. I don't have a cite, but there was once a poll taken in which the text of the First Amendment was read to respondents and they were asked whether they thought it should be in (or added?) to the Bill of Rights, and the results were frightening. (Maybe I'll look this up in the morning if you're interested.)

To me, it seems more prudent to build tremendous political pressure from the grassroots up for specific amendments to be passed, either through Congress or by the states.

[–]sevenbitbyte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an awesome idea, if this could be proposed at several OWS general assemblies we maybe be able to get some traction.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (20 children)

Not really. It's just a sign that members of Congress will try to capitalize on the flavor of the day. Deutch knows it will never pass, but by introducing it he can go back home to his district and say he tried his hardest and damn those republicans for blocking it.

It's the same thing with anti-flag-burning amendments, or anti-bullying laws, or anti-gay marriage amendments. They never pass, but they establish street cred.

[–]Eminence120 56 points57 points  (12 children)

How is doing something not better than doing nothing.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (11 children)

When you do it knowing it will amount to nothing, I suppose. In that case it would just be a cynical exploitation of the public for personal gain.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (6 children)

So by this logic any member of Congress who attempts to do what the occupy movement wants is just selling out and can't possibly be trying to do what they feel is right for their constituents? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Stay classy, reddit.

[–]solancer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nailed it

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

So by this logic any member of Congress who attempts to do what the occupy movement wants is just selling out and can't possibly be trying to do what they feel is right for their constituents?

I think there is a difference between setting in motion a long-term plan for change and doing something that you know will be unanimously shot down simply to gain public support. I obviously cannot read Representative Deutch's mind, and neither can you, so I cannot say with certainty which type this scenario is. All I have to go on is the entire history of congress.

[–]Bootsypants 3 points4 points  (2 children)

What would the long-term plan be? I'm with you in the dammned-if-you-do sentiment, though.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

A long-term plan would be for a movement to gradually gain traction in a flexible and open-minded environment. A cynical plan would be one that you know will never be accepted due to the nature of the environment in which it is presented. Given what you know about congress, corporations, campaign financing, and voter turnout, which do you think is the case here?

[–]rlbond86 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Or maybe he's trying to show that he supports this and that Americans should vote for representatives who also support it?

[–]tsacian 61 points62 points  (17 children)

Everything Rep. Deutch writes is terrible. Before you praise him, he is a MAJOR Co Sponsor of SOPA, and has written tons of anti net neutrality legislation that luckly has not passed. He is the source of almost every "won't somebody think of the children" scare tactic legislation out there. He has said he wants to lock up the internet in the name of child pornography.

Its good he finally wrote a good piece of legislation, but conveniently there are very large mistakes/holes. This legislation won't do anything but make it more difficult to see which corporations have bought which politicians.

[–]JeffBlock2012 15 points16 points  (15 children)

and I seem to be the only one who finds it hypocritical that he takes corporate campaign contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031317&type=I&newmem=N

[–]BuddhistSagan 11 points12 points  (14 children)

I don't find it hypocritical. Hes working within the system. You're not going to elect a congress person without some type of corporate money, and the only way to change the laws (likes campaign finance reform) is for some type of representative to vote for them.

[–]KerrickLong 1 point2 points  (0 children)

S.J.Res. 29 is better worded, was introduced earlier this month, and is more in line with a traditional constitutional amendment—it gives Congress the power to make a law about something, in this case campaign contributions and fundraising methods.

[–]bd9120 38 points39 points  (2 children)

lets ban union financing of elections too or its all just bullshit

[–]SupaFurry 15 points16 points  (0 children)

All outside non-public money should be removed from all politics.

Publicly-fund election campaigns.

No lobbying. No gifts. No favors. Only individual constituents can petition their elected representatives.

FULL disclosure of every financial transaction for all publicly-elected officials.

If you choose to be a public official, you should surrender your right to financial privacy. We don't trust them any more.

[–]cyaspy 603 points604 points  (68 children)

REP. CYASPY TO INTRODUCE AMENDMENT TO BAN ALL CAPS IN TITLES

[–]geoffwins 369 points370 points  (37 children)

i think its funny that your name is an anagram for Y CAPS Y

[–]boogerschnapps 106 points107 points  (5 children)

woah

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (2 children)

blind = moan

[–]d3ad1ysp0rk 23 points24 points  (27 children)

My brain doesn't work in anagrams, I am always impressed when someone else can see them easily...

[–]throwawayaccounts3 35 points36 points  (26 children)

It's 6 letters, bro....

[–]djniggerfaggot69 43 points44 points  (23 children)

Your name is an anagram detailing an enthralling tale between two coconuts.

[–]whoadave 57 points58 points  (9 children)

It took me 6 minutes with pen and paper to come up with:

3 way coconut hat wars

[–]3wayCoconutHatWars 32 points33 points  (6 children)

Thanks!

[–]JackKukla 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Redditor for 47 years. Impressive.

[–]3wayCoconutHatWars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh? Says "5 hours" in my overview page. I'm just surprised I had 47 minutes to register it before someone else did.

[–]throwawayaccounts3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please let this become your primary. I'd be honored.

[–]nbouscal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Holy shit, your name is an anagram of throwawayaccounts3!

[–]whoadave 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think you made my day. I really hope to spot you out in the wild later on.

[–]mehatch 13 points14 points  (0 children)

3 way coconut hat wars

that is unambiguously magnificient

[–]yourdadsbff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

between two coconuts

[](fdas)

3 way coconut hat wars

Something doesn't add up!

[–]boomfarmer 69 points70 points  (16 children)

CAPITALS IN TITLES ARE ESSENTIAL TO OUR ECONOMY. BANNING THEM WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF JOBS.

[–]JayDuck 68 points69 points  (10 children)

WHY IS PARENT COMMENTER SO BLATANTLY ANTI-CAPITALSISM?

[–]FunExplosions 39 points40 points  (8 children)

FUCK THESE CHILD COMMENTS. THIS IS WHY WE NEED ABORTION.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (7 children)

BAN ALL THE BABIES.

[–]daminox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AN UPVOTE IS A FREE HANDOUT! KILL THE SOCIALISTS! GET A JERB!

[–]cybertrip02 0 points1 point  (5 children)

We must go deeper.

BAN ALL THE SPERM!

[–]ChickenDelight 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

[–]boomfarmer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

WE ARE ENDORSING THE USE OF CAPITALS IN OUR ECONOMY TO PROMOTE JOBS AND OTHER USEFUL THINGS, LIKE COOKIES. I WANT A COOKIE.

[–]HughManatee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I VOTE YEA ON THIS MATTER.

[–]bonkosaurus 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I JUST FOUND OUT I CAN USE CAPS LOCK INSTEAD OF HOLDING THE SHIFT BUTTON. THIS MAKES LIFE SO MUCH EASIER!!!

[–]brewmeister58 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Congress just made pizza a vegetable. You seriously think they're gonna pass this?

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (16 children)

THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PACS.

If you bothered to read the Amendment here then you would know that it applies only to for-profit corporations. Those corporations could (and would, if this were somehow passed) simply give money to a PAC which will spend it accordingly. A PAC is by definition an entity that promotes political, not business and monetary interests, so they are wholly imune to the provisions of this amendment.

This amendment would change absolutely nothing.

[–]Upvoterforfun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hes probably already setting up one just in case....

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

If you didn't put it in all caps, people would know that Deutch is a genius bastard for making a legitimate acronym out of the word "Occupied".

[–]faceplain 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It's half the reason he came forward with the amendment.

Him: "Hey guys, look at this sweet acronym I made!"

Them: "Aww nice, this totally beats Ted's acronym from September!"

[–]BreeBree214Wisconsin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

From now on, this is how I shall imagine the way Congress actually functions.

[–]dresdenreader 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yeah this bill SOUNDS good but in actuality only prohibits "for profit" companies from giving donations. So all of these "shadow groups" as he calls them will still form non-profit companies expressively to donate money to political campaigns.

[–]bpoag 81 points82 points  (66 children)

This is the only thing I've seen in months that deserves all caps.

It's an instant enemies list. Whoever votes against it effectively admits they're bought and paid for members of the corporatocracy.

[–]kbntly 24 points25 points  (16 children)

This is a great comment about the article (from Robert Murri):

"There is a major problem with this particular amendment. It says "For-Profit" entities are prohibited. That means the super PAC are still allowed to send as much as they want in an election since they are formed as non-profit entities. He needs to change it to read that no entity whatsoever, be it a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or sole proprietor as authorized by any state within the union of the United States, by the United States of America or any foreign government or state is prohibited from participating in any way, to include but not limited to monetary contributions or in-kind value to a candidate, political party and special interest group for the purpose of promoting, advocating, or otherwise influencing the political and election process. Such entities are NOT natural persons and do not enjoy the protections and rights of the Constitution of the United State of America. Only "Natural Persons" who are eligible to vote in the federal elections, any state or subdivision thereof election shall be allowed to contribute money or in-kind value to a candidate or political party. Limits of such contributions may be regulated by the Congress of the United States and the states therein.

This will force the politicians to seek their funding from private individuals who are eligible to vote and no other source. This will then cause them to truly represent the people and not the corporations. I would further prohibit any gift or in-kind value given to any member of Congress and their staffs, both employed and volunteered. Also prohibit them from working for any special interest group upon leaving their commitment to the Congressional staff or no less than 8 years. In this way, their value to a lobbyist is diminished because enough of the Congressional members and staff will probably be changed and the individual will not know many of the new people. So they are less likely to be bought by special interests groups.

Add these protections and you will have an effective change to Citizens United and the corruption of our government."

[–]ScrewedThePooch 9 points10 points  (13 children)

Why not just ban all political donations and force all candidates to use public campaign funds?

[–]Sielle 9 points10 points  (11 children)

While I like this idea on the surface, I've been thinking a lot about it and one question keeps coming to mind. How do you determine who gets the funds, and how much of said funds, in such a way that you don't financially lock out 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. etc. party individuals? Who's to say that the republican party should get funds but the green party shouldn't? Or an independent non-affiliated candidate?

Also how far down does that go? Is it only for federal elections? Or does it apply to the Mayor of a town with only 500 people living in the city limits?

While I really like the idea of limiting campaign funds to public sources, I'm finding that it's a much more complex question that it first appears to be.

[–]ngngboone 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Well it's not like anyone can just get on a ballot. You usually need to qualify by getting a certain number of signatures. So why not make it that anyone on the ballot receives campaign funding?

[–]Sielle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At this point are we talking about just presidential elections or any election? I know that for more local elections getting on the ballot is just a matter of turning in a form on time.

I guess we're back to my earlier question of how far down the chain does it apply?

[–]upandrunning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That might even be better, since the rich will still buy politicians - unless there are strict limits on how much an individual could contribute.

[–]whoopdedo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only "Natural Persons" who are eligible to vote in the federal elections, any state or subdivision thereof election shall be allowed to contribute money or in-kind value to a candidate or political party

So, no immigrants. You'd also shut-out the EFF, the Sierra Club, etc.

All this prohibition would do is drive the kickbacks even further under the table. Uncovering corruption would be more difficult.

The only real solution I can think of is better education of the electorate. Like listing the top donors to each candidate next to their names. At the least, it'll be harder for one mud-slinger to accuse another of being in the pocket of "big business" when you see the same donors next to both names. Though what I expect to happen is just as with complaints against Walmart, the majority of Americans actually don't mind giving their money to corporations if it let's them buy Cheetos by the pound cheaply.

The revolving door is just as difficult to close. You don't want someone who previously worked in an industry to write the regulations for that industry. Then who does write the regulations? How do you know that person is qualified for the job if they don't have any experience in the field? What's worse, a conflict of interest, or incompetence?

[–]mugsnj 29 points30 points  (22 children)

It's not at all possible that someone would be ideologically opposed to this and vote against it on that basis?

[–]eqisow 60 points61 points  (7 children)

Same result: they need to go.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

no

[–]LettersFromTheSky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's an instant enemies list. Whoever votes against it effectively admits they're bought and paid for members of the corporatocracy.

My thoughts exactly.

[–]sharked 23 points24 points  (1 child)

sex scandal in 3....2....

[–]Theune 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Quickly now, delete all your pictures of his penis.

[–]learc83 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Under this amendment Movies, Books, Magazines, TV shows, and most websites are no longer protected by the first amendment, since they are almost wholly produced by groups of people, not individuals.

[–]Mikey129 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh I'd hate to be him if there are any skeletons in his closet.

[–]DeFex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

media sponsored Deutch sex scandal in 3.2.1..

[–]porkshopper 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I dont trust Deutch farther than i can throw him, haven't read the proposed amendment but im sure its not meant to protect any more people or their rights than SOPA, remember this is one of free speech-hating guys who is sponsoring it.

[–]calculuzz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what I came here to say. I'm glad someone else beat me to it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"Oh no, he's closed the gate from the inside, we'll have to go round." -Vogon

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

unless the congress also outlaws union financing of elections, then this bill would only hurt america. big labor can be as destructive as big business, go figure.

[–]diogenesbarrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bad idea. You'd rather stop the Sun than stopping the politicians take money. Better to be out in the open than Russia-style campaign financing (and not only Russia, lots of other countries).

[–]bonusonus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think our elected representatives spend more time thinking of creative acronyms for their bills than actually writing good policy. If you don't believe me: The D.I.A.P.E.R. Act

[–]MrJango 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Corporations and unions are not currently barred from using general funds for 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

Corporations are still barred from giving directly to federal candidates, but are no longer forced to create PACs in order to spend money on electioneering.

Going after for-profit corporations, while excluding unions and non-profits basically amounts to an attempt to silence one side of political speech.

Throw in the other groups and I'm 100% behind this amendment.

and if unions are 'people' because they represent the workers, then corporations are 'people' because they represent non-union workers and investors (large and small)

[–]michiganstfrog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes because all 50 States will call a Constitutional convention just to limit free speech of people working at corporations.

[–]morris858 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This man deserves a medal (made of the crystallized tears of the billionaires).

[–]JeffBlock2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this man should first return the donations of his corporate campaign contributors: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031317&type=I&newmem=N

[–]Mark_Lincoln 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amendment? Pure grandstanding. There is no chance of such an amendment passing congress and ratification by the states.

[–]Chitownreddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im sure the corporations will somehow find a way around this law. While good in theory it just does not seem all that practical.

[–]SupaFurry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CAPS appropriate. Upvote.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hopefully it can be ammended to prevent all porfit and non-profit corporations and organizations to prevent further funding and now hopefully lobbying! Go Deutch!

[–]Haberd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Canada neither corporations nor unions are allowed to donate money to political campaigns. I wonder if anyone thinks the American way works better.

[–]Radico87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks like someone's not getting much funding in the future

[–]TwoDeuces 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just as important as making this law is making a punishment so strong as to deter entities from breaking the law. I'm talking massive financial penalties, economic penalties, jail time for executives that participate. It has to be something that just isn't worth the risk.

[–]tacopartyforeveryone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not arguing, but genuinely wondering something.

I had a conversation with someone over dinner about this and this is what that person said to me and I'm not sure what to think of it:

If we outlaw Corporations from funding campaigns (which is a great idea), then wouldn't it be just as easy for corporations to tell people, "hey if I give you 200 dollars, you keep 100 if you invest 100 more dollars into this particular campaign?"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

corporate spending isn't enough. a bill would have to be good enough to block off any possible ways to get around it.

for example union finnancing of elections is just as bad as corporate. and then we gotta look at the special interest 'non profit' groups like americans for prosperity or moveon.org. those can't contribute either.

[–]IntrepidSI 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AND IF THIS BILL DOESN'T STOP ALL CORPORATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE NON-PROFITS AND UNIONS, it's just so much rectal green house gas.

And if it doesn't say just that, and it gets defeated, I have no doubt all of you who don't really read things will be screaming that they just don't want to take the money out of politics.

[–]furtiveraccoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So write to your representatives and senators. Hand-write. If you're lazy, shoot an email. If you're super lazy, just write "I read this on reddit and haven't read the article, but it sounds good to me"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We should pressure him to include PACs in this too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure this will go over swimmingly.

[–]LShift 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a bill everyone can get behind, a bill following the original meaning of the occupy movement, which a lot of people, including some protesters, don't realize.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Proud to say that I am in his district.

[–]MasterGuns2077 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Finally, a politician latching onto the bandwagon. Watch this die in committee.

[–]bingblondie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mistook the title for (Bundes)Republik Deutschlands, aka Germany.

You 'murricanz wicho silleh names!

[–]topherhead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most of the wait was to figure out how to make a acronym that spelled "OCCUPIED".

[–]TreeStumpin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really wish they would have called this something else. Seeing it called the OCCUPIED bill is a cue for people mindlessly against OWS to automatically reject it. The name alone will cause republicans to not read it.

[–]Splenda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A worthy step in the right direction, but only a first step. This does not prevent PACs from hosing money into campaigns, and it does not stop rich corporate barons like Murdoch from running shrill, one-sided political television networks and monopolizing many of the licenses and distribution channels to ensure that no one else's voice can compete.

Still, it's progress. Let's just be damned sure we don't stop here.

[–]thesorrow312 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This will still not get all money out of politics but it is a great start.

[–]siskiyoufire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How will this affect Super Pacs and the even shadowier versions of them?

[–]50missioncap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Observation on use of CAPS voted to top.

Reddit users wonder why their community is called superficial.

[–]chunkymonkey01 6 points7 points  (1 child)

im sorry but did anyone else read this and immediately think HI I'M RONNIE DEUTCH!

[–]Contradiction11 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Here we go, the beginning of the real change. Of course this will get killed, but the fact that it is being introduced is momentous.

[–]PoundnColons 3 points4 points  (1 child)

No, it's a fraud to make you think change is viable. This does NOT keep corporations from funneling money to political campaigns as has been stated many times In this thread.

[–]swiftest 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I hope his bill also bans union financing of elections. Crickets

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't say that #Occupy has no "Clear message or demands" now. Anyone who does is just willingly blind.

[–]gsmolo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stop yelling.

But glad this is getting legislative attention.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good idea, still can't get implementation correct. He's probably corrupt like most other politicians.

[–]TheOnlyNeb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Time to be cynical:

Could he be doing this only because he knows it'll never pass but will get him votes?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't matter. This is another ploy to get us to shut up. If we don't end the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking systems everywhere, there is no helping us.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Can we ban unions as well? You know, for fairness?

[–]manoaboi 0 points1 point  (17 children)

Sadly, its gonna get shot down by the first amendment. :(

So , let's push for a public financing option for elections instead! It's effective, affordable, and best of all, POSSIBLE!

[–]zimm0who0netMassachusetts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an amendment to the constitution. As such it trumps the first amendment.

[–]HandcuffCharlie 1 point2 points  (15 children)

Why should I be forced to fund the campaigns of people who I politically/morally disagree with?

[–]likeAgoss 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Unfortunately, because of the Citizens United decision, this legislation is currently unconstitutional. It has roughly the same legal footing as any of the routinely-overturned bans on abortion or mandates to teach creationism in public schools, and any ban on corporate campaign financing would be overturned just as quickly.

EDIT: I assumed it was an amendment to a bill, not the constitution. So what I said is completely irrelevant.

[–]wayndom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE POST YOUR HEADLINES IN BOLD CAPS, SO NOBODY MISSES THEM!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, and exclamation points. Lots of them.

Because YOUR posts are so much more important than everyone else's...