Proposed US Constitutional Amendment - re public support of candidates for elective government positions in the USA.

[Lee Hustead]

Proposed US Constitutional Amendment - re public support of candidates for elective government positions in the USA.

No money or value equivalent shall be used by candidates or in behalf of candidates to engage in pursuit of an elected government position that is not public money (acquired by the same means as all other funds of the applicable government entity). The public support of candidates shall be equal for a minimum of 3 candidates and a maximum of 5 candidates for any elected government position in these United States. 

Questions & Comments with Answers

Q - This appears to infringe on the rights of the states and any government entities created in accordance with state laws to control their own election process. 

A - It doesn’t infringe, it ceases insofar as election funding is concerned.

Q - What if there are only 1 or 2 candidates.

A - It is an intended obligation on the applicable government entity to find three candidates. That will be less costly than consequent judicial challenges.

Q - What about primaries or a prelude by any other name/method?

A - This requirement does not apply.

Q - Is it true then (re primaries) that big money could thwart the intent by flooding the candidate pool with its preferred 5 candidates?

A - That’s part of the reason we have judicial systems, to prevent thwarting of laws by any means. They could try, but expensive court challenges would follow and they would lose — not only waste of their money, also expenses of the applicable government entity, court costs, and penalties.

Q - But this will be terribly expensive for governments at all levels.

A -  Such thinking comes up all the time and amazes this author. Thomas Paine understood the situation 235 years ago when he was a primary creator of the USA. All the big money used now to buy votes comes from you the consumers. This amendment not only eliminates big money dominance of elections but enables the public consumers to determine how much money gets spent on election campaigns.

Q - This would unconstitutionally prohibit a person from spending their own money to seek political office.

A - It would end Mr or Mrs deep pockets from gaining political power based on their money rather than merit, but they could compete fairly based on merit.  An amendment is part of the constitution so it would not be unconstitutional.

Q - Big money of every variety will fight this tooth and nail, it will never gain approval by 3/4ths of the states, thats why Republican “big money” expends so much on state control.

A - That is correct. Once big money is allowed on the public chess board, it is very difficult to achieve one person one vote equivalency. However the progressive movement achieved such success once before — with the 16th through 19th amendments to the constitution. 16th — Income Tax, 17 - Direct election of Senators, 18th - Prohibition, 19th - Women's vote.  At that time however the progressive movement was strong across party lines, and prohibition gained religious support comparable to that of the woman's vote issue. “Progressive” has meaning - an evolutionary quest for truth in all things. If it is true that one person one vote equivalency is true public value it is part of our definition and we shall proceed until it is achieved. Are you with us???

Q - I don’t like this idea, too much power in the federal government, and money is often proportional to merit.

A - Then you should post an alternative and explain why it is better. While you are at it explain how federal government power is bad and state government power is so much better. If there is hullabaloo about unfair limitations on voting, from whence does it originate — or is unfairness in voting what you would like?  And if money is proportional to merit shouldn’t we eliminate voting and let kings rule?  Whether you title it king, despot, prince or whatever, it will eventually be one ruling family with results the same as in the dark ages or Saudi Arabia today.

[John Mulkins]

HI Lee,

just thought I'd weigh in.

My position is that "We the People" should have a civic institution which studies good governance and constitutional design. It would then suggests to the nation on a regular basis, changes to our constitution which would be voted on, for or against, in a national referendum, scheduled as needed or periodically. Clearly this institution would need to be nonpartisan and free of corruption. How it functions would be up to "We the People" to decide.

This ensures that the sovereignty of the citizens is always primary in our politics.

There are many undemocratic aspects of our constitution. These are presented for argument in Sanford Levison's book, "Framed. America's 51 constitutions and the Crisis of Governance"

There are several disparate but allied organizations which are trying to address the numerous constitutional issues that effectively institutionalize our "broken" government.

Until a much stronger and unified institution is formed and functioning, it is my feeling that our government will continue to be inadequate at best, and that constitutional reform will be too incremental to matter.

We can make incremental changes, but at the core of all our concerns is the design of our political system. The framers made a huge contribution towards the advancement of democracy, but they never intended their version to last. They understood that subsequent generations would need to modernize their constitution.

If you are interested in that discussion, I welcome an exchange of ideas.

All the best,

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PDA End Corporate Rule" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to campaign-to-end-corpo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
John Mulkins

Let's all remember why we are here in the first place.

[Lee Hustead]

Reply to John from Lee -- I agree with your sentiments. However as said earlier here under "Buying of Votes" , to ever get your idea started such that it was truly by "we the people" on a one person one vote equivalency basis, we will have to develop a process to exclude the pervasive "one vote per dollar" problem. === Lee

[John Mulkins]

As conditions escalate globally and inequality worsens, there is a very natural tendency for stressed populations to revolt.

The question is how will that revolt happen.

If people organize to own their governments by creating the necessary institutions that can manifest that ideal, the revolution will be gradual although steady, and non-violent.

I certainly prefer this over the alternative.

If societies fracture and they are left to organize after the fact, it will likely result in violent transitions, which cannot end in any positive way.

While the arguments for addressing one central aspect of broken government is appealing in it's simplicity, the urgency to prepare for a peaceful transition into the 22 century is all too pressing and real.

The evolution of every political system cannot be ignored nor left to chance. Humanity now possesses the technology to create a global discussion instantaneously. That discussion needs to be about the right of all human beings to a government that represents them, not the corporatocracy, and how we as citizens safegaurd our political system from corruption. Failing to create that discussion now would be a moral failure I feel.

in peace

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PDA End Corporate Rule" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to campaign-to-end-corpo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RKean]

Hi Lee, John, and Everybody,
I'm new to this discussion and may not be totally clear about the particulars, but it seems to me that these 2 ideas are very complementary. That is, if we had a "Constitution Review and Update" commission that reported to the country, maybe only every 4  years, on what issues have emerged that could require a Constitution update/amendment, this could make it much easier for initiatives like moving to using only public money for election campaigns much less arduous.  There would be a recognition that such constitutional changes are anticipated and are not akin to amending the Ten Commandments.

So, is there a way they could be pursued simultaneously using the public money issue as the example of the sort of needed change that the Constitution Review and Update Commission would identify and formulate? Also, John you mention that the framers didn't intend for the constitution to be set in stone but to evolve. Many Americans probably see this as close to heresy. Could you suggest which of the framers spoke to this back in the day? Thanks.
Rosemary

[John Mulkins]

Thanks Rosemary,

Your thoughts are very much appreciated and very much in line with mine and a number of others I have been networking with.

I did a quick search on the subject you asked about and in one minute found this. There are many other sources, including Jefferson's own writings, but this is interesting for the chronology of efforts made in the past by a number of people, including Presidents.

"There have been many proposals for substantial change to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. James Madison, Jefferson's contemporary, found comfort in knowing that the populace would not be thrust into political turmoil every 20 years, and noted that the way the Constitution is now structured, it implies an acceptance of the status quo unless explicitly changed."

Here is the link: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

I agree with Jefferson, not Madison obviously.

Given that technology has fundamentally changed the way we communicate, We the People could create a national discussion quickly. It seems to me that we just need the support and involvement of a few key people.
That group could also be the advisory board or directors of this institution.
Forming a national institution that is solely focused on good governance and constitutional evolution is urgently needed.

Americans have been blinded to the power of sovereignty. It will take great leadership to truly give power back to the people.

Clearly having significant control over the structure and dynamics of our constitution should not be a hard sell whe we are facing so many challenges.
 

There are many ways to rewrite our constitution which could make American a much more democratic country.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PDA End Corporate Rule" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to campaign-to-end-corpo...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.