Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%.
No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”
Apparently, someone in Washington is getting a clue. Now he needs to sponsor the insider trader bill that will keep Congress from profiting as they make moves that effect the price of stocks.
For too long the99% have allowed these Dbags to do anything they want as they profited personally at the expense of the people. It is time this comes to an end.
Term limits for Congress
Open donations - no hiding behind not for profit entities
limits to donations
blind trusts for their investments
end their health care and retirement benefits and make it what the people get, be it Obama care or Social Security. If they get what we get, I bet they will fix any of its problems. They should never get sweetheart programs above what the people get....EVER!
Might as well add to the amendment that no representative should be able to leave congress and then go to work for a company as a lobbyist sounds too much like bribery to me.
[sarcasm hat on}These lilly livered idiots are giving in to the liberal scum at the bottom of the totem pole. You don't get to be winners at the top by giving away your reign on the totem pole.
In the real world, you fight to gain an advantage, as well as take advantage of others to get to the top and be a winner. At all costs. You don't do it by apologizing nor bowing to others, nor giving an inch when you have control. If it means killing and murdering others, then so be it. Survival of the fittest. Those Middle Eastern Hellholes and Liberal European countries are ripe for the picking. USA is number one.[sarcasm hat off]
I see why we need corporate 'persons' (they're not fully persons anyway), so I don't want to scrap that.
But I'm with limiting money in politics. Actually, if they'd just limit the amount of campaign spending and if they'd limit the amount of time that political campaigning can take place, we'd have a much better society. We might need to revise how we interpret "speech" but it can be done without injuring the right of real individuals to express themselves freely.
I see why we need corporate 'persons' (they're not fully persons anyway), so I don't want to scrap that.
But I'm with limiting money in politics. Actually, if they'd just limit the amount of campaign spending and if they'd limit the amount of time that political campaigning can take place, we'd have a much better society. We might need to revise how we interpret "speech" but it can be done without injuring the right of real individuals to express themselves freely.
I've long been for publically funding elections. The same money spent on both the D and the R, in a series of debates televised weekly or monthly, so that we can decide between the two. Let the primarys be privately funded. Many more candidates to decide between, so it minimizes corporate money influence.
As far as "corporate personhood", I'm for it, although probably not in the way you mean. The business itself is a series of people, all those who work for the corporation. If things are going so well with the people who work for the corporation, that they all want to donate money to a candidate, then that is the corporate person.
The business itself should not be allowed to donate. But the owner of the corporation should be allowed to use whatever money he is worth and his business is worth and making to back whatever candidate they like personally.
But all that money should be seen as coming from the ONE person when he/she does that.
They hide behind their corporations, the men behind the curtain, pulling the strings.
I want to see their faces, and who they back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
