The Power of One!

Does money in politics subvert our precious democracy?

Would you pay $1.00 per month to get rid of PACs, super PACs and the ungodly amount of money being funneled into federal political campaigns?

It is estimated that more than $6 billion will be spent in the 2012 election. Outrageous! The cost of elections has spun out of control and must be reined in.

Money is not the root of all evil, but its corrosive influence was evident in the 2010 elections; a malignancy that will be even more destructive in this electoral cycle.

Though money in politics was a problem long before the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision desecrated the 1st Amendment and is infecting our democratic elections -- the cornerstone of a healthy, vibrant democracy.

So how can we reverse the Supreme Court's mistake and get money out of politics?

We, 'the people,' can overpower the Supreme Court, get under their black robes -- make Citizens United moot -- with the Power of One!

We can end money's destructive power and return the vote, and the outcome of elections, to us.

Nearly two years ago a friend, Matt Giorgi, came to me with an idea to publicly fund all federal elections -- to essentially take all private money out of politics, thus eliminating the malicious intent of groups like Citizens United.

Formulating a plan, we realized that to move forward it was imperative to agree that money is not speech and corporations are not people. To be clear, Citizens United was not a group of citizens, but a few wealthy and vindictive individuals bent on subverting Hillary Clinton's run for the democratic nomination.

The Citizens United ruling overturned a century of election law thus making the Supreme's ruling even more injurious to our democracy. But it helped spotlight the need to move aggressively toward publicly funded elections and eliminate the court's influence.

Matt's idea will cleanse national elections and better serve the public interest.

It's the Power of One; the power of a single dollar to return the vote to 'the people.' A single dollar spreading the cost of fair and equitable elections to the greatest number of citizens ever. A single dollar to neutralize the deleterious grip money has on politics and elections.

The mandate of a single dollar, each month, from every eligible voter's paycheck would create a national election fund to facilitate all federal elections. Twelve dollars a year. A relatively painless way to clean up our elections and politics as we know it.

This fund would fall under the purview of the Federal Election Commission. They would oversee the implementation and execution of the Twenty-eighth Amendment which establishes new rules and creates a fair election process centered around the extraction of all private money from all national politics and elections. The agency will be streamlined to administer, regulate, improve, and enforce the new rules under well defined parameters.

A program like the Power of One would establish a sense of ownership and mutualism, increase voter participation, and encourage greater participation of qualified individuals who want to serve the public and the public interest but have been excluded from running for office by the restrictive cost of elections.

The mandate would generate $2.8 billion each year with minimal financial imposition to the American people. Money collected would be sufficient to fund all national races and administer the Federal Election Commission.

By publicly funding these elections the 28th Amendment would regulate the signature requirements, length of campaigns, distribution of funds, reporting, accounting, and transparency.

The mood of the nation is changing evidenced by Congress' approval rating, which has fallen to a meager 10 percent. The general public is not happy with the job their congressional members are doing, with the performance of the current administration, the weakness of the Republican presidential candidates, or the corruption money has created in our government.

It's time to get the money out of politics.

Although the Power of One may not be the whole answer, the ideas contained in the proposal, are a great start. They can be easily incorporated or aligned with other projects to end the pervasive corruption of money. No matter which plan emerges it is imperative that something be done.

The Power of One will put an end to the wanton corruption in politics!

Call Congress today and insist that your congressional members support a 28th Amendment -- [phone] to contact your Representative or Senator. Tell them how you feel about the corruption in politics and why you want to get the money out.

Let us know your feelings also -- take a quick 5 question poll about the Power of One at Survcast.

Every major change in our country has started in the streets with a frustrated citizenry. Government only acts in our best interest when it's pushed. The time for the 28th Amendment has come.

And you can make it happen!

 

 

 

Follow Jim Worth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/authorofmystery

Comments

[Mattjg]

10:25 PM on 02/29/2012

I appreciate the comments Craig has written; however, I would remind Craig and others that the XXVI amendment to the constitution which changed the voting age to 18 years was proposed and ratified in less than 9 months. It was accomplished in 1971 during the Viet Nam war when the entire issue of a person being old enough to be drafted yet not old enough to vote was an emotional lightning rod in our country.

I would also remind Craig and others that every major change in our country (labor rights, womens rights, civil rights, elimination of child labor laws, etc.) began in the streets with groups of citizens who were willing to sacrifice for an ideal they felt would advance our society.

The idea of $1 per month to change politics in our country for the better may not be the best solution to the obscene amounts of private money (from any source) that is corrupting our government and preventing the people's voice from being heard and attended to, and it may be a hard sell, but it's certainly a virtually painless way to take back representational government. At the very least it's a starting point for a serious conversation of how to remove a major portion of the corruption that has saturated American politics.

[Craig Clevidence]

04:03 PM on 02/29/2012

It is essential that any movement toward a constitutional amendment firmly occupy the middle of the consensus. A constitutional amendment cannot be feasible if it is perceived to have an ideological bent or is only palatable to one party. For this reason a constitutional amendment requiring public financing of elections will never be adopted. .According to Gallup, 80% of the American public feels that the American political system is broken and that money is the problem. Conversely, when you ask Americans "Do you want to use your tax dollars to pay for political campaigns”, over 70% say no. The implication is obvious, public financing of campaigns is a nonstarter as a constitutional amendment.
By stating “.The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens”. The RDA renders moot concerns about corporate personage as pertains to campaign finance. For a constitutional amendment to be successful it must have a super majority of support. Any proposed amendment that would eliminate the current source of the majority of funding for either political party is politically unfeasible. Any proposed amendment that only limits campaign funding from corporations and not unions is also politically unfeasible. It is time for the campaign finance amendment movement to take off the blinders, move to the political middle which is the only feasible position and to set aside the sound bite slogans for a powerful and elemental change which is what the public is most desirous of. http://www.renewdemocracy.org

[Maxrevz]

01:32 PM on 02/29/2012

The Power of One is an interesting concept, especially in light of Citizen's United v. FEC, but until we carve the fraud, mistrust and corruption from our government it's all just talk. We should start by enforcing Sarbanes Oxley, hold mortgage lenders accountable for fraud e.g. mismanaged foreclosures, quadruple penalties for environmental disasters caused by negligence and throw those responsible in prison, stop allowing members of the house to share inside information regarding legislation with the very companies that donated to get them elected who in turn game Wall Street, oh and while we're at it overturn CU v FEC. It seems to me that we either eliminate corporate campaign funding, or it will "eliminate" we the people in government.

BTW: You can find the "power of one" Survcast poll for this article here: http://bit.ly/wvw4Tw

[Jim Worth]

03:08 PM on 02/29/2012

Maxrevz,

Everyone should take the quick poll on Survcast so we can get a good cross-section of how people feel about the money in politics.

Thanks for including the link.

Jim

[Know-some-secrets]

07:19 AM on 02/29/2012

I was very captivated by this concept of Power of One as a strategy for helping address campaign finance abuses and returning democracy to the people. As a progressive, I want may values and interests to have a chance at fair representation and action.

Then, unfortunately Jim Worth said "To be clear, Citizens United was not a group of citizens, but a few wealthy and vindictive individuals bent on subverting Hillary Clinton's run for the democratic nomination." I do not want wealthy individuals having disproportionate power in politics and know little about Citizens United. If however they helped prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president, they cannot be all bad.

Continuing to portray Hillary Clinton as an innocent victim of evil forces only fuels divisions, even among progressives.

[Jim Worth]

03:06 PM on 02/29/2012

Know,

I'm glad you were captivated by the concept of Power of One and hope that you will embrace it with conviction.

I am sorry, however, that you misinterpreted the reference to CU. It was referenced to emphasize the impact money can have in politics and that it was not a grass roots movement that moved the Supreme Court to their destructive decision but a few vindictive individuals.

The CU decision was too late to have had any effect on the 2008 election and Obama won the primary with no help from that decision.

I hope you read the two SOTUS articles linked in this article to get a better picture of the future ramifications of the Court’s decision and why we need to get the money out.

Jim

[econ1]

01:05 PM on 02/28/2012

I don't like be subject to political ads any more than the next fellow, but I don't think a public fund is the answer. $6 billion sounds like a lot to elect a government but we spend that much on potato chips each year...so perhaps not. A public fund would likely benefit incumbents and we have so little turnover as it is we almost have a permanent political class. And how can you tell people (in America) that they can't spend their money on a ad on a public issue? Yes, you can try to limit what corporations and unions do, but freedom of assembly makes that a difficult argument. Perhaps the only way is to shrink the government a bit (like pensions and health benefits for politicians after one term) so it is less attractive to lobby.

[Jim Worth]

01:50 PM on 02/28/2012

econ1,

Some interesting and applicable points, but I think incumbents benefit more from the current system than they would from a publicly funded system that would provide opportunities to a greater cross section of the population, eliminate the influence of special interests, and shorten the campaign requirements that would allow our sitting representatives to better govern rather than campaigning and fund raising.

Read the two linked articles to get more information on the Citizens United decision and the elimination of corporate and union influence in elections prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Jim