Taking Back Our Government

This could be what you all have been waiting for. I believe this political movement could be something special.

They basically want to establish a constitutional amendment that prevents corporations from controlling our politicians. As it stands, corporations give too much money to political campaigns, and bribe politicians with high paying jobs when their term is over.

In essence, we the people are losing control of our government. We are not being represented.

See if you think this is legitimate, sign up.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

That site basically wants corporation to be declared as non-people. But then, it just means that a corporation can't contribute money as a corporation. The people in that corporation still can give money to politicians.

So, instead of:

CEO: "Hello, politician! Corporate X would like you to have some money!"

it will be:

CEO: "Hello, politician! The stockholders in corporate X would like you to have some money!"

I see no practical difference. Can you point out how this legislation will prevent the latter?

A stockholder is a representative of the corporation in which they hold stock in. Funds donated to political campaigns are actually very closely monitored. I know this as I've worked on a campaign myself. Donators can't simply hand money over. All money that the campaign receives and spends is accounted for with a paper trail.

CEO: "Hello, politician! Corporate X would like you to have some money!"

=

CEO: "Hello, politician! The stockholders in corporate X would like you to have some money!"

in the eyes of the government.

Why? You didn't explain why. All you said was

1) funds are monitored
2) you've worked in a campaign
3) there's a paper trail

I did actually. XD
"A stockholder is a representative of the corporation in which they hold stock in."

But I am sorry. I should have expanded upon my explanation. Well, the stockholders themselves are indisputably people, and can donate what money is theirs.
BUT,
Most of their money is in the form of shares of certain corporations, which means the corporation would need to donate as a whole. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what will be prevented.

Well, if a large corporation was very intent on bribing politicians, it wouldn't prevent them from having specific employees that hold a certain number of shares. The job of the employee would be to sell the shares back to the company acquiring a large sum of cash to donate with.

I thought you may read the website, but for you Stenta, anything.

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

Is their exact proposal for the new amendment to the constitution. No more metashysicaleconomical arguments. lol

The way I see things is that America is in debt...
which leads to america loaning money from corporations such as banks, federal reserve, and other sources and if they don't pay back the loan than they become bankrupt, and the country doesn't wanna do that so they loan more money creating more debt,thus keeping this cycle will keep the country bankrupt.
If the country does decide to print more money than that currency has lost value, thus will their products become more cheaper for foreign lands to buy their products and then america won't have money to buy foreign products which is a big minus on their account.

You can look up the movie zeitgeist on youtube since it explains better on those things, (yeah at first it was a conspiracy theory but then again it became true what some people said about the country being bankrupt.)

And since the country has basically almost nothing to maintain their country then corporations come in and threaten the country to pay their debt or the country will be under the control of corporations such as private investors, bankers and etc.
Which is why alot of politicians have no choice but to play their games and since there are people who dare to expose the truth will get their mouth shut.

Then it lead to the big movement, people wanna take back their government and to obtain their freedom back from these corporations. Which is why the whole world is protesting against bankers since the people found out that they play a big role in these types of bribery to the politicians.

I don't wanna assume these things so I am just telling what I heard, saw and read on these things.

If you wanna know more about these things then go to youtube and type...
Alex Jones
Zeitgeist
Jesse Ventura
Ron Paul
These are the 4 biggest sources to know more about how the corporations wanna take over the country and how the country is being kept bankrupt.

Im just saying what everybody else is saying, I don't intend to argue with anyone here so feel free to ask questions about it but please no quoting unless you have questions.

You can say that it's practically the same and you would be partially correct but, it's also no different than if Fakku got together and donated $1 a piece to a particular campaign (ignoring foreign donation rules in the U.S for sake of example).

Really when you get down to basics, corporate donations are fundamentally no different than PAC or Union donations. If you have worries of corruption then make private donations illegal and require all candidates to use a set amount of public money to run their campaign.

If people really want to have their voice heard then they need to recenter the political landscape. Make it focus more on the local level where you can actually meet your Representative rather than centralizing power far away, in a city you may have never been to in your life.

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

Well what do you know? =D I still had it copied!

Care to do something else besides regurgitate their talking points?

Simply put, public (government) financing for every campaign is a dream for the politically ignorant. Do you realize the millions of dollars that would be required for even a bare bones campaign? How many candidates should we allow to run per party, per state, per position? 5 presidential candidates? 5 candidates per senator seat, 5 candidates per house seat? That's assuming just 1 candidate from the major and the larger "minor" parties. At $1 million per campaign that comes to a hefty $540,000,000. So we the American Taxpayers should foot the bill for these candidates? Why should my tax money go to Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry? I do not like them and do not wish to directly or indirectly support them with my taxes.

Then we have issues like, what if I want to stick a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car. Is that considered part of his campaign? Should the effective marketing cost of my bumper sticker be deducted from his campaign finances? What if the candidate gets on a talk show like Jay Leno, David Letterman, Ellen, etc should the effective marketing of their appearance also be deducted? Should we ban politicians from speaking on talk shows which might effectively give them more "air time" than another candidate? Should we force people like Stephanie Miller or Sean Hannity to host multiple political candidates? Sean Hannity's listeners won't be receptive to a Democrat but, they would be receptive to a Republican. So should we ban politicians from going on radio shows too? Where is the line since private money "corrupts the democratic process".

What if a bunch of Union workers from Detroit want to pool their money and get a campaign add for their candidate? Should we forbid them from spending their money like that? What if it was a church group? Should we also ban AARP from lobbying for seniors too?

If you want to ban corporate donations then for equality, you need to ban every type of private donation or support. Which then cuts deeply into our freedom of speech.

Look, I want you to know that I'm not arguing with you. You've simply misunderstood what the proposal meant by publicly funded. The public is every individual citizen in America. You interpreted publicly funded campaigns as some sort of "socialized tax-funded campaign extravaganza." The proposal was stating how money donated to people in support of their candidate/party should be the only thing funding a political campaign. In this way, it will even the playing field, and give lower and middle class citizens more of a say in our government.

This proposal is an attempt to thwart the corruption in our government. I don't really see where the proposal would limit free speech, but your fabrications of I'm not even sure what about talk-shows and whatnot certainly would. xD I really don't see where you're coming from there.

I don't know much about funding campaigns and such with the citizens..
but I do know is that the voice of the people are not getting heard simply the fact is because the big boys find their complaints and etc. not worthy of being heard of.

But for people to get their government back will be extremely difficult since money is the biggest issue here... If the people of America wanna do something than they have to donate the money themselves to the government so the governments can pay the money back they owe to those corporations...

Maintaining a country is not easy, the people have to know that.

The country is more like a business, for you to maintain your business is to pay up so your business can keep running (paying taxes, federal reserve and such), and for you to be earning MORE money is to find new places to have contracts ( trading goods and such) and that means you get to have some extra money in your pocket, but you still have to pay taxes.

My father never loaned money from banks and such to save his little business ( if he did that then he might pay his taxes for keeping his business safe but then he would have owned banks money), he just continued to work on his reputation as a good janitor and then came a breakthrough, he found new contracts and that way he made more money so his business was saved. ( Love you Dad)

I know that the dollar is losing it's value.. here is an example...
You send 100$ to someone in Germany through Western Union, that money will be converted to Euro which will calculate it's worth and that is how much you are getting. Back then I got 77.67 Euro per transfer, and now I am getting 66.72 Euro per transfer ( that is 11.05 Euro difference which is quite alot in difference)

Euro is slowly losing it's value as well since Europe has financial issues regarding the currency policy and trading goods.

Just another example my Fakku-ers from what I know based on sources I wrote earlier from my previous post.

Yes, the US is in quite an economic slump, and we have an enormous amount of debt (around $11trillion). Ironically enough, most of the debt is actually owed to government run/funded programs, the largest debt being owed to social security. Only about $3.3trillion is actually owed to other countries, like China and Japan.

By the way, I use the word "only" really fucking lightly here. lol

Hopefully, our government will be able to represent us properly, and be able to salvage America's economy.

That is exactly my point... now I can probably predict what will happen to the country.
If the dollar value keep dropping down then it's a chance for private investors around the world to buy a piece of america and use it at their own will. Some countries will even try to attack America without warning and conquer this country, now I know what you are gonna say, " But america has it's own military forces".. the problem is america doesn't really own the military forces since the military itself is back up by a corporation ( Not sure if it's true or not) and if America cannot pay those corporations then the corporation itself will withdraw all weapons that are produced by them and leave the country defenseless leaving them with only guns ( useless anyways).

So their only chance is if the corporations buys the country whole and america will belong to them permanently. ( Labor slavery could be involved, forcing people to work for the country without one owns salary nor freedom).

It's a sad prediction but there really exists people out there with a sick and demonic fantasy to rule the world.

"Whoever has the money, they will control power, and whoever controls power, they will become king" that is a line we all heard before.....
Even our beloved past presidents predicted this, but it's too bad that the country is entertained by lady gaga and Nicki Minaj( hate those two, they move and dance like they are having a seizure).


Once again these are not my assumptions.
If you do not understand something then I could explain it clearer to you.

*Note* (added later on)
My dad was very surprised to hear such information from me now...
I just asked him if Obama printed more money he said yes...
I told him that's why dollars dropped their value AGAIN!
He was speechless to hear that.. I think my father got a taste of how the real world works.

I have the usual complaint about your post Dollci. You're mixing up genuine fact with conspiracy theory and libertarian propaganda. Zeitgeist, Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura are examples of the former, Ron Paul is an example of the later.

I'd rather leave my concerns with Ron Paul and libertarianism out of this, however you citing him and the libertarian movement as basic sources of information on the realities of modern finance is in-genuine. Yes, a lot of what they say is true... however what they say should be done about the issues is not a self evident truth, but a conscious choice based upon one's political values.

As a matter of fact I've posted several videos in the past that highlighted the issue you speak of, but did without either the hammed up idiocy of conspiracy theorists or political agenda.

Here's an example:


The fact that you're still talking about "government debt" shows, that you fundamentally still don't understand how modern money "works". Money is not a natural phenomenon, it's a man-made invention, and for the most part is an inherently intellectual one. It has no inherent value, it takes human belief to make it so.

I agree I don't know THAT much about it....
I didn't realize that I was mixing 3 or 4 different elements in my post. I thought I was writing about one thing but oh well, everybody has their opinions.

I don't wanna argue, I am just pointing out the sources where I got them, and I thought it would match with this topic.

When speaking politically, public means government. Public schools are run by the government. Public parks are owned by the government, public roads are owned by the government.



That's what public financing is! Politically speaking public = government. When something is "publicly funded" it's funded by the government. Not the people, not companies, government. Repeat this 100 times every morning "Public = Government".



That's private donations. Money donated from an individual person or a non-government organization is considered private money. It is similar to how the current system works since the United States is a mix of Government and private funding.



No, it won't. Only the naive think that by limiting campaign donations you will magically fix the corruption within the body politic.Reforming campaign financing will do nothing to stem the corruption as the money will just move into other areas to influence the election. Your little PAC claims that they won't be able to indirectly give money to the candidates, which is easily circumvented by buying t.v ads or billboards. If you ban that then you also have to ban the same behavior for Unions As by eliminating "corporate" donations you would also effect P.A.C's like AARP from lobbying for seniors. If you're going to ban one private interest, you gotta ban them all.



It does limit free speech. Money has been ruled to be considered protected by free speech. Which means, I can spend, invest or donate my money as I see fit. If I wish to donate 100,000 to Ron Paul's campaign and you stop me, you are infringing on my right to free speech. With the $100 limit you also hinder lesser known candidates from smaller parties who wouldn't be able to raise as much money as a more well known candidate which is hardly "leveling the playing field" as you so quaintly put it. Thane Eichenauer will never raise as much money as Barrack Obama. You probably said "Who the hell is Thane Eichenauer?" which proves my point.



Do yourself a favor so you'll stop looking like an idiot. Google these names and read something about each.

Talk shows: Jay Leno, David Letterman, Ellen DeGeneres, Conan O'Brien

Conservative Talk Radio: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck,Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Mark Levin,

Liberal Talk Radio: Alan Colmes, Stephanie Millier, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, or even The young Turks.

Even better, watch or listen to their shows.



That is a failure on your end. I clearly laid out how public financing (which you clearly do not understand what it actually is and instead just regurgitate what you hear or read) and you failed to understand it. You should also spend some time reading the campaign finance laws.

All I could say based on the knowledge I have on this stuff right now is that the Government itself is in a really tight spot here.

It could involve bribery in it, maybe a threat to keep this classified, or just that corporation could take over anytime but Governments are stopping them somehow.

COULD BE ( just a thought) that maybe the Governments or politics itself being manipulated from big corporations.

I just took a wild guess on this one since making an assumption here is dangerous in this topic.

You are the 1%.