~~~~~~~

The largest influence in American governance has been taken away from the people of this great nation. The influence of mass media was not forseen by our founding fathers, and the financial cost running for office has made it impractical for anyone, save the very wealthy or the very well connected.

This has lead to a patchwork of laws regarding the financing of political campaigns, and these laws are increasingly easy to avoid.

In the spirit of government of the people, for the people and by the people, action must to be taken to remove the influence of major corporations, organizations and wealthy individuals seeking to influence elected officials through exceedingly large financial contributions. This is, if you will, an amendment guaranteeing the seperation of corporations and our state.

It is important that our elected officials are beholden only to the voters, and to each voter equally.



Section 1

Any candidate for any elected office throughout the republic may accept financial donations only from individuals registered to vote in the election in question. The amount of each donation may not exceed 1/50th of the median income for the district in which the election is being held.

Section 1.1

Each candidate may provide their own campaign expenses, provided such costs do not exceed the median annual income of the district in which the campaign is being held.


Section 2

A registered voter may contribute to one candidate for each office, and one candidate only.


Section 3

Organizations, public or private, may not contribute to any campaign.


Section 4

Foreign organizations, public or private, may not make any contribution to any campaign in the United States. Nor may foreign nationals, unless they are registered voters in the district in which the election is being held.

Nice idea. Section 3 strikes me as way too broad though. What's the harm in democratic organisations funding candidates?

It's a shame you couldn't just pass an amendment clarifying that the Fourteenth's reference to persons means (as the text clearly implies) human beings, not corporations. (A shame we can't go back in time and prevent idiots who can't read simple English being appointed to the Supreme Court.)

Alternatively corporate funding could be curtailed by changes to corporate law - is there anything in the Fourteenth which prevents legislatures saying CEOs can't use their shareholders' money for political purposes - or prevents making the criteria for allowing such a use so stringent as to be an effective bar (e.g. by unanimous shareholder vote)?

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

Don't forget to require free access to the airwaves and print media.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

Uhm, interesting proposals, but none of them specifically address the influence of media on elections. They limit direct campaign contributions, so that politiciams may be less able to buy their way into office by buying ads.

But unless you restrict '1st Amendment' rights to buy access to media during elections by corporations, political parties, or other groups, I don't think we'd end up seeing much of anything but having political offices bought for politicians, instead of being bought by them.

Bob Smith runs for president on a platform of nationalizing Microsoft. What rights does Microsoft have to speak in its defense? What rights does the Sierra Club have to speak against a candidate running on a platform of draining wetlands cause they're too soggy?

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

quote:

---

What rights does Microsoft have to speak in its defense?

---

None. Rights are for people. Individual shareholders, managers and employees have those rights, and can speak on that issue as individuals if they wish.

quote:

---

What rights does the Sierra Club have to speak against a candidate running on a platform of draining wetlands cause they're too soggy?

---

It's probably a difficult question, especially given that NGOs are often encouraged to take on a corporate structure for financing reasons, but I don't believe an organisation with some kind of democratic structure, the behaviour of which is essentially humanistic (i.e. not constrained in its ability to behave morally by the profit-seeking bottom line - which is a legal requirement for corporations), should be treated the same as corporations. Which is why I have problems with Section 3.

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

I think, historically anyway, there has always been a struggle between wealthy individuals exerting too much or even undue influence on our political system and the rights of the "unwashed masses," or in modern American Every One Else. I'm not sure you can ever avoid this influence; perhaps the best you can do is try to limit the most egregious of abuses of it.

On the other hand, the rise in the power of the media is a thoroughly modern thing. True, the American Rebellion was in large part fomented by the press, and god knows it's been a powerful force since then. So, the media's reach and influence has been with us since the beginning. What's new it the blurring of news and opinion (propaganda). Yes, this also has been going on since the beginning, but an alert reader could usually tell the difference - news was only written and photos weren't easy to fake.

Nowadays, the government or political parties might present a position or spin as news being reported by an actual journalist in video clip - a powerful confluence of image, sound and word that wasn't really available until recently, historically speaking anyway. Even worse, the media has surrendered a large part of the objectivity for access - witness the "embedded" reporters in the invasion of Iraq.

All of this has been going on since at least the 1930s, but the difference nowadays is that it only takes one well executed instance of the above to almost immediately become "fact." The "reporting" of the Dean Scream is a very good example of this, as is the fact that as late as last November most Americans (I believe the figure was 68%) still thought SH has something to do with 9/11. We're so inundated with "news" that folks simply have to chose the most likely truth and accept it before another they have to make their truth-value decision, the new one usually predicated in part on the one they just made, requires your attention

So I would propose the following amendment:

Any news organization with a proven, direct distribution of more than 10% of the USA population who knowingly and willfully reports an opinion as fact shall be fined 10% of their gross income for the year for each conviction and the reporter(s) and editor(s) responsible shall be subject to up to six months in prison and/or a fine not to exceed 33.3% of their gross unadjusted yearly income for up to five years.

Dr Prius' Chicken Fried Monkey - When Only The Top of the Food Chain Will Do.

My concern with organizations is that they so often become Political Action Commitees. The NRA and the AARP are organizations that spend millions lobbying our representatives.

Is this bad?

I think so, I think that it has given an inordinate voice to organizations that don't generally serve the best interests of society at large.

Spitcoil, I believe that if we remove the undue influence of the major broadcasters, and the millions spent lobbying, our representatives will understand that the people own the airwaves.