1. tom beebe st louis
    April 28, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    May I offer this proposal for an amendment for the consideration and comment of your readers?

    Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}

    No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

    {The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities. To those advocating public financing I would suggest that with money comes control. Do we want government control of the electoral process?}


  2. tom beebe st louis
    April 29, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

    The response is underwhelming. Consider this my revolt against personhood for any but persons. what a concept. Anybody out there, or is this not really a blog?


  3. Ken Shelton
    May 2, 2012 @ 10:40 am

    SCOTUS based this obscene ruling on the basis that corporations are bound to contracts (Dartmouth college v. Woodward) and on a fiction compounded by a legal fiction (Southern Pacific v. Santa Clara). There is behind this decision the stink of special interest influence and the appearance of the corruption of judicial ethics (Supreme Court justices wined and dined by Koch Industries and right-wing extremists immediately before the ruling).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *