This is not a progressive issue or a conservative issue. This is not a Tea Party issue or a liberal issue. This is an American issue. Money is destroying our politics and our political system. The signs are everywhere. A "super PAC" supporting Mitt Romney spent $3.5 million to knock Newt Gingrich out of the lead in Iowa. A super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich is spending a greater amount of money to return the favor to Mitt Romney in South Carolina. Our electoral system has become such a joke that two late-night comedians are now actually participating in it and are generating great laughter just by demonstrating how it operates.
In the past, Congress has made two bipartisan efforts to control the impact of money on our elections, first in the early 1970s and more recently with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as "McCain-Feingold." Both of these laws tried to restrict the influence of money on our elections. But after each of these efforts, the Supreme Court kicked down the door and allowed campaign money to flow more freely.
First, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court held that money is the equivalent of "free speech" under the First Amendment, and that no act of Congress could restrict the amount of money that an individual could contribute to his or her own campaign or expend in support of another person's campaign as long as that expenditure was "independent" of the campaign. This decision gave the "one percent" a voice in our elections that greatly exceeds the concept of "one citizen-one vote."
Then, exactly two years ago today in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court went off the deep end and ruled that corporations are "persons" under the First Amendment and that no act of Congress could restrict the amount of money a corporation could spend in an election. This decision gives all U.S. corporations, and all U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, every right to participate in our elections that individual U.S. citizens have, excepting only the right to actually vote.
The concept of giving corporations the same rights as individuals would have staggered our "founding fathers." Corporations in their present form did not even exist in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals from the power of the federal government. It was later extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to protect individuals from similar abuses by state governments. Where in this "original intent" was there any expression that corporations should have the same rights as individuals to participate in our electoral process?
We must get money out of our politics and out of our electoral system. We must eliminate the influence of multi-national corporations and foreign corporations on the government of our country. Since the Supreme Court majority is obviously opposed to such reforms, the only way to correct our system is through a constitutional amendment that will take money out of our electoral system.
This week, a constitutional amendment was introduced in Congress that will require all federal campaigns -- that is campaigns for president, vice president, senator and representative -- to be financed exclusively with public funds, and that will prohibit any expenditures from any other source, including the candidate. This amendment will also preclude any expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any federal candidate, so that special interest groups will not be able to influence elections either. This amendment does, however, maintain our historical "freedom of the press" and preserve the traditional role that the media have played in our electoral process.
It is clear. Money has become a corrupting influence in the political system. This is one of the most important issues of our time. We must rescue American democracy. Together, we are committed to protecting the future of our democracy and that is why we have come together to promote this constitutional amendment. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent, we urge you to join us.
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
Link to petition at bottom of page
A corporation is incapable of holding any allegiance to any country, or any citizens of any particular country. The only allegiance a corporation can hold is to the creation of profit, as per its' own bylaw.
A corporation is not composed of U.S. citizens, and therefore should have no voice in U.S. government.
Then the other day I was watching Up with Chris Hayes and Elliott Spitzer said something the made me question myself.
What is the difference between someone (say Rupert Murdoch) buying a television station and spending millions to push the candidates of his choice and someone (say the Koch Brothers) setting up a Super PAC and spending millions to push a candidate of their choice.
Don't get me wrong. I think the dialog that comes from Fox News is crap. But I never thought seriously about censoring them. I always figured that people should be smart enough to realize it was crap.
So, while I still believe that Super PAC's (and Fox News) are harmful to the election process, I'm no longer sure that censorship is the answer. And at this point, I don't know what the answer is.
But he is human and imperfect.
He should have linked to the petition.
but he did not.
http://kucinich.us/issues/campaign-finance-reform
I have. Sign it.
this is the greatest petition, the greatest bill,
EVER presented.
Do NOT miss it.
Money spent on shoes, music, protest, public relations, marketing, tampons and butt plugs etc... is Pursuit of Happiness.
Money spent to influence a vote is NOT pure Free Speech. The very intent is to alter the outcome of an elected official and give a louder voice to a particular candidate by offering an unfair unbalanced advantage to the competition for votes. The very nature of money in a Super-PAC is specifically to target an exploit.
This is not a right or left issue it's an American issue and it is the very core of who we are and who we want to be.
Anyone who does not support zero loophole Campaign Finance Reform IS the enemy of this country. They are not dissenters of political opinion or artful arguements of litigation they are quite clearly THE ENEMY of America. Enemy of We The People. Root them out and expose them to the light of free people. Cockroaches the lot of them.
Truly unbelievable that this despicable former senator thought he could get away with this. It also shows the complete deterioration of moral values required for a democracy.
Proof: All people have genes. Corporations do not have genes. There are many non-human organisms that have genes (chimps, dogs, newts, etc.), but there are no human organisms that do not have genes.
In fact, you could argue that chimps are more human than corporations because chimps have genes and corporations do not. Of course, if we decided that chimps are people, we'd have to give them a voice in electing our leaders (though some would argue we already do).
The court isn't trying to say that corporations are physically people. They are saying that, as legal ententies, they have the same rights as people. Different thing.
But, as some say, I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.
A corporation's only allegiance is to the creation of profit.
A corporation is not necessarily populated by U.S. citizens, and therefore have no business in our business.
The problem is not big companies being included for advertising, they have a dog in the hunt too so let them talk to the voters. The problem is big companies buying our politicians. Staying on the GE example, they paid 40 million dollars for professional lobbying to manipulate our lawmakers that same year, not the voters.
I have no issue with companies buying adds and openly supporting a candidate, I want to get rid of the professional lobbying and end all private contact between them and our politicians. We need a law that says all conversations between any Lobbyist and a politician must be recorded and made public inside 1 week under penalty of mandatory jail time.
Why would these justices decide that corporations are like individuals? Only one reason I can think of - money buys influence, distorts the truth and further corrupts our political system.
More money = More biased speech which crowds out all other opinions.
Those that don’t have money are suppressed in their speech. These justices knew exactly what they were doing: entrenching their hegemony so they can push their agendas and subvert all others.
The last bastion the Right doesn’t control is our political system. With this ruling our representatives will answer to their corporate masters not the people. If money can buy elections, it creates bad legislation and fosters cronyism. It’s only a matter of time before one’s personal freedoms and rights have suddenly been forfeited.
Hence the amendment to outlaw such contributions - for both corporations and unions.
1) Each state's Electors choose and present to the state's citizens people for presidents and vices from which they elect one each.
2) After certifying them to congress who recounts them congress then notifies all US residents of the possible 51 president and vice candidates [Amendment 14 suggests DC should be included] for November eliminating campaigning, contributions, parties and conventions. [If Obama were to "ensure faithful execution of the laws" (Article 2, section 3) he has to be at least one state's or DC's presidential representative and if no state nor DC elect him he is automatically out for November.] With Electors presenting their candidates to the people for them to interview them concerning their knowledge of and willingness to protect the constitution WITH THEIR LIVES, where can money get into presidential politic except by direct and IMPEACHABLE bribes?
With Amendment 12 showing emphatically there are no parties and Article 1 and Amendment 17 requiring the people chooses Representative and Senators, respectively, they will not be choosing for parties but legislators form their state to DC. With the people interviewing their legislators concerning their knowledge of and willingness to protect the Constitution WITH THEIR LIVES, where is the opportunity for money to get into politics except direct and IMPEACHABLE bribes.
That's CONSTITUTIONAL.