The 99% Declaration » 3. Elimination of Private Benefits to Public Servants

- Video Chat
- Like This Page
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Back to Top
- Settings

##

# 3. Elimination of Private Benefits to Public Servants

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

Elimination of All Private Benefits to Public Servants. The 99% of the American People demand the immediate prohibition of private benefits to all federal elected officials, staffers, public employees, officers, public servants, officials or their immediate family members. This prohibition includes an end to the corrupt “revolving door” in and out of our government. Elected and unelected public officials and their immediate families shall be banned from ever being employed by any corporation, lobbying firm, individual or business that the public official specifically regulated while in office. No public employee, officer, official or their immediate family members shall own or hold any stock or shares in any corporation or other entity that the elected or unelected public official specifically regulated while in office until a full 5 years after their term or employment is completed. There shall be a complete lifetime ban on the acceptance of all gifts, services, money or thing of value, directly or indirectly, by any elected or appointed public official or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or any other entity that the public official was charged tospecifically regulate while he or she was in office.

The term “specifically regulate” shall mean service on or employment with a committee or sub-committee or service within any agency or department of the federal government responsible for the regulation of the person, union, corporation or entity seeking to offer a private benefit. To root out corruption and restore integrity to our political system, all elected politicians and public employees must ONLY collect their salary, generous federal healthcare benefits and pension. To enforce these policies, Congress shall immediately pass new criminal laws banning the aforementioned private benefits to politicians, staffers and other public officials. Any person, including individuals connected directly or indirectly to corporations, lobbyists, or unions convicted of these new criminal laws shall be sentenced to a term of mandatory imprisonment of no less than two years and not more than ten years. Private benefits shall include the use of any insider information as defined by existing laws, by elected and unelected public officials who attempt to profit in financial markets or investments.

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” -Benjamin Franklin, 1738.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 9.4/10 (24 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +22 (from 24 votes)
3. Elimination of Private Benefits to Public Servants, 9.4 out of 10 based on 24 ratings

### 36 Responses to “3. Elimination of Private Benefits to Public Servants”

1. mikejaskula says:
   2012/02/06 at 11:52 pm

   Public financing of campaigns (Grievance #1) combined with bans on gifts of all kinds to elected officials while in office and for some period of time after leaving office (which this grievance seems to be aiming at), will probably accomplish the goal of this grievance. Gifts can be defined broadly so that it includes a job offer or a job related to an industry over which the official had some legislative authority.
   A separate grivance should address the mandatory recusal of elected officials when a conflict of interest arises on a matter that is before them.
   I would avoid getting into the nits and grits of benefit packages in the petition.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
2. personhood says:
   2012/01/31 at 2:40 am

   I would like to see all public servants who can affect policy, including Congress and the Supreme Court have their assets in a blind trust just like the President has now.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
3. KrisLewis63 says:
   2012/01/22 at 1:29 pm

   I have a concern with the wording of the 2nd paragraph. John Doe owns 20000 shares of stock in XYZ Corp, a major business that deals with the Gov’t a lot.. He is not in politics. He decides to get involved, eventually making it to the Senate. Is he forced to sell off his shares until 5 years after he is out of office? This is not fair to him.

   I would agree that an officeholder may not TRADE (buy more stock or sell what he has) in afflicted stocks for the specified time, but I see no reason to make someone wreck their portfolio.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - personhood says:
     2012/01/31 at 8:15 pm

     If he had a blind trust like the president has, the stock could be put in the trust, I think and the trustee would decide when to sell. Not sure about that, though.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
4. bogotabro says:
   2012/01/22 at 3:34 am

   Yes, what chuck said. As long as there is money in the process, they will always be beholden to the highest bidder. Remove this heinous part of lawmaking and the lawmakers will be accountable to THE PEOPLE, just like it was supposed to be. It’s not how much they make, it’s who they are making it from.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - bogotabro says:
     2012/01/22 at 3:40 am

     And what Mark Greene said. This should not be a stand-alone grievance.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
5. chuck14od says:
   2012/01/21 at 3:24 pm

   Agree. A good example of this is the Attorney General during Reagan got the use of Aspartame( #1artificial sweetener now used in thousands of products) accepted, even though during the 1970′s it was declared toxic. Then after office, he got a great job(CEO I think) with the manufacturer of this poison. The point is, we must stop the kind of influence peddling that goes on by our elected officials and appointees. When they are so often rewarded for their behavior after being a part of the government by getting great, high paying jobs in the private sector they will Always use their political influence for their own benefit, not the citizens of the U.S. Not sure how this can be done, but it Must.
   Chuck

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - bogotabro says:
     2012/01/22 at 3:37 am

     hear hear. Lay off the diet soda people, aspartame is poison.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
6. Mark Greene says:
   2012/01/15 at 11:46 am

   I really don’t believe this grievance deserves this high ranking, and probably ultimately should be rolled in with the first or some other. I am supportive of it remaining an individual item for comment for the time being, but hope at the end of the day that folks will realize that the demonization of public servants is counterproductive to our effort.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - KrisLewis63 says:
     2012/01/22 at 1:31 pm

     Concur.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
7. wethepeople says:
   2012/01/10 at 1:47 pm

   This should be consolidated with Grievance #1, it is very similar to eliminating the corporate state.

   If our focus of greivances is focused on money, then we are no better than the governments greed.

   We are usually a reflection of our government, and sadly many people are greedy.

   Which also makes sense to focus on eliminating the greed, but we should try to be as concise as possible.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 2.5/5 (2 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - zarepheth says:
     2012/01/11 at 1:28 am

     From the comments I’ve read, it looks like the problem is not so much the value of the official pay and benefits received by Congress, but rather the apparent conflicts of interest between a congress person’s pay and what is in the best interest of the country.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
     Log in to Reply
8. pclark44224 says:
   2012/01/04 at 8:20 pm

   In terms of pay and benefits for congressmen, I think the simple and most effective solution would be to have all all such pay and benefits provided by the states/districts the represent. This makes perfect sense when you think about the fact that they aren’t working for the federal government, but rather for the states and people they represent.

   It would make it much harder for them to get money for a junket, or a pay increase, or increased benefits if they arent the ones that actually authorize it.

   In terms of private funds to politicians, apart from completely opening up their bank accounts and barring them from working afterwords (and thus providing a pension) I can’t see how you would enforce such a law. I support the idea, but the how is just as important as the why. Even more so at times.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
9. reddog says:
   2011/12/29 at 10:22 pm

   One of the underlying refrains across all these broken systems is “ill advised incentive structures’. This must be a fundamental consideration of any person in a Federal position of authority in the future.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
10. Gambit says:
    2011/12/17 at 8:12 am

    Congress should not have their own special health care program, they should not have any lifetime benefits, and they should not have a retirement package at all. This doesn’t happen for any regular US citizen and if they had to live within their means AND reintegrate back into society after their time in office, they may think twice about giving out those special back room type of favors.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - reddog says:
      2011/12/29 at 10:23 pm

      Hear, hear!

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2012/01/15 at 11:33 am

      This is untrue. There are many private employer pension programs with vesting protocols, employer matching to 401Ks, etc. To suggest that elected officials should operate at a significant personal loss is inviting even ore corruption and disaster. As a resident of Texas I can attest to this first-hand. If you make the cost of serving too onerous, you will attract nothing but despots and scammers. If we want to attract high quality representatives, and I do, we should pay them a fair salary and the opportunity to earn reasonable benefits if their length of service warrants. I have run for Congress and I have served as a local elected official, so maybe I have a bias born of experience that others might be lacking…

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
      - bogotabro says:
        2012/01/19 at 3:26 am

        I agree with Mark. Just as in the corporate world, pension plans should accrue with length of service. There has to be sufficient compensation in pay and benefits to attract the best and brightest into running for office. It’s the unethical financial bribery and corruption of the election process that needs to change

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
        Log in to Reply
      - KrisLewis63 says:
        2012/01/22 at 1:34 pm

        Concur. Perhaps something similar to the military?

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
        - personhood says:
          2012/02/07 at 1:48 am

          Actually I like that Kris. Why should the people approprating the money to fight a war make more than the soldiers on the front line?

          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          please wait...
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          Log in to Reply
11. Steve Katz says:
    2011/12/12 at 1:10 pm

    The 5 year period is not long enough.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
    - Patsy Messier says:
      2011/12/18 at 6:53 pm

      I agree, 5 years time is nothing now. I would consider for life.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
      - reddog says:
        2011/12/29 at 10:25 pm

        Putin wrote the original constitutional authority and nobody noticed the limit on term of President said “2 terms IN A ROW”. Now they’re noticing.

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
        Log in to Reply
    - Dan Long says:
      2011/12/19 at 4:28 am

      I would then be concerned about the quality of the regulators that we could attract. Hypothetically, if we hire a pharmacist to monitor the drug companies, it would not be fair to impose a lifetime ban on his ability to be a pharmacist again, nor to use the products that he was once in charge of regulating. I agree with the 5 years, though.

      I also see no separation of Congress and the citizens of this nation in issues of health care. They get the same diseases, should have the same preventative care that we have. However, if they show evidence of a blister from working, we should have it investigated immediately.

      I also see no need for a pension when the Congressman leaves office. If the title of Congressman on your resume or CV is not good enough to get a job, then why should we have to pay your lousy butt for the rest of your life. Put it back in the coffers for teachers, firemen, and the truly needy.

      And finally, convictions of multiple breaches of this law shall be served consecutively, and not concurrently.

      We are looking for those people that are proud to serve in this office. Not just those that think they deserve it based on their class illusions (delusions?)

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
      - robdinsmore says:
        2012/01/14 at 12:38 pm

        What type of pension do they get? How much does the government put into their pension fund each year? I don’t see anything wrong with them getting the same percentage as other government employees for the time that they serve.

        http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

        OK I googled a little. Looks like they are covered by the same basic plan for any federal employee. They need to serve 5 years minimum in any Federal position to get the government funded portion of their retirement saving plan. Figuring out exactly what that means is too much work for me right now. However the lifelong members do get up to 80% of their averaged final 3 year salary each year.

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
        Log in to Reply
        - Mark Greene says:
          2012/01/15 at 11:41 am

          Exactly – just like every other federal employee. As it should be. And their healthcare, according to my understanding, is also just like any other large corporation’s cafeteria plan. T

          They are,at the end of the day, our employees. If we want to treat our employees as second class citizens, we should expect second class employees. I’d rather we seek and acquire first class employees who will do the job we hire them to do – represent the interests of the 99%…

          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          please wait...
          Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
          VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
          Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
          Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/19 at 10:15 am

      I agree with Dan that we need to take care to not be too onerous. While I know that the $170k salary of Congresscritters is more than most of us make, it really isn’t extravagant relative to the level of responsibility they shoulder. Ditto for federal regulators. We ideally want these folks in their working prime, which means while they are working for us they are not working for themselves or private employers which would be paying into pensions, providing perks and bonuses, etc. Having been an executive headhunter and having a pretty good sense of what market rates are for top level performers, I would encourage some deep thought on this one. Here in Texas we have a low comp/low perk arrangement, and the result is that only crooks and millionaires can generally afford to serve. Elsewhere there seems to be consensus that we do not support term limits, and yet that is exactly what we will be doing if we make the price of service too high…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 2.5/5 (2 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
12. Silas says:
    2011/12/12 at 11:42 am

    I agree with 99% of this proposal, I do have a suggestion for a small change or amendment.
    The sentence that reads “To root out corruption and restore integrity to our political system, all elected politicians and public employees must ONLY collect their salary, generous healthcare benefits and pension.”should be changed.

    Congress should only enjoy the same health care as the rest of the American citizens. Ideally the single payer health care proposed latter in the declaration.

    Thank you for all your efforts that are appreciated. Please take this suggestion into consideration.
    Silas

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
13. Steve Wright says:
    2011/12/11 at 8:20 pm

    I would like to see all public official lose their exemption from insider trading laws. As is well documented in the book “Throw them all out” using insider information to make trades and gain access to lucrative IPO’s is completely legal. Congress members are going in middle class and coming out multi-millionaires.

    I do not think the lifetime ban for employment or gifts is feasible. Could never be enforced. Clearly the revolving door btwn Congress and lobby firms needs to be halted. Federally funded election would go a long way to eliminating the influence lobbies have on congress.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/19 at 10:10 am

      Agree, and think we could modify wording to eliminate any exemptions from any and all laws. “Members of Congress and all other federal employees shall be subject without exception or variance to any and all laws of the United States.”

      (Is this not already covered under the 14th Amendment? Yes, it is, but still…)

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
14. Tony says:
    2011/12/11 at 6:45 pm

    Our framers once considered the notion that the Senate would serve without remuneration as it would represent each State and its members should be considered the statesmen of the legislative branch. Not sure that’s a good idea in that it could lead to corruption. The Founders always believed the members of the House would receive pay; benefits came later. The question is: What’s a reasonable amount?

    Nonetheless, the biggest problem, as I see it, is the revolving door between Congress and Lobbyists. If we eliminate money and corruptive practices, that should significantly curtail that practice.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
15. Bill O'Donnell says:
    2011/12/11 at 10:53 am

    I see no problem in an elected official being able to collect a pension after his or her retirement if he or she has served the country through elected office, as the duties bestowed upon such an individual carry with them the gravity of the entire nation. I would argue though, that since the duties required of an elected official should be undertaken with the attitude of service to ones country, it should be reasonable for an elected official to accept a monthly salary equal to 160 hours at a pay rate equal to the federal minimum wage, and a monthly pension equal to 120 hours at a pay rate equal to the federal minimum wage.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
    - Nathan D says:
      2011/12/19 at 12:22 am

      I like the idea of tying the congress-critters’ pay to the federal minimum wage. That would spur them to make the lowest paid private sector employee’s wages as high as possible.

      Though I think other economic reforms would better serve our country, this would partially solve the conflict of interest between congress people and the 99%.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
16. Patrick Molen says:
    2011/12/10 at 3:32 pm

    Time to shake things up in Washington DC.
    Let our Democratic and Republican leaders know that
    OUR DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER !!!

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
17. David says:
    2011/12/10 at 11:04 am

    Why is the pension portion of this statement still in effect. Based on our founding fathers, it is supposed to be a honor to serve, then the person was to return to private life and work.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
18. Thania says:
    2011/12/10 at 1:29 am

    It’d be nice to see examples of each chapter (for lack of a better word) below the actual petition.

    Especially since a majority of the 99 percent are not familiar with political and legal jargon.

    Let me see if I understand correctly, does this mean that a President or elected official could not accept a book deal, if they had specifically regulated with a top publications corporation?

    **I’m sincerely asking, there was no sass behind it.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Would you prefer Michael Pollok, founder of the 99D, stay or resign?
Stay
Resign
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com
Should an anonymous donor be allowed to demand the resignation of a 99D board member as a condition of providing the match donation?
Yes
No
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com

Check out what's being said on all the Grievances and help draft the Petition!

1. Elimination of the Corporate State
View & Comment

2. Abrogation of “Citizens United” Case
View & Comment

3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and Perks” to Public Servants
View & Comment

4. Term Limits
View & Comment

5. A Fair Tax Code
View & Comment

6. Healthcare for All
View & Comment

7. Protection of the Planet
View & Comment

8. Federal Debt Reduction
View & Comment

9. Jobs for All Americans
View & Comment

10. Student Loan Debt Relief & Refinancing
View & Comment

11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit
View & Comment

12. Emergency Reform of Public Education
View & Comment

13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
View & Comment

14. Banking and Securities Reform
View & Comment

15. Foreclosure Moratorium
View & Comment

16. Ending the Federal Reserve Bank
View & Comment

17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules
View & Comment

18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and
Care of Veterans
View & Comment

19. No Censorship of the Internet
View & Comment

20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights
View & Comment

21. Ending the “War on Drugs” and
Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
View & Comment

Suggest a Grievance
Please check if your idea fits in one of the already suggested grievances above first. If not, please add your comments here.
Other Suggestions/Revisions
Please check if your suggestion/revision fits in any of the grievances above. If not, you may post comments here.

### Vote for Delegates

- Register to Vote for Delegates

### Become A Delegate

- Become a Delegate

### Get Involved

- Volunteer

The 99% Declaration Website by The 99% Working Group, LTD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |  | Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha