UCLA Money Out of Politics - Live Event on Youtube Now (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvzd8HsqFs&feature=share

28th Amendment National Roadshow

Currently speaking:

MEDIA ISN’T HELPING

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on The Young Turks Network and XM Satellite Radio, and the founder of Wolf PAC, his “How We Can Fight Back Against The Supreme Court” < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-we-can-fight-back-aga_b_5088643.html> appeared after the McCutcheon ruling.

 

[cstu]

Here's what Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens has to say about Citizens United.

 

[cstu]

Republican congressman Jim Leach said "There is no escaping the reality that the precept of corporate personhood pushes American politics in an oligarchic direction.".

 

[cstu]

John McCain called Citizens United the Supreme Court's "worst decision ever".

 

[cstu]

Bump for new speaker.

 

[cstu]

Guy is having a breakdown over not getting to read his manifesto during the Q&A...

IT'S ONE SENTENCE!#!#!#!!

 

[cstu]

bump for Cenk.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvzd8HsqFs&feature=share

28th Amendment National Roadshow

Currently speaking:

MEDIA ISN’T HELPING

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on The Young Turks Network and XM Satellite Radio, and the founder of Wolf PAC, his “How We Can Fight Back Against The Supreme Court” < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-we-can-fight-back-aga_b_5088643.html> appeared after the McCutcheon ruling.

So what would this Amendment actually say?

You're amending the 1st Amendment here, do you see any possible negative consequences of this?

Any at all?

 

[SacramentoBob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvzd8HsqFs&feature=share

28th Amendment National Roadshow

Currently speaking:

MEDIA ISN’T HELPING

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on The Young Turks Network and XM Satellite Radio, and the founder of Wolf PAC, his “How We Can Fight Back Against The Supreme Court” < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-we-can-fight-back-aga_b_5088643.html> appeared after the McCutcheon ruling.

So what would this Amendment actually say?

You're amending the 1st Amendment here, do you see any possible negative consequences of this?

Any at all?

Some of us have more free speech than others.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's what Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens has to say about Citizens United.

That quote is not about Citizens United. Citizens United left intact all restrictions on providing money to candidates.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Near the turn of the 20th century the states wanted a direct election of senators, and Nebraska was the first state to call for an Article V. Convention in 1893. By 1913 the movement had come within one state of reaching the necessary 2/3 threshold that would force a convention. When it became clear to Congress that the 17th Amendment was going to happen one way or another they decided to preempt a convention by passing it themselves. The threat of a convention is the strongest message we can send and the most effective way to restore our democracy in the United States. This can and must be done in a far shorter time period then it took for the 17th Amendment ...

Mind you this was the same Congress that limited the representation in the House of Representatives. (This was also the same Congress that created the income tax amendment). Art. I, Sec 2 of the USC states:

The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative ...

Thomas Jefferson, whom the writer of the articles quotes, would have been appalled at how distant we are from our representatives. Mind you the law that limited representation from this ratio and instead froze in time at 435 representatives is just a LAW, and not an Amendment, it could be changed at any time. If you want to help limit the influence of money on politics one thing we could do immediately is return the HOR to the people and bring the ratio as close to that 1 Rep per 30,000 constituents figure as originally contemplated. That would make seeing and contacting your Congressman as easy or even easier than seeing your city councilman.

A few other thoughts here:

- There is also a movement for a constitutional convention seeking a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget amendment. Are we all in favor of this? How about a law ensuring that any law by Congress authorizing spending also must include a provision assigning a source for that spending? If we did not have a Congress and a presidency that acted as a national cash machine maybe there would not be so many hyenas hanging around trying to get to the scraps. Maybe if our government wasn't such a font of cash maybe we wouldn't have to compete so vigorously to affect its flow.

- Does this new law amendment mean that we will now be actually prosecuting federal politicians for quid pro quo? If a politician affects legislation or votes a certain way or does anything using his political position to favor someone who gave him money because he received that money, that is - as of right now and for the last few decades - ILLEGAL. Now if money is causing so much undue influence, WHERE is the prosecution for that undue influence by the current administration and past ones? Anyone ?

- You are actually advocating the first amendment of our Bill of Rights, ever. This is in fact a limiting of the right of free speech and it is the first attempt to actually limit constitutional rights, ever. That is the opposite of liberal, or progressive, legislation. It is in fact authoritarian. What's worse is this group is not telling you the actual wording of the proposed legislation. The people who will be pushing this will themselves ultimately be politicians; you are asking for a lot of trouble because whatever they say, or whatever you think this will say, when it gets in the hands of these people who love power it will be just truly awful.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvzd8HsqFs&feature=share

28th Amendment National Roadshow

Currently speaking:

MEDIA ISN’T HELPING

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on The Young Turks Network and XM Satellite Radio, and the founder of Wolf PAC, his “How We Can Fight Back Against The Supreme Court” < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/how-we-can-fight-back-aga_b_5088643.html> appeared after the McCutcheon ruling.

So what would this Amendment actually say?

You're amending the 1st Amendment here, do you see any possible negative consequences of this?

Any at all?

Some of us have more free speech than others.

Ha, that would be what the Amendment would say?

Wouldn't be surprised if that's how it ends up.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what would this Amendment actually say?

Larry Tribe has proposed the following:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.

I don't know what an "independent political campaign expenditure" is. Does it include showing Hillary: The Movie? I’d argue that it does not, since the movie was not part of any political campaign -- which means that Tribe’s proposed amendment would not overturn Citizens United.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So what would this Amendment actually say?

Larry Tribe has proposed the following:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.

I don't know what an "independent political campaign expenditure" is. Does it include showing Hillary: The Movie? I’d argue that it does not, since the movie was not part of any political campaign -- which means that Tribe’s proposed amendment would not overturn Citizens United.

Couple more thoughts:

- One word can make all the difference, between the ideal, and what actually happens. This is the 1st Amendment here.

- "independent political campaign expenditures" - well that depends on the enacting legislation that follows. If someone creates a website or writes a book or creates a distribution company/corporation to produce a movie, and spends any money to do that, and if the FEC interprets that as supporting any candidate, well then we have speech that could be limited.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

John McCain called Citizens United the Supreme Court's "worst decision ever".

Well McCain's known to be a pretty level headed guy.

 

[Henry Ford]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

Actually looking at those who actually voted as a guide it's more like 4000. But yes that is unwieldy.

1 Rep per 100,000 actual voters (given 125M in the last presidential election) gets us to ~1200 reps. That's pretty close to a state legislator or even some city councilman. I can actually email my councilman or legislator and get a response from him personally.

 

[Soonerman]

John McCain called Citizens United the Supreme Court's "worst decision ever".

Well McCain's known to be a pretty level headed guy.

He's pretty ignorant if he believes this. It's not even close.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Republican congressman Jim Leach said "There is no escaping the reality that the precept of corporate personhood pushes American politics in an oligarchic direction.".

From Rep. Leach's article/speech on the subject:

Example: A typical conversation between a lobbyist and legislator walking to and from a vote on the House floor goes like this: “Congressman, as you know, we maxed out for you in the last election and we and our allies sure hope to be able to more than match that support this fall. But please understand that tomorrow a bill of importance to us is coming up on the floor or in your committee and we would sure appreciate your support. And, by the way, how are your wife and kids?” Politely stated, but there is no reference to the common good. Instead, coercively implied is an ongoing, quasi-contractual relationship between an interest group and a public official.

These implicit uncivil contracts can be coercive even if never discussed, because corporate power, newly magnified by the Citizens United decision, can so easily reward a candidate or inflict political retribution. On the assumption, for instance, that politicians have an instinct for political survival, a key component of which is a desire to raise campaign revenues and suppress opponent treasuries, why in a corporatist political system would a politician want to speak up against the drug companies or investment banks if corporate monies can quickly be shoveled into campaigns?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/13/jimleach/LzSFIrx20POtAKoxCASxiL/story.html

Isn't what Rep. Leach just described illegal?

If a congressman has a contract with a donor to vote a certain way, and if he is coerced by that donor, isn't that actually quid pro quo at best, corruption at worst?

If Rep. Leach had that happen to him he should have called the FBI.

 

[Henry Ford]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

Actually looking at those who actually voted as a guide it's more like 4000. But yes that is unwieldy.

1 Rep per 100,000 actual voters (given 125M in the last presidential election) gets us to ~1200 reps. That's pretty close to a state legislator or even some city councilman.

I don't think I'd be in favor of only counting constituents by whether or not they voted in the last presidential election.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

Actually looking at those who actually voted as a guide it's more like 4000. But yes that is unwieldy.

1 Rep per 100,000 actual voters (given 125M in the last presidential election) gets us to ~1200 reps. That's pretty close to a state legislator or even some city councilman.

I don't think I'd be in favor of only counting constituents by whether or not they voted in the last presidential election.

I agree with that, you're right.

My point just being that right now we are around 700,000 citizens per rep. Is anyone surprised we are becoming more and more like an oligarchy when the same number of people are making decisions for ever greater numbers of citizens?

 

[Henry Ford]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

Actually looking at those who actually voted as a guide it's more like 4000. But yes that is unwieldy.

1 Rep per 100,000 actual voters (given 125M in the last presidential election) gets us to ~1200 reps. That's pretty close to a state legislator or even some city councilman.

I don't think I'd be in favor of only counting constituents by whether or not they voted in the last presidential election.

I agree with that, you're right.My point just being that right now we are around 700,000 citizens per rep. Is anyone surprised we are becoming more and more like an oligarchy when the same number of people are making decisions for ever greater numbers of citizens?

Not at all, but in the grand scheme of things I think the House is the least problematic in that area. President, Senate, and SCOTUS are much worse over the past few decades.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is also a case of people wanting the beer and drinking it too.

So we keep federalizing issues and areas of power etc. - which is fine because I agree we need standards and enforcement of rights - but this also means more and more decisions and more important ones get made by people thousands of miles away and the voice of teh individual gets diluted. Yet the same people who call for the federalization of a wide variety of matters also proclaim dismay at being marginalized.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

John McCain called Citizens United the Supreme Court's "worst decision ever".

Well McCain's known to be a pretty level headed guy.

He's pretty ignorant if he believes this. It's not even close.

Here's the funniest thing about McCain and campaign finance reform: he was one of The Keating Five.

Hilarious.

This reminds me of one of those lifetime convicts who suddenly get religion and become reborn once in jail.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wouldn't 1 representative per 30000 voters be roughly 7000 members of the house?

Actually looking at those who actually voted as a guide it's more like 4000. But yes that is unwieldy.

1 Rep per 100,000 actual voters (given 125M in the last presidential election) gets us to ~1200 reps. That's pretty close to a state legislator or even some city councilman.

I don't think I'd be in favor of only counting constituents by whether or not they voted in the last presidential election.

I agree with that, you're right.My point just being that right now we are around 700,000 citizens per rep. Is anyone surprised we are becoming more and more like an oligarchy when the same number of people are making decisions for ever greater numbers of citizens?

Not at all, but in the grand scheme of things I think the House is the least problematic in that area. President, Senate, and SCOTUS are much worse over the past few decades.

From the HuffPo article posted by CSTU:

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson

Just a reminder that for Jefferson the HOR was "The People's House" while the Senate was more or less the equivalent of the House of Lords, which it has become.

It's also funny that the website for the movement lauds the movement behind the 17th Amendment as an example to follow.... when actually Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures so actually campaign finance was not and would never have been an issue in the Senate if not for that.

On the other hand I shudder to think who Louisiana would have appointed if the original rule had remained intact.

Typically these same people are for federalizing more and more power over more and more issues and also for increasing the power of the chief executive, so not only are we federalizing and taking power further away from states and local affairs, we are centralizing that federalized power in the hands of one man - and yet people are surprised that the influence of money grows as we decrease the decision makers who hold that power?

The Constitution puts the power iof the purse in the hands of the HOR... which is supposed to be closest to the people. There is an answer here if the people look at it.

 

[higgins]

 

[Rove!]

This would give established media platforms most of the political power in the country....I'm not sure that's a net positive...