The 99% Declaration

[DaveShack]

At least one of your Senators is. Who is your congressman? We could look at who gives him money.

There's a huge difference between receiving donations and having one's actions unduly influenced by said donations.

 

[downtown]

Would you say Obama is bought, based upon him receiving more money from Wall St than anyone else and giving back to the big banks on the flip side?

Sure, unquestionablly Obama has been influenced by big business. He had a pretty cozy relationship with the telecom industry when he was a Senator, which influenced a few of his votes. Given the expenses of running elections, its impossible to NOT be influenced.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

If this gets accomplished, then America is official in ruins.

 

[Leoreth]

Would you say Obama is bought, based upon him receiving more money from Wall St than anyone else and giving back to the big banks on the flip side?

Yes. I hope the OWS protesters are honest enough to say that the way Obama was elected is part of the problem, even if Obama himself isn't.

LOL at the idiocy of all of that claptrap. That exhibt would be a pretty good argument for an absolute monarchy.

I thought it was "conservative republic" these days, whatever that means?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Some of it is clearly over-reaching, but then you have to be ambitious in the beginning so as to be able to negotiate your way down. The very first one is the one that I can most agree with, which is that federal election campaigns should never receive donations and instead be funded by a (presumably) fixed sum of public money. It's very clear that both parties are in bed with corporate interests and don't serve popular or even national interest.

 

[Cutlass]

If this gets accomplished, then America is official in ruins.

Everything they are asking for would have a superior result than changing nothing.

 

[Elta]

CFCOT is so predictable, it's like clockwork.

 

[Ajidica]

If this gets accomplished, then America is official in ruins.

I dunno. Our Founding Fathers did pretty well without anonymous corporate donations and SuperPACs.

 

[kochman]

Yes. I hope the OWS protesters are honest enough to say that the way Obama was elected is part of the problem, even if Obama himself isn't

The fact that it takes $1B to become President of the USA is completely insane... It is basically impossible for a candidate not to be bought and sold. I am just wondering when people will realize BOTH sides do it?

 

[Patroklos]

I dunno. Our Founding Fathers did pretty well without anonymous corporate donations and SuperPACs.

You obviously know nothing about the polotics of the time then, there were zero restrictions on or reporting requirements for whatever money they used for their campaigns. If you were from the North the mercantile and maritime traders were you piggy bank, if you were in the South it was big cotton.

 

[amadeus]

Okay, I've got ten minutes before I go watch TV so I'll add a few more nitpicks.

The People, consisting of all United States citizens who have reached the age of 18, regardless of party affiliation and voter registration status, shall elect Two Delegates, one male and one female, by direct vote, from each of the existing 435 Congressional Districts

Apparently "The People" does not include Washington D.C., Guam, or Puerto Rico (among other U.S. departments and dependencies.)

1. Implementing an immediate ban on all private contributions of money and gifts, to all politicians in federal office, from Individuals, Corporations, Political Action Committees, Super Political Action Committees, Lobbyists, Unions and all other private sources of money to be replaced by the fair and equal public financing of all federal political campaigns.

This works one of two ways, where either the candidates must meet some support threshold or everybody gets funding if they run. Let's examine the latter option first: so everyone that runs for a federal office gets public financing? In that case, I'm announcing my candidacy for the House as a member of the Just Made Up Party. The former would just guarantee that only the largest parties can participate in debates because all others have been shut out.

We categorically REJECT the concept that money is equal to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest would have a voice.

If money is not equal to speech, can speech be equal to speech? Some speakers might be more eloquent and more persuasive. Can actions be equal to speech? Some people might spend in a way not dissimilar to money their time campaigning. Will the 99% restrict campaign man-hours and who may be allowed to speak?

Okay, time for Wheel of Fortune.

 

[jtb1127]

Everything in financial services. Make a bank a bank and nothing but a bank. No integration with other companies. No company allowed to be so large that it cannot be allowed to fail. Investment banks can only be partnership owned. No stock issues. Formalize bailout rules so that any company that the government bails out do to systemic risk, the stock of that company is 100% nullified, regardless of how much money the government has to put in. If that doesn't cover it, the bonds are nullified as well. Executives and board members are cut off from any further income from the company, permanently.

Oh my. What you preach is horrible. Everything in financial services? What do you mean "no issuing stock"? You mean companies should no longer be able to incorporate? And is there a line that can be drawn between "not too big" and "too big"? This sounds oh so idealistic.

What? I mean, I really wish you were right, but this is empirically not the case. Some laws affect women exclusively, or affect women more than they affect men.

That's just by a matter of fact that one has to affect the other more.
Point 1: White married men tend to be more republican than non-married black women. That doesn't mean we must have a representative of both of these parties in order for a system to guarantee equal representation.

Point 2: The demographic differences between man and woman are nothing very substantial. Women tend to be a few percent more likely to be democrats but that is all. Issues that you may think are exclusive to women actually involve men as well. Therefore, it does not take a woman to defend the interests of women, a man can do it just as well. So even my previous comparison cannot be used other than for the purposes of rebutting your argument.

 

[luiz]

Public financig is also being discussed in Brazil. One thing I don't get is this: what would stop a group of citizens from forming an organization, asking for funds from corporations, unions or whoever likes the candidate, and then buy TV and newspaper spots with the money? Surely one can't stop that, and if done skillfully enough it would essentially keep the status quo while also giving campaigns taxpayer money.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh my. What you preach is horrible. Everything in financial services? What do you mean "no issuing stock"? You mean companies should no longer be able to incorporate? And is there a line that can be drawn between "not too big" and "too big"? This sounds oh so idealistic.

And just how did you read all of that in to what I said?

 

[jtb1127]

I read your response to the question "what companies, and how do we make them smaller?"
Or better- with my eyes.

 

[amadeus]

Okay, more thoughts.

3. Prohibiting all federal public officials and their immediate family members, whether elected or appointed, from EVER being employed by any corporation they regulate while in office and/or holding any stock or shares in any corporation they regulate while in office until a full 5 years after their term is completed.

The federal government regulates every corporation, so these people would basically make it illegal for the family member of many federal employees from holding any private or semi-private sector job. On top of that, it would also mean that many federal employees and their families would be prohibited from private sector employment for 5 years after they leave.

4. A complete lifetime ban on accepting all gifts, services, money, directly or indirectly, to any elected or appointed federal officials or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or other entity that the public official was charged to regulate while in office.

Watch out! You might be a criminal if you give your next door neighbor (who might happen to be an appointed member of some federal agency) a plate of cookies as a Christmas present.

Reduction of the national debt to be achieved by BOTH a cut in spending to corporations engaged in perpetual war for profit, the "healthcare" industry, the pharmaceutical industry

So they're going to guarantee everyone health coverage, and then cut spending on health to pay down the debt?

If this is the best and brightest of OWS, America is a sad, sad place.

 

[Cutlass]

It only says investment banks may only be partnerships. Which is what was true up until just a few years ago. They were much more careful then.

 

[JollyRoger]

You obviously know nothing about the polotics of the time then, there were zero restrictions on or reporting requirements for whatever money they used for their campaigns. If you were from the North the mercantile and maritime traders were you piggy bank, if you were in the South it was big cotton.

And corporations were disfavored entities surely not entitled to make campaign donatioins.

 

[jtb1127]

It only says investment banks may only be partnerships. Which is what was true up until just a few years ago. They were much more careful then.

You're only referring to banks in that post?

 

[Cutlass]

You're only referring to banks in that post?

Investment banks!