The 99% Declaration » 1. Elimination of the Corporate State

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

##

# 1. Elimination of the Corporate State

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

Elimination of the Corporate State. The merger of the American political system of republican democracy with the economic system of capitalism has resulted in the establishment of a corporate government of, by and for the benefit of domestic and multinational corporations. Therefore, the 99% of the American People demand an immediate ban on all direct and indirect private contributions of anything of value, to all politicians serving in or running for federal office in the United States. This ban shall extend to all individuals, corporations, “political action committees,” “super political action committees,” lobbyists, unions and all other sources of private money or things of value, including but not limited to, direct or indirect gifts and/or promises of employment. Private funding of political campaigns by concentrated sources of wealth such as corporations have completely corrupted our political system. Therefore, all private funding of political campaigns shall be replaced by the fair, equal and TOTAL public financing of all federal political campaigns.

We, the 99% of the American People, categorically REJECT the concepts that corporations are persons and that money is equivalent to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest people, corporations and entities possessing concentrated wealth would have a meaningful voice in our society. We demand the immediate and complete elimination of all private political contributions through the enactment of new campaign finance laws and amendment of the Constitution if necessary. It has become clear that politicians in the United States cannot or will not regulate themselves and have become the exclusive representatives of corporations, unions and the very wealthy who indirectly and directly spend vast sums of money on political campaigns to influence the candidates’ decisions when they attain office. This cycle of legalized bribery ensures the reelection of the same corrupt politicians year after year despite historically low approval ratings.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 9.4/10 (43 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +41 (from 47 votes)
1. Elimination of the Corporate State, 9.4 out of 10 based on 43 ratings

- Post to Facebook
- Post to Twitter
- Add to LinkedIn
- Post to Delicious
- Post to StumbleUpon
- Send via Gmail
- Send via E-mail program
- Print with PrintFriendly
- Add to Tumblr

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
0

### 62 Responses to “1. Elimination of the Corporate State”

1. flaja says:
   2012/01/25 at 12:33 pm

   This is part of Ten-Squared, a campaign platform that I have written for America’s PRIDE (Progress Reform Initiative Dedication Empowerment) an alternative political party that I would like to establish. America’s PRIDE is center-left on economic issues; hawkish on national security and foreign policy and conservative on social issues. And I point out that while Barak Obama supports gay marriage and he won both Florida and California in 2008 both of these states passed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and in California more than half of Hispanics and 70% of blacks voted for the ban http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/08/blacks-hispanics-nixed-gay-marriage/?page=all. Inner city blacks were more likely to vote for the ban in California than suburban Republicans were. If the Republican Party were not so libertarian it would have a fighting chance of taking minority votes away from the Democrats based on social issues.

   Article 5
   End the Corporate State
   A. Submit the Political Party Rights Amendment to conventions in the several states for ratification:
   1. Clause 1
   A political party shall be any association of electors for United States representatives which is organized to nominate candidates for offices of public trust under the United States or any of the several states according to a written charter which shall define the requirements for obtaining membership in the party, the procedures for nominating candidates for offices of public trust under the United States and the states wherein the party is organized, the procedures for performing party functions and procedures for amending the charter.
   2. Clause 2
   No political party may receive any monetary contribution except from such individual persons who are members thereof and no member of a political party may make a monetary contribution to any political party organization, which does not have jurisdiction over the member.
   Neither the Congress, nor any of the several states, may regulate financial contributions made to a political party by the members thereof.
   3. Clause 3
   All members of a political party shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state wherein they reside.
   4. Clause 4
   Neither the Congress, nor any of the several states may, except where otherwise provided for by this Constitution, alter the rules which are implemented by a political party to govern its functions or its procedures for nominating candidates for offices of public trust under the United States or any of the several states.
   Political parties may nominate candidates for election to any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states.
   5. Clause 5
   All income and property totally owned by a political party shall be exempt from all taxation.
   Neither the Congress, nor any of the several states, may restrict the number of publications a political party may wish to produce or the number of facilities it may wish to operate for the purpose of broadcasting electronic signals and a political party may use such publications or facilities for the purpose of raising revenue to provide for the political party’s functions.
   6. Clause 6
   No political party may provide any person with a financial compensation in excess of what is reasonable for services rendered.
   B. Submit the Rights Restoration Amendment to conventions in the several states for ratification:
   1. Clause 1
   Neither the United States, nor the states nor any entity created by the constitution, or the legislative authority, or the electors of any state, may take private property for the purpose of facilitating commerce for profit.
   2. Clause 2
   he Judicial power of the United States and the judicial power of the several states shall not be construed to extend to any suit in equity, commenced or prosecuted against any citizen of the United States or any association thereof by the United States, by a state or by any entity created by the constitution, or the legislative authority, or the electors of any state.
   3. Clause 3
   Neither the United States, nor the states, nor any entity created by the constitution, or the legislative authority or the electors of any state may place any undue restriction on the use of private property for the purposes of preserving any natural habitat of living organisms, conserving any species of living organism or otherwise regulating the use of natural resources contained therein without providing just compensation to the property owner.
   4. Clause 4
   The United States and each of the several states may impose punishment on any citizen therein upon conviction of any misdemeanor, felony, high crime, capital crime or any other infamous crime, but no citizen so convicted shall be held accountable for any expression of thought, utterance of speech, operation of the press or broadcast of any electronic signal committed as a consequence of committing any crime herein enumerated.
   5. Clause 5
   The twenty-third article of amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed. After one year from the ratification of this amendment all territory within the district constituting the seat of government of the United States which is not owned by the United States shall be ceded to the state, or states, from whose cession such district was created and the citizens of such district shall thereupon have the full rights and privileges of the citizens of the state wherein they reside.
   C. Immediately end all taxpayer subsidies for professional athletic leagues and performing arts companies.
   D. Implement Project SANE, Saving America’s Neighborhood Economy
   1. Restrict retail business hours to no more than seventy-two hours per week and no more than twenty-four consecutive hours in any period of seventy-two hours;
   2. Mandate by law that retailers offer rain checks and refrain from limiting the quantity that may be purchased whenever a product or service is advertised for sale at a particular price or a particular amount of discount off of the prevailing price thirty days prior to the starting date for the sale- and
   3. Mandate by law that merchandise is sold at public auction, which has been advertised for at least one hundred and twenty consecutive days whenever a retail establishment ceases to conduct business.
   4. Regulation of retail trade environments:
   a. Prohibit by law the entry of persons under the age of thirteen years and otherwise require hardhats or other head protection for all persons who enter a facility where merchandise is displayed for sale or stored prior to sale greater than eight feet from the floor or ground;
   b. Prohibit by law the operation of forklifts within ten thousand feet of any facility that is open to the public for the purpose of conducting wholesale or retail trade- and
   c. Mandate by law that all persons who come within one thousand feet of power machinery in a facility where wholesale or retail trade is conducted have hearing protection.
   5. Use tax policy at every level of government to encourage the use of local community currencies.
   6. Immediately implement a progressive wholesale sales tax with rates determined by the number of products bought for resale so no retailer can achieve an advantage over competitors by virtue of buying in bulk.
   E. Reform Minimum Wage
   1. Progressive Minimum Wage
   Mandate a progressive minimum wage whenever an employer hires employees that work less than forty hours per week to avoid paying benefits that are based on the number of hours worked per week.
   2. Salaried Employees
   Mandate by law a minimum wage and maximum workweek hours for all salaried employees.
   3. Cost of Living Minimum Wage
   Establish a geography-based minimum wage which is triennially indexed to the cost of living which shall include food, energy, housing and transportation.
   4. Training Wage
   Abolish all training wages.
   F. Submit the Democracy Restoration Amendment to conventions in the several states for ratification.
   1. Clause 1
   The twenty-second article of amendment to this constitution and all provisions in the constitutions and laws of the several states affecting the number of terms a person may serve in the same office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states are hereby repealed.
   No person who has served in or exercised the powers of any office of public trust under this constitution or the constitutions of the several states for more than five-halves of the term for such office shall be eligible for election to the same office or eligible to exercise the powers of the same office prior to the next second consecutive election for the office.
   2. Clause 2
   All persons who are constitutionally eligible to serve in any office of public trust under the United States or any one of the several states shall qualify for the ballot for such office in a manner prescribed by law but such qualification shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any tax, assessment or fee or to submit any petition.
   3. Clause 3
   No person who has qualified as a candidate for election to any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states may be a candidate for any other office in the same election.
   4. Clause 4
   Electors for any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states may cast a ballot for any person constitutionally eligible to serve in such office, and the appropriate authority shall acknowledge and count all such ballots.
   5. Clause 5
   No person who holds or otherwise exercises the power of any office of public trust under the United States or under any state shall be eligible for election or appointment to any other office within the term of two years subsequent to the expiration of the term for the office that is already held or the powers of which are already exercised.
   6. Clause 6
   No person may be chosen as an elector for president or vice-president by the electors for United States Representatives or otherwise be elected to any office of public trust under the United States or any state except upon the concurrence of a majority of the electors casting ballots in the last election therefore except when offices are apportioned in proportion to the concurrence of the electors.
   7. Clause 7
   All districts designated for the sole purpose of electing members of legislative or regulatory bodies under the United States or any state shall have a continuous geographic area and a population as equal as is practical and shall be designated without regard to the race, national origin, income, property or political affiliation of the electors residing therein. Such districts shall be examined and all required adjustments made after every fifth election for the body for which they are designated.
   8. Clause 8
   All persons who are eligible for election to any office of public trust under the United States or any state may appropriate money and property therefore as they deem necessary, but may not otherwise receive any contribution of money or property except from such individual persons that are eligible to serve as an elector for the office sought and all contributions not received within the period of one year preceding the election for the office sought shall accrue to the treasury of the United States.
   9. Clause 9
   Except for associations of United States citizens that are established to nominate candidates for offices of public trust under the United States or under the several states, no association established for the purpose of lobbying the electors of any state shall receive any contribution of money or property for such purpose except from such individual persons that are eligible to serve as an elector for United States representatives within the state where the association is established as the laws of United States and the several states may require and no contribution may exceed the amount which the Congress and the legislatures of the several states may determine by law.
   10. Clause 10
   No person shall serve as an elector for any office of public trust under the United States or any state for a term exceeding six years without demonstrating, in a manner which Congress shall determine by law, the competency which is required of naturalized citizens of the United States.
   No person shall serve as an elector for any office of public trust under the United States or any state except upon residing in the district in which the election is to be conducted since attaining the age of eighteen years or since the time at which the district was created or for a period of one year prior to the date of the election.
   After the first day of January in the first odd numbered year after the ratification of this amendment all registrations maintained for any elector for any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states shall be null and void.
   The legislature of each of the several states shall designate officials and deputies thereof which shall be charged with maintaining a roll of electors for United States representatives residing within their respective states and such rolls shall record the name, place of residence, date of birth and the political party affiliation or non-affiliation for each elector as well as identifying the districts in which the elector is qualified to cast a ballot.
   The officials charged with maintaining a roll of electors in each of the several states, or deputies thereof, shall within the period of sixty days, thirty days and fourteen days previous to any election, issue to each elector for the election an identification devise which shall include the date of the election, the place at which the elector may cast a ballot therein and all information which the officials maintain in their respective rolls of electors and require that the elector present documentation to verify the accuracy of the information or corrections thereof. Any elector who fails to submit such documentation prior to seven days before the date of the election shall be ineligible to cast a ballot in that election.
   No person who was not an elector for United States representatives in the last election therefore or since attaining the age of eighteen years may be an elector for any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states until sixty days after the person appears before the official designated by the person’s respective state, or a deputy thereof, to maintain a roll of electors for the purpose of obtaining identification as an elector for the United States representatives.
   All electors for any office of public trust under the United States or any state shall be under oath (or affirmation) to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the state wherein they reside against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
   11. Clause 11
   Any person that has been convicted of willfully casting a ballot that is fraudulent in any election conducted under the United States or any of the several states, or conspiring to do so, or inducing or conspiring to induce another person to do so shall be subject to the penalties enacted by Congress which shall include imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and the exclusion of such person from serving as an elector for any election under the United States or any of the several states for the remainder of the person’s natural life.
   Any person that has been convicted of willfully presenting false information for the purpose of becoming an elector for any election under the United States or any state, or conspiring to do so, or inducing or conspiring to induce another person to do so shall be subject to the penalties enacted by Congress which shall include imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and the exclusion of such person from serving as an elector for any election under the United States or any of the several states for the remainder of the person’s natural life.
   Any person, not a citizen of the United States, who casts a ballot in any election under the United States or any of the several states, shall be imprisoned by the United States for the remainder of their natural life.
   12. Clause 12
   The Congress of the United States shall enact laws to govern the conduct of all elections for any office of public trust under the United States and all of the several states and such laws shall be uniform throughout the United States and each of the several states.
   13. Clause 13
   Neither the Congress, nor the states may require that any person, association or entity grant access to any facility for broadcasting electronic signals or make any publication available to any person who holds or seeks election to any office of public trust under the United States or any of the several states or to any person, association or entity that seeks to influence the electors for any election under the United States or any of the several states.
   14. Clause 14
   Neither the revenue of the United States, nor the revenue of any of the several states, nor any entity created by the constitutions or legislative authorities of any of the several states may be appropriated to any person for the purpose of seeking election to any office of public trust under the United States or any state or to any person, association or entity for the purpose of influencing the electors for any election under the United States or any of the several states.
   15. Clause 15
   Each state shall, under the regulation of Congress, enact laws by which Senators and Representatives of the United States and any person holding an office of public trust under the state who has served not less than one fourth or more than three fourths of the term for such office may be removed from office and a successor for the remainder of the term be elected in an election held for such purpose.
   16. Clause 16
   After the ratification of this amendment no person may receive a pension or other compensation as a result of having previously served in an office of public trust under the United States, except that such persons who are eligible to receive such a pension prior to the ratification of this amendment may continue to do so.
   17. Clause 17
   Neither the United States, nor any state, shall make any contract with any class of persons that claim compensation from the treasury of the United States or the treasuries of any state due to employment thereby.
   G. Reform bankruptcy laws to prevent the sale or other transfer of assets prior to a bankruptcy filing so such assets are not exempt from seizure by creditors, and establish an order of precedence for creditors to protect retired employees.
   H. Prohibit all corporate funding and sponsorship for public schools, NEST schools, and any college or university that enrolls students who receive taxpayer funded financial aid.
   I. Reform and strengthen product performance claims and labeling laws for health/nutritional supplements; cosmetics and processed foods.
   J. Enact the Capital and Labor Equalization Act, CALE

   Note: NEST means National Education Standards and Testing, a plan for a national public school system that is another part of the America’s PRIDE campaign platform.

   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. zippybob says:
   2012/01/22 at 12:22 am

   I only want too Z park two times but was in a discussion where this was a main topic in UK the amount is very limited as too what you can spend too get elected I am all for that limit amount and let the TV networks run debates
   i am the Zipster

   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. zlbh08 says:
   2012/01/21 at 7:54 pm

   We must develope a formula to measure the size and scope of corporations so that they dont become too big to fail.
   1. That their mergers make sense and benefit the public without destroying jobs.
   2. That they pay their taxes and not be allowed special tax benefits to stay or relocate.
   3. That they dont destroy local small business when they move in.
   4. That all foreign profits be repatriated and taxed at corporate rates.
   5. That the Attorney General enforce the law and use the Sherman Antitrust Act.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
4. karlie says:
   2012/01/21 at 2:25 am

   How about a grassroots approach? Co-operative takeovers of Corporations! Owned by the people, for the people. Worker owned!

   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
5. valleyforge1 says:
   2012/01/19 at 5:04 pm

   Is it not interesting that rich people want ajob that pays around a quarter of a million dollars a year. Thay spend millions to get it. Abe Lincoln would never have made it to the Presidency with current economic requirements to run.

   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
   - nitewatchman says:
     2012/01/20 at 1:07 pm

     They are spending millions of other peoples dollars to get the job. Business 101 Class – No business ever SPENDS money. Business INVESTS money with the expectation of a return on that investment. Therefore if a business invests millions of dollars in the political process, they do so with the expectation of a payoff in government contracts, or legislation passed in their favor. While I hate to see the tax payer burdened with yet another item to fund, I believe the only rational solution is to have all political campaign financing come from public funds (tax payer money). By doing this the only “favor” a politician owes is to the American people. Doing this would also set an even playing field for all political parties and candidates. This could open the door for 3rd, 4th, and maybe even 5th political parties to gain prominence in the political process. Having more viable choices for political offices might actually represent WE THE PEOPLE better.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
     Log in to Reply
     - j2hoffma says:
       2012/01/25 at 11:22 am

       I think this is the key to getting anything else done. The costs to the taxpayer don’t have to be much if we insisted that some time on those airwaves that we supposedly own be used for elections. Buying broadcast time is the greatest expense for a campaign. Yes, it may cost taxpayers a bit for publicly funded elections but a lot more money than that could be saved getting rid of corporate subsidies.

       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
       - personhood says:
         2012/02/07 at 1:35 am

         This is so true. Lobbying expenses and campaign contributions are a tiny investment for much larger corporate subsidies and tax breaks in return.

         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. nitewatchman says:
   2012/01/14 at 11:57 pm

   I am glad this is listed as the 1st grievance because it is the root of most if not all of the problems we are facing today in our Democratic-Republic. We must face the fact that this is an inherent problem with Capitalism. We must separate our system of economy from our system of government and legislate that fact. The constitution reads that congress shall coin money and decide that value thereof. There is no mention as to what form economy shall be the official form of economy, and I think that was left out on purpose. Time and time again we have been given proof that a true laissez faire free market capitalism economy doesn’t work. There simply MUST be legislation in place to protect the economy from those that would manipulate a free market from those that would seek personal gain without regard to the impact on the rest of society.
   The big money corporate influence simply must be removed from the political process. Business class 101 – a business any business large or small never spends money, ever! A business invests money with the expectation of a return on that investment. So it stands to reason if the xyz corporation invests in a political candidate it’s not because the owner, CEO or shareholders of that corporation are concerned Democrats or Republicans, they are simply buying favors with whomever will pay back those favors by passing legislation that favors xyz corporation.
   Our constitution, our government, is supposed to be government by the people, for the people. We will never have a voice if corporate money is the only free speech. Political candidates running for office should be limited to the amount they can spend on their campaign and ALL funding for that campaign should come from tax dollars. That way no matter who wins a race, the only favors they have to payback are directed to the American taxpayer.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - sheshan12 says:
     2012/01/20 at 12:17 pm

     Aman.

     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
   - st7james says:
     2012/01/25 at 9:16 am

     Two thoughts here.

     1) Disproportionate media coverage by journalists and media corporations is still a problematic factor. A Media company such as CNN/FOX etc. can cover a candidate more vigorously than another due to their own investors private interests. In this situation money is not the factor. I don’t see how this can be addressed currently. And this does create public relation problems for disfavored candidates.

     2) I don’t think limiting funding is the problem. More funding means more access to the candidate and this is good. The problem is disproportionate funding. So here’s my suggestion. Tax-payer public funds be allocated evenly to each candidate running based on the number of signatures they will have gathered for support to put them on the ballot. Therefore, a candidate unpopular with the public who cannot garner enough signature support, will also not unnecessarily burden the funds allocated for election support.

     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. pclark44224 says:
   2012/01/04 at 8:00 pm

   Overall I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I don’t know about the semantics.

   I agree with the first article for the most part. Eliminating all private funds for political campaigns and substituting them with a public coffer seems ideal. I believe that, at least for Congressional seats, at money should be doled out by the sates in a method determined by each state respectively. No federal money should be spent.

   Though each state would be able to determine how to divide its money except as banned under Constitutional law, I would hope they would follow the model laid out for the presidential election. Any presidential candidate who acquires a minimum number of signatures would receive money from the public trust in proportion to the percentage of signatures received against all candidates. (ex a candidate that receives 10% of the signatures of the total signatures would receive 10% of the public trust) Any candidate that drops out of the race has any remaining funds divided proportionally among all remaining candidates. This ensures that no party or platform would receive any additional funds for multiple candidates.

   Keep in mind that this would only apply for the final elections. Any primaries within a party would not be subject to these laws as a political party is private organization and can govern itself how it so chooses.

   I also agree with removing legally recognized corporate personhood and the idea that money equates to free speech. Monetary transactions are trade, not speech, and so are protected under free trade. That being said the services of public officials are not for sale and are not protected under free trade. The tricky part is enforcing it. Unfortunately, I cannot see any way to separate a company from its rights that wouldn’t be dangerous and hypocritical. After all, rights aren’t granted from the government, but rather are present until stripped. So I have to say that a company has as much right to put up a billboard as I do to put a sign in my yard. They can make a radio ad as much as I can shout through a bull horn. I just can’t think of anyway to make it do less harm than good.

   I do have to come back to my standby with the Constitution. If we remove federal influence from where it has no legal jurisdiction then I think most of this problem would fix itself. Why would labor unions lobby if Congress no longer passes labor laws? Why would pharmaceutical companies shell out cash it the feds no longer passed drug regulations? There’s no return on investment.

   There are of course some areas where federal jurisdiction still applies (military contracts, tariffs, offshore drilling, etc) where there would still be problems, but the scope would be much smaller an easier to deal with.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - Mark Greene says:
     2012/01/15 at 9:42 am

     I think this is a well thought out comment. Not being quite as libertarian as you, I believe government can appropriately fill a less limited role than you describe, but that is another question. I don’t agree with the states doling out the public campaign funds for federal office. The Senate is the body which was originally designed to represent the states, and I am open to discussing the restoration of that arrangement (although unlikely in the end I would favor it.) The House is to represent the people individually, and the states should have no say in that.

     I am frankly going to be pushing hard for a specific grievance both automating and federalizing Congressional redistricting to eliminate partisan gerrymandering, which, in addition to and on par with the private money, is one of the taproots of the corruption that has sprouted in our midst.

     I also disagree that there isn’t a way to regulate corporate or other speech proximate to an election. I’ve not really dwelt on it intensely (as I shall between now and the NGA, but, as an example, we can prohibit the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, but not in the public square, since the yelling of “fire” in that venue caries no risk or public threat. So there is a conditional element to speech rights both in time and locale. To reasonably regulate speech with predictable political impact proximate to an actual election seems eminently doable, and to do so specifically recognizing the lack of standing of corporations, organizations and any other non-citizen to participate in the political dialogue on a protected basis seems totally defensible…

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
     Log in to Reply
   - j2hoffma says:
     2012/01/25 at 11:46 am

     Leaving the primaries unregulated leaves us with candidates for the general election that have been chosen either by parties, which are not included in the constitution, or by monied interests. So we’re back to the same problem we already have of choosing the lesser of two (or how many ever) evils in the final election. We need the level playing field for the primaries more than anything else.

     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
8. James Sanders says:
   2012/01/04 at 1:46 pm

   Really? “only done by porno sites and their ilk”? I guess you have no clue about those wishing to avoid people like you and constant attacks. I’ve got news for you, being involved in website design and domain purchases for clients for MANY years now, you might be surprised to know that people wishing to avoid people like you will do exactly what you accuse in your statement. However, as you’d have everyone ASSUME, just like you have on your crusade, that it’s for nefarious reasons instead of logical reasons of protection. Why? Because people like you can’t just speak your peace and stop. People like you do not know where to draw a line and let things go after you spoke your peace either. People like you are the kind that push and push, I’ sure to the point of sending harassing email and clogging someone’s in box as well. But do rant on. In time, TOS and policy will be posted, and when you violate them, it will take an agreement of 3 mods to ban you for good. Have a nice day.

   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
9. John B Brown says:
   2011/12/19 at 9:42 am

   How about this as wording for a proper amendment to reverse the corporatization of the US.

   “The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

   ARTICLE 28

   Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, entities created by operation of law are not persons, and do not have the rights of people.

   Section 2. No entity not a person, and no people other than citizens, shall contribute to any political purpose. All contributions to political purpose shall be made public, with the name of the contributor and amount and nature of the contribution, and the name of the recipient.

   Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation.”

   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
   Log in to Reply
   - Dan Long says:
     2011/12/19 at 9:52 am

     You were on a roll until you turned it over to Congress again!

     VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
     Log in to Reply
     - Mark Greene says:
       2012/01/15 at 9:47 am

       Every amendment has empowering clause. Otherwise they are worthless statements of sentiment with no actual force.

       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
   - dirtfarmer50 says:
     2011/12/31 at 6:09 pm

     dans right 100%

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
     Log in to Reply
   - blake says:
     2012/01/02 at 8:35 am

     I like this wording. Section 2 may need to be broken into 2 sections. With limiting corporate campaign donations in one section, and public transparency in the other. Also adding the lobbyist to the public transparency section would be good. Over all I think it’s a good framework.

     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
     - blake says:
       2012/01/02 at 7:32 pm

       I was looking section 2 again and realized that there were no limits the amount of the campaign donation. With CEO’s having control over their own bonuses, they can still donate from the corporate coffers by increasing their own bonuses. I was thinking of wording like this:

       “No campaign donation shall exceed one quarter of the yearly income of the minimum wage (measured on a 2000 hour work year) of the state that campaign resides in.”

       Today that would be a donation of about $3,500 to $5,000 depending on the state. With all the head wind for increasing the minimum wage from the Chamber Commerce and the general business cycle it would be nice to put one chip on the side increasing the minimum wage. Perhaps tying politician futures to the lowest wage earners would make the politician care for their needs more often.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
       - zarepheth says:
         2012/01/03 at 11:34 pm

         I prefer the original statement that no private funding of any type is allowed in any campaign or election. Rather, all election and compaign funding should be public, with individuals and corporations allowed to contribute to a public pot used to fund all candidates and parties.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
         Log in to Reply
         - peedropaula54 says:
           2012/01/04 at 1:42 am

           I agree completely, zarapheth.

           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)
         - blake says:
           2012/01/04 at 4:50 am

           If I were in congress would vote for the language you describe. My worry is that Mr. Roberts and friends over at the Supreme Court will overturn any thing less the constitutional amendment. It would be smart to have a large number of options, some short term and some long term. Several constitutional amendment wordings should be compiled, if one fails we’ll have another waiting to take a new swing at it. The main thing is to remove money from the equation.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
         - Mark Greene says:
           2012/01/04 at 9:10 am

           There can be no avenue left for private money, which flows like water. If the seal is not impregnable, the cancerous agent will get in…

           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)
   - st7james says:
     2012/01/25 at 10:08 am

     Let me suggest an alternate wording to sec. 1, and then validate the reasoning for the change.

     Section 1. For all constitutional and legal purposes, a person must be able to produce a birth certificate.

     The recent Supreme Court ruling of ‘Citizen’s United’ based it’s decision on an 1819 court decision in the case ‘Dartmouth vs Woodward’. Chief Justice Marshall ruled a corporation was an ‘artificial person’. This needs to be overruled. And the suggested amendment here could do just that.

     I feel my suggested wording would alleviate any future misinterpretation of what a person is.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
   - st7james says:
     2012/01/25 at 10:45 am

     Now I’m gonna suggest a different approach to how candidates obtain their funding. I suggest funding be allocated to candidates based on signatures gathered to obtain ballot access. Even the residing President would need to obtain signatures for his second term. Signatures could be gathered effectively online with a social security number and PIN arrangement, as well as the old fashioned pen and paper/canvassing method. I think fraud concerns can be dealt with by third party affiliations the public is comfortable with. Much in the same way votes have been dealt with for years. There has always been a matter of trust with the public regarding who is counting the ballots. But I feel electronically with open source code integrity can be considerably better than the past. I mean really, we trust our banking to be done online.

     The funds then would be based upon a percentage figure of the national average salary. This percentage would then be a multiplier of the signatures gathered. A candidate with good public support then would have more funding and vice versa. This would be a direct representation of the intended voting public and their choice for candidate to receive support. The funds then would come straight from the federal taxes. The funds used would be regulated by the governing representatives in Congress who would arrive in a budgetary manner at the multiplier to be used.

     So here is a suggestion for a Sec. 4:

     Sec 4. Congress shall be the sole contributor with regards to funding of presidential candidates campaign funding. And Congress shall arrive at what they may deem an appropriate amount of funding based upon a multiplier which shall be determined from the national average salary of it’s citizens. This multiplier then shall be applied to the number of signatures gathered by a presidential candidate who does satisfy all the requirements to be on the electorial ballot of each sovereign state.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
10. Mark Greene says:
    2011/12/19 at 9:24 am

    Yep, Calaveras – what she said…

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - calaverasgrande says:
      2011/12/19 at 10:25 am

      ok smartasses, how is this not some reformist garbage?
      If you study history reformism only leads to co-optation. SO many people like to use MLK as an example of non-violent activism that lead to reform. Well MLK did not engage the system of opprresion through reform. He was an active dissenter. He organized actions against unjust laws. He went to jail.
      Sure he met with some politicians, but never did he play that silly legislation game.
      And this whole hierarchy is disgusting. Anything that has a board of directors, 3/4ths of which are lawyers, is an abomination.
      I suggest you change your name. So as to avoid any confusion between a bunch of anarchists that will be rounded up and the nice social democrats in their prius hybrids.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
      Log in to Reply
      - Dan Long says:
        2011/12/19 at 11:34 am

        And we should pay attention to you because you are . . .????

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
      - reddog says:
        2011/12/29 at 10:03 pm

        “Anarchy” is described by the UC Davis police, in court, as “anyone who opposes the Government.”
        If we are all going to be ’rounded up’, that’s going to be one hell of a big ’round’.

        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
      - Mark Greene says:
        2012/01/04 at 9:22 am

        Why do we need to muddy our wall with this tripe. His commentary is not on the grievance under discussion, so I would move for removal on that grounds. If he wants to attack our effort and moderators want to allow it, that’s fine, but let’s confine such attacks to the proper forum. We have serious folks doing serious work here ya know?

        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
        - James Sanders says:
          2012/01/04 at 1:40 pm

          Mods/Admins are coming..along with policy of what’s allowed and what’s not..since obviously..some people cannot control themselves and find more appropriate places for such comments. It never ceases to amaze me the people on crusades that can’t seem to fathom the idea of posting their “crusade comments” in appropriate places. Now..if this really applied to the present area..that’s another story..but..it’s obvious the comment that heads these replies has nothing to do with what’s going on here.

          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
        - James Sanders says:
          2012/01/04 at 1:41 pm

          Oh, and do note all those “Flag this comment as inappropriate” links? That is the tool mods/admins will use to help “tidy up” the place coming soon. =)

          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. Dan Long says:
    2011/12/19 at 4:11 am

    .Ultimately, I would like to see a total removal of corporate donations to all Federal elections. It is no secret to any of us, that the lack of ethics within our corporatocracy has severely damaged our democratic abilities.

    In order to prepare ourselves for the expense of running our own elections, I would first like to see a 90% tax placed on all corporate campaign contributions. It is a voluntary tax, will reduce the amount of monies a candidate has to buy an election, and will seed the Public Election Fund.

    It is my belief that this fund should remain outside of the grip of Congressional spending, to be placed in a trust fund administered by the Federal Elections Commission, and monitored by a committee of Federally exempt volunteers to determine how much of a “grant” each candidate shall receive to run his campaign. Should the election fund have any funds remaining, they shall remain in trust until such time as needed for another election.

    Then, of course, once the fund is established to run in perpetuity through donations achieved when filing income taxes, and additional private donations not to exceed $1000 per individual, drop the hammer on the corporations by removing their ability to contribute permanently.

    If each candidate to the House of Representatives were to receive $5 million to run a campaign, that would be over $2 billion dollars that would be needed. I don’t think $5 million is an outlandish number considering what air time and publicity costs these days.

    And finally, to use my friend’s comment — “I’m just saying!”

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2012/01/04 at 9:16 am

      Why allow any corporate donations at all? They were not allowed from the early 1900s until the recent Citizen’s United ruling. It is not as though we’re trying to eliminate some long-standing practice, but only to undo a very recent and deadly action by an out-of-control activist SCOTUS.

      Regarding the proper amount of public funding (the only allowable source of funding) per campaign, it should be determined on a district by district basis, allowing for predictable costs for reasonable staff, print media, etc. and a reasonable number of media points achievable through paid media. I would concur on your estimate – house seats should run from $1M-5M depending on the district and media markets.

      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
12. Jean Netherton says:
    2011/12/18 at 3:05 pm

    Items 1,2,& 3 could be combined.
    1. Elimination of the Corporate State
    2. Abrogation of the “Citizens United” Case
    3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and
    “Perks” to Politicians

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (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 9:22 am

      I can see 1 & 2 being combined (although this isn’t required) and augmented by one not yet up – the elimination of partisan gerrymandering through implementation of an fully computerized system, divorced from human manipulation and proscribed from factoring incumbency protection into the algorithm.

      I think we need to consider which of the points will require Constitutional Amendments to implement, and which won’t – and group them accordingly when we can. Overturning and preventing a repeat of Citizens United will, as will anything compelling Congress to take any action, such as the gerrymander question. All electoral reforms are empowered under Article I, Sec. 4, but Congress will not regulate itself voluntarily…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
13. Amber says:
    2011/12/13 at 8:02 am

    calaverasgrande …nice try.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
14. Debra K. says:
    2011/12/12 at 7:20 pm

    I agree with Allison that air time (t.v. and radio) should be made available to a small degree for all legally registered candidatea.

    THIS SHOULD BE THE ONE GRIEVANCE ABOVE ALL THAT IS MAINTAINED IN THE RATIFIED LIST OF GREIVANCES sND SUBMITTED.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - karlie says:
      2011/12/13 at 5:38 pm

      It would be cool to provide air time – need funding for it. This is not funded by some big political money bags. It’s us.

      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
    - Sarah Bonner says:
      2011/12/17 at 2:29 pm

      I would definitely support the idea that air time should be available to all candidates. We’re a country where only the biggest bidder gets the air time needed to “buy” their election.

      I think it would be fairer to set up a program whereby any broadcasting country (specifically news organizations, such as Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc) can choose to set aside commercial time for elections and electoral primaries; however, if they choose to do this, they must provide an equal amount of time and comparable time slots for all candidates. Otherwise, they shouldn’t be able to run commercial advertisements for ANY candidate. (This would not effect normal broadcasters who should still be able to sell their air time at their discretion.)

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - st7james says:
        2012/01/25 at 11:15 am

        Some appropriate regulation might be good. These are private companies we’re talking about, but then the airwaves are a granted privilege and a powerful method of controlling or at least influencing a nations thoughts.

        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
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/18 at 2:36 pm

      While I agree with the air-time suggestion, it is important to recognize the nature of the fractured media market. Air-time could be compelled from broadcasters as a component of their licensing, but cannot be from cable and other non-broadcast media. I believe that a calculation per district would need to be made regarding how much a certain number of media impact points would cost, a reasonable determination of how many such points would be required for an effective campaign, and such funds made available. It would vary by district depending on the media market. Very complex calculation…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 5.0/5 (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 12:08 am

      The airtime (and cable/satellite/internet) costs would be much easier to calculate if we realized that all natural resources: land, radio spectrum, satellite orbits, etc… ought to be owned equally by everyone. In otherwords, they should be part of the commons and anyone who wants/needs to exclusive use should compensate everyone else for denying them access to the parts they are exclusively using.

      Cable and Telephone companies must acquire land, either by direct ownership or through easements and right of ways to lay their infrastructure. The cost of such infrastructure gives the first company to lay lines in a given area so much economic benefit that they usually become a monopoly or part of a duopoly. In either case, there is very little competition and customers must either pay full price or go without service.

      Satellite companies must fund expensive satellelites, which then must orbit the earth in a manner to not interfere with other satellelites. They must also use the radio spectrum for broadcasting radio, TV, telephone, and data to/from the Earth. Again, the expense of sending satellelites into orbit pretty much makes the first company or two into a monopoly or duopoly for the service they provide.

      Permits for installing and operating such infrastructure should be conditioned upon serving public interests – including fair and balanced opportunities for each registered candidate to espouse their views, ideas, and platform to the public.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - parhelion says:
        2011/12/26 at 12:35 am

        I feel that a use-based system would be beneficial, particularly concerning naturally finite resources critical for data services, such as the radio spectrum. Currently, the government can auction off these spectrums and then companies can choose to squat on what they buy. This contributes to the problem of data company monopolies, since they can in theory (and sometimes in practice) out-buy the competition.

        Given the era that we’re in, I think its high time we started to consider data services to be basic utilities rather than luxury goods. Basic internet access, quickly becoming essential for everything from applying to jobs to banking to applying to government programs, needs to be made accessible, and it is not the responsibility of the private sector to provide that sort of accessibility.

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
        Log in to Reply
15. Stee Katz says:
    2011/12/12 at 1:08 pm

    Why limit these regulations to federal office? They are just as important in state and local elections.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Debra K. says:
      2011/12/12 at 7:16 pm

      Our constitiution guarantees states. Each state would have to be peititoned individually.

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - Debra K. says:
        2011/12/12 at 7:24 pm

        Oops, * insert the word *rights* folloiwng the word state above.

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
16. Steve Wright says:
    2011/12/11 at 8:27 pm

    I think the ideas here are great. I would suggest a less inflammatory name, possibly something like federally funded elections and/or complete transparency of all political spending.

    I think the meme of “Take the Money out of Politics” has a lot of traction right now.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/18 at 2:39 pm

      Agree. “Corporate state” sounds all new agey to the mass public… We need to keep our labels and language as concise as possible. Taking three paragraphs in which to bury and explain our actual demands seems somewhat ineffective. My druthers would be in the format of “Whereas” and “Therefore”…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - mikejaskula says:
        2012/02/04 at 11:44 pm

        I agree that the “Whereas” and “Therefore” construction is the way to go. It is a well recognized format. It looks good. To some extent the format forces the writer to tighten up the language. Volumes of books can be written on each grievance, so the intent of the petition is not to give its readers a history lesson, but to highlight the systemic problems the movement has identified and to make a specific demand as to how each problem should be corrected.

        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
17. karlie says:
    2011/12/11 at 11:24 am

    No one is hiding here. Just volunteers putting stuff together from what we can gather via donation. For more info see: http://www.the99declaration.org/about-2/. Financial transparency is provided at the Facebook page currently: http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org

    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
    - reddog says:
      2011/12/29 at 9:59 pm

      Karlie,

      Are you married? And if not, would you like to be?

      I’m sure you’re not being paid according to your value and I don’t have a lot of money….

      Pete

      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
18. allison says:
    2011/12/10 at 9:12 pm

    We also need to strengthen the civil justice system to ensure that it holds corporations strictly liable for corporate crime, fraud, violence and malfeasance. This would include revoking the charters of corporations that routinely violate safety, health, environmental protection or other laws.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Kristen says:
      2011/12/18 at 5:44 am

      Yes, Please!

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
    - blake says:
      2011/12/30 at 10:06 pm

      I agree, we have a system now where the penitently for fraud or crime just becomes a cost of doing business. When one cooperation sees its competitors making a profit they will find ways of coping it. They will not care much if it is legal or not only that they will make money from it. They would see the penitently as just line item on a balance sheet. Now if they see fraud or criminal activity leading to jail time and the revoking of business licenses they would avoid those activities. Also the shareholders would have an interest in stopping such action rather seeing their investment being destroyed by fraud. Right now it only the shareholders own conscience that would lead them to speak out against the CEOs. Way to often the need to see their shares increase in value override any good nature they would have. The revoking of business licenses would give them a financial reason to care, and the power needed to change corporate policy.

      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
19. allison says:
    2011/12/10 at 5:53 pm

    We also need to ensure free and equal airtime for all ballot-qualified political candidates and parties on radio and television networks and stations. I also think that should include 3rd party candidates.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/18 at 2:40 pm

      Absolutely agree on independents and 3rd party candidates. The stranglehold of the two majors is one of the negatives we need desperately to overcome…

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
    - reddog says:
      2011/12/29 at 10:14 pm

      My thinking goes something like this:

      The President of Harvard addressed the first graduating class thus: “It is not our intent to educate you for that is your responsibility and a lifetime job,…”

      The first descriptions of the country in the first debate, envisioned a self-educated nation of readers and debaters who would form the involved, informed, middle class.

      Ongoing, constant, dynamic,…. and we now have the mechanism -the internet- with which we could have a reasoned consideration among and between the Senators and ourselves as an ongoing component of Democracy.

      TV is on its way out, nevertheless it is still living on the People’s Spectrum.

      Either that, or run a ‘Mic check’ on the steps of the Parthenon.

      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
20. Patrick Molen says:
    2011/12/10 at 3:43 pm

    It is HIGH TIME that WE THE PEOPLE, let our Democratic and Republican leaders know that OUR DEMOCRACY IS NOT TO BE SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER!!!!

    cut and paste below

    “Therefore, the 99% of the American People demand an immediate ban on all private contributions of any thing of value, to all politicians serving in or running for federal office. This ban shall extend to all individuals, corporations, “political action committees,” “super political action committees,” lobbyists, unions and all other private sources of money or any thing of value.”

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Log in to Reply
21. Vernon Welsh says:
    2011/12/09 at 10:37 pm

    This recommendation and “Medicare For All” should provide the most help to the 99%.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    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