Wolf PAC Amendment

[Ronnie]

Since there hasn't been too much discussion on this forum about this topic, I thought it would be appropriate to make a thread about it.  Wolf PAC was set up by Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks in order to create a 28th amendment that would "say that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians", thereby overturning Supreme Court cases Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC.

States that have officially called for a constitutional convention:
Vermont
California

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

What do you all think are the prospects of this proposed amendment?  Do you personally support the efforts of Wolf PAC?  Why or why not?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

An amendment against corporate personhood is a must, and it needs to be done right quick.

Either that, or the Supreme Court needs to reverse itself.

[ElectionsGuy]

I've woke up to this issue and hope this eventually wins. Calling for a convention is a brilliant idea because federal politicians won't do sh!t and only care about their donors and interests.

[Miles]

I'm a big fan of TYT and Cenk; hopefully this goes as far as possible.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah I think your average voter would be for it if informed of it; but that's different than getting the states to actually do it.

The voters are definitely for this. 80% said they oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it.

[Del Tachi]

I would oppose this amendment because I believe we should not limit the amount of participation to be had in our electoral democracy.  I refuse to buy the bogus assumption that elections can be "bought" - I do not auction-off my vote before walking into the polling booth, and what's wrong with our democracy is a generally uniformed and unengaged citizenry rather than an oversupply of money tainting our elections.   

[Indy Texas]

I would oppose this amendment because I believe we should not limit the amount of participation to be had in our electoral democracy.  I refuse to buy the bogus assumption that elections can be "bought" - I do not auction-off my vote before walking into the polling booth, and what's wrong with our democracy is a generally uniformed and unengaged citizenry rather than an oversupply of money tainting our elections.   

It's not the elections that are bought, it is the access to officeholders and the legislative process that is bought.

Politicians can't please everyone all the time; they have a finite amount of time and political capital at their disposal.

Consider the case of North Carolina, where state lawmakers have been criticized for introducing legislation that was literally written by lobbyists for Duke Energy (in many cases, the company letterhead was still on it). Do you really think those lawmakers did that out of the goodness of their hearts and a genuine affinity for Duke Energy, or do you think it's because they received large campaign donations from that company?

[NHLiberal]

Anyone who is not convinced of the pressing need for this sort of Amendment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

I highly recommend watching the whole thing, it's utterly fascinating, but for those who aren't, the basic premise is that Congress can't actually do anything for the people (both the right and the left- it's not a strictly partisan issue, even if the status quo probably hurts the left more and liberals are more likely to support a change) because all their voting decisions depend on what the people who fund them for reelection want to happen.

Campaign finance reform "isn't the most important issue, but it's the first issue." He instructs the audience to grab the issue they care about most, whether it be climate change, health care, etc, and tell that issue there "will be no Christmas this year" because this one is blocking all the others.

[Del Tachi]

I would oppose this amendment because I believe we should not limit the amount of participation to be had in our electoral democracy.  I refuse to buy the bogus assumption that elections can be "bought" - I do not auction-off my vote before walking into the polling booth, and what's wrong with our democracy is a generally uniformed and unengaged citizenry rather than an oversupply of money tainting our elections.   

It's not the elections that are bought, it is the access to officeholders and the legislative process that is bought.

Politicians can't please everyone all the time; they have a finite amount of time and political capital at their disposal.

Consider the case of North Carolina, where state lawmakers have been criticized for introducing legislation that was literally written by lobbyists for Duke Energy (in many cases, the company letterhead was still on it). Do you really think those lawmakers did that out of the goodness of their hearts and a genuine affinity for Duke Energy, or do you think it's because they received large campaign donations from that company?

Things like that do in fact happen, but it is not as if voters are denied recourse. 

There's nothing wrong with the state of campaign finance in this country that voters aren't given the opportunity to correct when their representatives come up for reelection.

Bad policy will result in politicians being booted form office, and the fact that corporate giants write some of our laws doesn't make them necessarily make them bad laws. 

[Ronnie]

Bad policy will result in politicians being booted form office, and the fact that corporate giants write some of our laws doesn't make them necessarily make them bad laws.  

It depends on how you define "bad", but corporate intervention almost always leads to inefficient laws designed to benefit them more than anything else.  The most egregious example is the current tax code we have, which is full of provisions written by corporations that include loopholes, deductions, and subsidies for those corporations.  

Also, as a Republican, aren't you supposed to be against "big government" and for the "free market"?  The plain truth is that the government endows corporations with artificial privileges that allow them to pursue profit for profit's sake, and as a result, they do not have the same kinds of motivations that our elected leaders are supposed to have.  They don't operate in the free market; they rig markets in their favor.  Why would you want these types of institutions to have a direct influence on the lives of ordinary people like you and me?

[Del Tachi]

Bad policy will result in politicians being booted form office, and the fact that corporate giants write some of our laws doesn't make them necessarily make them bad laws. 

It depends on how you define "bad", but corporate intervention almost always leads to inefficient laws designed to benefit them more than anything else.  The most egregious example is the current tax code we have, which is full of provisions written by corporations that include loopholes, deductions, and subsidies for those corporations. 

Also, as a Republican, aren't you supposed to be against "big government" and for the "free market"?  The plain truth is that the government endows corporations with artificial privileges that allow them to pursue profit for profit's sake, and as a result, they do not have the same kinds of motivations that our elected leaders are supposed to have.  They don't operate in the free market; they rig markets in their favor.  Why would you want these types of institutions to have a direct influence on the lives of ordinary people like you and me?

We could apply this same line of reasoning to any type of special interest group.  Should the AARP not be allowed to lobby Congress concerning legislation important to their membership because it may result in "inefficient laws"?  What about the Humane Society?  Or United Way?  Why is it okay when non-profits/special interests get involved in the policy-making process but its not okay when corporations do the same?  Policy should be judged on its merits, not who wrote it - that seems like commonsense to me. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Corporations should be banned.