The United States was founded on the premise that the people could rule themselves without theocracy or aristocracy. Government of, by, and for the masses – int the rich and powerful. It is called The Great Experiment, and its success depends on a well-educated electorate. Sufficiently educated to understand not only the system that we have, but why we have it and how it works. And how it doesn’t.
The preparation of the voter so that he might express his opinion by means of the ballot, thus insuring political liberty, was one of the main goals of Jefferson’s plan for education which asserted four basic principles:
- that democracy cannot long exist without enlightenment.
- that it cannot function without wise and honest officials.
- that talent and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition.
- that the children of the poor must be thus educated at common expense.
Jefferson believed the elementary school was more important than the university in the plan because, as he said, it was “safer to have the whole people respectfully enlightened than a few in a high state of science and many in ignorance as in Europe” (as cited in Peterson, 1960, p. 241). He had six objectives for primary education to bring about this enlightenment and which highlighted what he hoped would make every person into a productive and informed voter:
- To give every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business;
- To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts, and accounts, in writing;
- To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties;
- To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either;
- To know his rights; to exercize with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment;
- And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.
The state of Jeffersonian enlightenment in the realm of civic responsibility and the promotion of a healthy democracy is deplorable. The country is full of jingoists and poser patriots, passionate to defend what they do not understand – and are therefore easily mislead.
We have been encouraged to value wealth over community, and the accumulation of wealth over patriotism. Citizenship has ceased to be a code of honor and is now reduced to simply a legal status.
The problem of civic illiteracy is not something new, but it is finally getting periodic bursts of recognition.
Asserting that democracy is not inherited at birth but rather learned in school, O’Connor founded the educational nonprofit group iCivics in 2009 to secure America’s governance and prepare the next generation of citizens and leaders.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seeks to reverse America’s decline in civics
Plans are being developed to “address the problem”. I say that with a hint of sarcasm because they are still treating it as a mere lesson to be learned. I think the solution will need to stress participation as much as scholarship.
- Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools
- A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future
- Hundreds Of Students, Officials To Celebrate Citywide Classroom Civics Program At May 29 Event
- Don’t Pick On Immigrants: Re-Americanize Everyone
- Good News About Civic Education in Tennessee (ncsl.typepad.com)
- Hundreds Of Students, Officials To Celebrate Citywide Classroom Civics Program At May 29 Event (sacbee.com)
- From Justice O’Connor: iCIVICS(tln.typepad.com)
We are seeing the fallacy of multiple definitions at work. Pun intended 😉
Pushing a weight up an inclined plane is work, scientifically speaking.
Raising children takes effort. A form of work that used to be called a labor of love. [sarcasm] Now that conservatives seek to demonize the word “labor”, we don’t hear that expression anymore. Maybe they’ll call giving birth “workforce expansion” instead of “labor”. [/sarcasm]
Ann Romney has worked at being a mother, but that is not the same thing as being a working mother. She may have made the effort and spent the money, but she has not worked for a paycheck. She did not have to earn the money she spent to raise her kids. She made a lifestyle choice that is available to fewer and fewer women every year. It is rapidly becoming elitist in the full meaning of the word.
Hilary Rosen leaving out the phrase “for a paycheck” does not grant Ann Romney license to claim to understand the plight of women who must be both mother and breadwinner. She has never been in that position, and never will be.
Conservatives have made hay out of substituting their choice of definitions for the meaning intended by Hilary Rosen. This is not honest debate, it is propaganda.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Hilary Rosen was right. Ann Romney doesn’t speak for women in the workforce. – The Washington Post (mbcalyn.com)
- Ben Romney Insists that His Mom Did Too Work Raising Five Little Romneys All on Her Own [Ann Romney] (jezebel.com)
- Rosen Attack On Ann Romney Not About Motherhood, But About Actual Jobs (lezgetreal.com)
- Democrats to introduce WORK Act to give all mothers the same choice Ann Romney had (dailykos.com)
- Did Ann Romney ‘Work’? (parenting.blogs.nytimes.com)
And a well-deserved veto it would be.
Holy Crap, Batman! Look at the numbers!
$46B added to the deficit in order to create 100K jobs. That’s $460,000/job. That’s likely 10 to 15 times the salary of the jobs created. There is no possibility that this would generate enough new revenues to pay for the cuts, even if the new jobs were taxed at 100%.
Cutting taxes for 22M “small” businesses to create 100K jobs means only 1 job would be created for every 220 businesses getting a tax cut – and that’s if the republican best-case scenario proves true.
I think that Eric Cantor and I have radically different definitions of “potent economic stimulus”. This is designed to be incredibly inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful as a “jobs” program.
Could the lies be any more blatant? Promoting this as a “jobs” bill is an insult to the intelligence of every American, and a clear demonstration that republicans are fiscally irresponsible in ideology and practice. After all, they can blame President Obama for not signing it, or the Senate Democrats for not passing it, and never face responsibility for passing it. I expect them to accuse the Democrats of playing politics in stopping this moment of insanity.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Cantor ‘Puzzled’ That Obama Would Threaten To Veto The Latest GOP Tax Cut For Millionaires (thinkprogress.org)
- House passes small biz tax cut (politico.com)
- House Of Representatives Approves Cantor’s $46 Billion Tax Giveaway (thinkprogress.org)
- Eric Cantor Touts Analysis Concluding That His Tax Giveaway Would Cost $1.1 Million Per Job (thinkprogress.org)
- House will vote today on tax cuts for NASCAR/NFL team owners (dailykos.com)
You never know when a moment of inspiration will come along and distract you right when you were minding your own business. I had such a moment in the past week.
It has been a long time since I read Edgar Rice Burroughs, and with the pending release of the “John Carter” movie I thought I would go back and re-read the books the movie was based on.
No, this isn’t going to be a book report. I went through my ERB phase many years ago. This reading was just to refresh my memory, but it got me thinking…
One of the fundamental themes of the story is the unimpeachable honor of the protagonists. It is, perhaps, a caricature or an idealistic representation of an age when a man’s word was his bond, when a handshake was as good as a signed contract.
When I read the John Carter and Tarzan books back in the 80’s, the willingness of the characters to accept calamity and even death rather than betray their honor seemed, at times, frustrating in its absoluteness. Yet its idealistic view of humanity had its appeal.
Adherence to a code of honor is what made the heroes, heroes; and the failure to live up to such a code made the villains, villains. Redemption was often achieved through a return to a code of honor. A century ago, the stories were popular and the ideals respected.
To set a time reference, the tale of John Carter began as a serialized story entitled “Under the Moons of Mars” published from February to July, 1912. Five years later, that story was published in book form under the title “A Princess of Mars”. There are eleven books in the series. They are all in my library.
These stories thrived through two World Wars and the Great Depression. Times when hope was in high demand. Perhaps John Carter, and Tarzan, paved the way for the golden age of westerns. The age of John Wayne, Zorro, The Lone Ranger, Bonanza, and many others.
I’ve been watching reruns of The Rifleman on MeTV lately, and the stories seem like they were from a different age. This was a show that I watched as a kid, but I see things in it now that I don’t remember from the past. Maybe I took the whole “code of honor” thing for granted back then, and maybe I absorbed it as an impressionable child. But in this day and age, it seems out of place. Cities, and people, have changed.
It also seems like the environment that conservatives want to herd us toward.
A time when almost everyone carried guns, and the rule of law hung by a thread. A hair trigger. The next shootout. Funny how things get broken or shot up each week, but nobody goes broke from the cost of the damage. Somebody gets shot, and they are either recovered or written out to the script by the next episode. Lukas McCain spends almost no time working his ranch. Personal responsibility. Self reliance. Nice and clean. How Utopian. All honor and community – and no consequences. The government is not giving away free homestead land anymore. People’s lives are too interconnected – with other people and with businesses. We are no longer an agrarian culture, and there is no going back.
ERB called his fictitious version of Mars “Barsoom”. It was a dying world where where life was both cheap and precious because the resources that supported life were scarce and dwindling – and fought over. We wouldn’t do that, would we?
He was well ahead of the environmentalists that conservatives denigrate. We are heading for such a world ourselves as the world population goes up even as our water and food supplies becomes more strained and vulnerable.
Big Oil brags about having 100 years of supply, if only we would exploit it. They use the promise of cheap and plentiful oil and natural gas to encourage us to burn through it as quickly as possible with no thought to the future. Barsoom paints an image of what happens when that oil and gas runs out, when the drinking water runs out, and we are not prepared for it because it was not profitable to pursue alternatives. It is a buggy-whip economy on steroids. I am sure the movie will be a special-effects extravaganza.
“Safely develop” supplies. “Millions of jobs” created.
There is no honor in perpetuating lies.
Where is the demonstration of honor? Is it in all the pledges that republicans require before they are let anywhere near the oath of office?
- The Grover Norquist pledge
- The Susan B. Anthony pledge
- Contract with America
- The Balanced Budget Amendment pledge
- Family Leader
- Personhood USA
- and how many others?
Each pledge narrowing the constituency base they are committed to serve, until they are committed to serve only a small fraction of America. That…is a crime against representational government. The party that wants to radically re-engineer America around the towering code of honor represented by John Carter never fails to prove that they do not, themselves, embrace such a code to any meaningful degree.
Lee Atwater, Rush Limbaugh, James O’Keefe, and FOX News.
Watergate, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, ALEC, sowing distrust of science, education, the free press, Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary.
The 2012 GOP primary season, and the death of the “eleventh commandment”.
The republican party is a living testament to the fatal flaws in their own ideology, living proof that they are committed to fantasy and failure – and dishonor.
They might as well be living on Mars.
As for me, I am presently in my Harry Potter/Honor Harrington phase. I still believe in honor, and am still drawn by its appeal.
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Now that’s a pledge to believe in.
January 21, 2012 is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Today, I choose to look forward to the day it is overturned. In that vein, I offer a survey of Constitutional Amendments proposed to achieve that end. I will analyze them in future diaries. This is just a reference.
Article V of the Constitution provides for two methods of amendment. Congress can propose an amendment with 2/3 approval from each chamber. Joint Resolutions are the vehicles used for this process. Once approved by Congress and signed by the President, 3/4 of the state legislatures must ratify it.
- Senate Joint Res. 29
- Senate Joint Res. 33
- Senate Joint Res. 35
- House Joint Res. 6
- House Joint Res. 7
- House Joint Res. 8
- House Joint Res. 65
- House Joint Res. 72
- House Joint Res. 78
- House Joint Res. 82
- House Joint Res. 86
- House Joint Res. 88
- House Joint Res. 90
- House Joint Res. 92
- House Joint Res. 97
- House Joint Res. 100
- United For The People
- Move to Amend
Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on–
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
Congress shall have the power to regulate the contribution of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations to a candidate for election to, or for nomination for election to, a Federal office, and the power to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations made in support of, or opposition to, such candidates.
A State shall have the power to regulate the contribution of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations to a candidate for election to, or for nomination for election to, public office in the State, and the power to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations, entities organized and operated for profit, and labor organizations made in support of, or opposition to, such candidates.
Nothing contained in this Amendment shall be construed to allow Congress or a State to make any law abridging the freedom of the press.
House Joint Resolutions and others after the fold…
In response to Newt Gingrich‘s allusion to Pearl Harbor as a parallel to his campaign failure in Virginia, I offer the preface to a book called “With Lee in Virginia (A story of the American civil war)”, written by G. A. Henty. Published by Hurst and Company, New York, it does not identify a publication date or claim a copyright. The inscription indicates that this copy has been in the family since January, 1901. Antiques Roadshow type stuff. It doesn’t look anything like the cover from Amazon.
I found Gingrich’s comparison to an infamous attack to be arrogantly dismissive of the tragedy and horror of war. His scapegoating was an insult to the courage and sacrifice of our citizen soldiers and their families, as well as a testament to the empty rhetoric of “personal responsibility” that is fundamental to the conservative desire to re-engineer America. He also demonstrated ignorance of relevant laws and outright contempt for rules that hinder his agenda in any way.
His failure in Virginia, and his response to it demonstrate conclusively that he should only enter the White House with a visitor’s pass and a Secret Service escort.
On a more personal note, I have called the present ideological battles a political civil war. I thought it would be appropriate to momentarily revisit that point in our history.
Yes, it really is all one paragraph in the book…
“My Dear Lads:
The Great War between the Northern and Southern States of America possesses a peculiar interest to us, not only because it was a struggle between two sections of a people akin to us in race and language, but because of the heroic courage with which the weaker party, with ill-fed, ill-clad, ill-equipped regiments, for four years sustained the contest with an adversary not only possessed of immense numerical superiority, but having the command of the sea, and being able to draw its arms and munitions of war from all the manufactories of Europe. Authorities still differ as to the rights of the case. The Confederates firmly believed that the States, having voluntarily united, retained the right of withdrawing from the Union when they considered it for their advantage to do so. The Northerners took the opposite point of view, and an appeal to arms became inevitable. During the first two years of the war the struggle was conducted without inflicting unnecessary hardship upon the general population. But later on the character of the war changed, and the Federal armies carried widespread destruction wherever they marched. Upon the other hand, the moment the struggle was over the conduct of the conquerors was marked by a clemency and generosity altogether unexampled in history, a complete amnesty being granted, and none, whether soldiers or civilians, being made to suffer for their share in the rebellion. The credit of this magnanimous conduct was to a great extent due to Generals Grant and Sherman, the former of whom took upon himself the responsibility granting terms which, although they were finally ratified by his government, were at the time received with anger and indignation in the North. It was impossible, in the course of a single volume, to give even a sketch of the numerous and complicated operations of the war, and I have therefore confined myself to the central point of the great struggle – the attempts of the Northern armies to force their way to Richmond, the capital of Virginia and the heart of the Confederacy. Even in recounting the leading events in these campaigns, I have burdened my story with as few details as possible, it being my object now, as always, to amuse, as well as to give instruction in the facts of history.
G. A. Henty.”
As a bonus for those who were curious enough to slog through this post, I shall include an excerpt from the last page of the book (covering reconstruction):
“For the next three or four years times were very hard in Virginia, and Mrs. Wingfield had to draw upon her savings to keep up the house in its former state; while the great majority of the planters were utterly ruined. The negroes, however, for the most part remained steadily working on the estate. A few wandered away, but their places were easily filled; for the majority of the freed slaves very soon discovered that their lot was a far harder one than it had been before, and that freedom so suddenly given was a curse rather than a blessing to them.
Thus, while so many went down, the Wingfields weathered the storm, and the step that had been taken in preparing their hands for the general abolition of slavery was a complete success.
With the gradual return of prosperity to the South the prices of produce improved, and ten years after the conclusion of the rebellion the income of the Orangery was nearly as large as it had been previous to its outbreak.”
I found it an interesting glimpse into the past, but with points that still resonate today. It would be interesting to explore just how closely the book parallels the plantation-era ideology of the modern republican party, if I had the time. What is one of the most surprising things for me was to find that the book is still in print, on tape, and even Kindle.
Paul Goldman helps Newt Gingrich with Virginia ballot
Now that Slacker Newt has failed to meet the minimum requirements for getting on the Virginia primary ballot, he has decided that it would violate someone else’s rights if they did not get to vote for him. How modest.
All he needed was 10,000 valid signatures. Signatures vetted by his own party. That’s less than half of the population of the suburb I live in. In WI, Democrats are collecting an average of about 25,000 signatures/day to recall Walker. Even a minor politician should be able to collect 10,000 signatures in their own home state.
Basically, he is embracing every derogatory mis-characterization conservatives have aimed at liberals, and justifying liberal cynicism toward conservatives at the same time. IOKIYAR.
“According to press reports over the weekend,” continued Pascoe, “the Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, per Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia, has indicated that he will be certifying only two candidates for inclusion on the 2012 GOP presidential primary ballot. Based on our collective knowledge and understanding of the state’s election laws – including a previous successful legal action by Mr. Goldman as concerns a Democratic Party nomination process – we intend to formally challenge such certification for specific reasons to be detailed at the appropriate time.
Yet once again, the law should not apply to a republican. It’s just not fair. The dog ate his petition.
“Our mutual goal is to ensure that the voting rights of the citizens of Virginia are fully protected.”
So they have turned against the GOP voter suppression agenda?
“As with everything we do in the field of public policy, CFTR’s goal is to empower the individual, in the belief that a free choice in the marketplace of ideas is what Virginians want to have their leaders achieve in time for 2012 presidential primary.”
Whatever they are trying to say seems to have gotten lost in the confusion of ill-fitting catch-phrases. This is just meaningless BS.
If he had been applying for a job (which he was), and he failed to fill out the application before showing up for the initial interview, they would have shown him the door without wasting any more time on someone who had already failed key tasks and started making excuses.
Cirque du GOP is coming to Virginia. Enjoy the show, folks.
- Newt Lashes Out After Campaign Setback (huffingtonpost.com)
- Newt Gingrich Says His Failure To Make The Virginia Ballot Is Like The Pearl Harbor Attack (thinkprogress.org)
- Million Dollar Historian Newt Gingrich Compares Virginia Ballot Failure To Pearl Harbor (mediaite.com)
- Gingrich faces long odds to compete in Virginia presidential primary (washingtonpost.com)
At the beginning of our country, all you had to do to prove you were a citizen was to swear to it. Word of honor was enough. Neither the states nor the central government recorded or tracked births. Then it required an oath. Then a court. And a witness. Then it went too far, with intelligence tests and poll taxes. Rules and laws were used to manipulate elections instead of protecting our suffrage rights. In the past year, we have seen a major return to such voter suppression.
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
The goal is to protect the most rights while ceding the least. Given the scarcity of fraud and the large number of disenfranchised, the voter ID laws are the embodiment of bad government.
Promoted as a way to protect the integrity of the election process, they accomplish the opposite. They are designed and intended to disenfranchise voters who are not likely to vote for conservatives.
In short, voter ID laws create the very problem they profess to fix – the manipulation of elections – and they do it deliberately. And with extreme partisanship.
- South Carolina Voter ID Law: Justice Department Blocks Controversial Legislation (huffingtonpost.com)
- Justice Department blocks South Carolina’s voter ID requirements (dailykos.com)
- Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory – Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
- South Carolina voter ID law rejected by Justice Department (mercurynews.com)
- Justice Department Blocks New S.C. Voting ID Law (npr.org)
- Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter-ID law – USA TODAY (content.usatoday.com)
The Wall Street Journal opinion piece passes out the business-centric blinders.
“No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year’s tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.”
True, but not the point of the exercise. Employers will hire when they see customers with money coming their way – which is the point of the tax holiday: Putting more money in consumer pockets. Wasn’t it the republicans who said that people know best how to spend their own money? Conservatives consistently devalue the necessity of funding the demand side of supply and demand. Instead, they are aggressively working to weaken the economic foundation of the middle class.
“Their first mistake was adopting the President’s language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference—and discount the benefit.”
So people will understand when it comes time to end the Bush “tax holiday” for the rich?
“Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he’s spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.”
Except that Obama44 has been cutting taxes. The “tax holiday” in question is only one example. Conservatives keep changing the definitions. Either the House republicans have voted for a middle-class tax increase, or we need to end one of the largest unfunded tax holidays ever.
Conservatives are nibbling at the edges of doublethink. The Obama44 cuts to payroll taxes and the Bush43 income tax cuts to income taxes are both temporary cuts. There is one notable difference between the two though. The Obama cuts are being paid for – how is a major point of contention. The Bush43 cuts went straight to the national debt.
The President and the Democrats want the rich to pay for extending the payroll tax cuts, and put some of that idle money back in circulation as an economic stimulus. The republicans want the middle class and poor to pay for it, which would negate the simulative effect and hurt the economy in the long term. Redistribution of wealth at its most ineffective.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Republicans lose the Wall Street Journal on tax cut ‘fiasco’ (dailykos.com)
- WSJ: GOP botched tax debate (thehill.com)
- How the Republicans lost the upper hand in payroll tax debate – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
- House GOP takes beating over payroll tax (cbsnews.com)
- House Passes Bill… for New Churchill Bust (newser.com)
- GOP senator says Republicans need to resolve payroll tax fight and ‘move on’ (thehill.com)
- Romney Boldly Refuses To Take Sides On Payroll Tax Holiday (alan.com)
State Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise) said that his reading of Article 8, Part 1, Section 6 of the state constitution would allow Pearce to ask the state to reimburse the cost of his unsuccessful campaign to fight being recalled from office this week.
According to records on the Arizona secretary of state’s office website, Pearce raised $230,282 for the recall campaign and spent $159,587. Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, lost the recall election in his Maricopa County district to fellow Republican Jerry Lewis.
This raises an interesting question of constitutional law.
Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.
But looking further (figuratively) – Article VIII again: Continue reading
Ii I analyze any more Democrat Bills, I will have to come up with a new category for them.
[Congressional Bills 112th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)] 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 78 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 12, 2011 Ms. Edwards (for herself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That 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-- ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. ``Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.''. <all>
This is similar to my second proposed amendment in that it works to deny Constitutional protection to corporate political spending. This is probably the least disruptive method from a legal standpoint, but it retains the “regulating the hand that feeds” conflict of interest problem.
It does not include organized religion, which should not be engaging in political campaigns but do anyway.
To be fair, it does not include unions either. On the other hand, unions are associations of actual people, not “artificial persons”. They do not pose the same threat to our sovereignty as corporations. Perhaps someday an adjustment will need to be made, but that becomes a slippery slope problem.
The freedom of the press must be maintained, though the corporate media undermines the Fourth Estate through the corrupt use of ownership powers.
Constitutional Authority Statement:
[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)] [House] [Pages H6097-H6098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]By Ms. EDWARDS: H.J. Res. 78. [[Page H6098]] Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V of the Constitution.
- The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
- or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
- which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
- ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
- or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
- that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
- and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This is a simple and straightforward answer to Citizens United. Without a mandate, I think that there would be many partisan battles over regulation. Especially when one party confuses corporations with living people.
I also think it needs an enacting clause. Other than that, I like it.