Big Featured Discussions | October 19, 2011 | 27 comments

Should we amend the Constitution to ban corporate political donations?

Cenk Uygur -- the host of Current's upcoming show "The Young Turks" -- on Wednesday spoke to the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly and proposed that the movement support a call for a 28th Amendment. 

Cenk's Wolf-PAC proposed the following language:

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.

Do you agree that the Constitution should be amended to ban corporate political donations? Should there be fixed dollar limits? Should all elections be publicly financed?

Watch more from Cenk and "The Young Turks" at OWS here. 

  1. groups:
    Big Featured Discussions,   Occupy Wall Street Blog
  2. tags:
    Marketing Cenk Uygur The Young Turks
  3.     
    |

27 comments // Should we amend the Constitution to ban corporate political donations?

  • trmoe
    • 0
      trmoe  
    • I do agree. I also think it would be wise to restrict the campaign season to the 6 months preceeding the election. Our legislators are already spending more time
      trying to keep their jobs than they are doing their jobs.

    • 1 year ago
  • JLaughbon
  • fikit
    • 0
      fikit  
    • Of course. Also a total tax re-write. Let's not forget putting muscle into Dodd/Frank. The creatures who dreamed up the financial gaming that created the mortgage failures - CDSs,and resultant CDOs. This is still going on - worse that a festering sore.
      And let's not forget big PHARMA deciding to manufacture drugs only on how much money the make, not what is beneficial for the sick and elderly.
      There is so much Capitalism and so little Humanity. Fair and Balanced is a joke. A teller at my bank, BoA, whispered to me that my debit card account would not be affected by the up coming charge - why the whisper? Why is anyone's card going to be affected? Everything I have listed here is sickening. What have we become?

    • 1 year ago
  • notonmywatch59
  • ivanda2nd
  • Aletha_Oberdier
  • trmoe
    • 0
      trmoe  
    • I definitely agree. I also thing campaigning should be restricted to the 6 months prior to the election. Our legislators are wasting far too much time as well as money trying to keep their job instead of doing it.

    • 1 year ago
  • MauriceLacunza
  • Jennifer_Barnes
  • DemDread
    • 0
      DemDread  
    • Most definitely as it is a large issue that has completely corrupted the political process and has, in essence, deprived the people of their right to a fair and balanced democractic process.

    • 1 year ago
  • rocktivity
    • 0
      rocktivity  
    • Absolutely -- it doesn't begin with "We the CORPORATE people..." If the poor don't deserve "welfare" and "entitlements," the rich deserve them even less

    • 1 year ago
  • ProudMonkey
    • 0
      ProudMonkey  
    • 100%. We need to take corporate money out of our politics. Plain and simple. We are owned by the corporate beast. You don't thinks so? Just ask yourself this...where are the lobbyists for US? Time to change the system and time to get our country back.

    • 1 year ago
  • kalifumestokalifa
    • +1
      kalifumestokalifa  
    • I wholeheartedly agree with the idea, but I'm not sure about the wording though. 100$ is pretty specific, will it be updated for inflation or what?
      Also: "All elections must be publicly financed." is pretty vague.
      And finally what about ones own money? There should be some restrictions on that too, otherwise rich would have big advantage over average Joe.

    • 1 year ago
  • rinpochet
    • +1
      rinpochet  
    • Dylan Ratigan has already had a constitutional amendment written, obtained the necessary 100,000 signatures and presented it to Congress. I imagine it it something the OWS people (as well as the rest of this country) and our reps could get behind this. Imagine our reps being able to represent the people and not the special interests? Imagine their not spending 25% of their time trying to raise money and actually fully doing the job they were sent to do?

    • 1 year ago
  • Teesus
    • +1
      Teesus  
    • I am so proud of the people in Liberty Square. I believe that with social media, we as a people will understand the true corruption of Wall Street. MSM has kept their criminal practices silent while knowing that these banks police themselves and the SEC and DOJ look the other way. Only thru the perseverance of the people demanding change, will we ever see it. Taking the bribary out of the elections is a great place to start! Thanks Cenk and the entire Wolf-Pac!

    • 1 year ago
  • VeronicaMandelenis
  • VeronicaMandelenis
  • tnntapeman
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Yes and many of us have been vocalizing this for years. But again, the USSC court ruled on Citizens United. How do you intend to reverse that decision? Oh, and just to throw it out here, would this ban also apply to unions and other organizations on all sides as well?

    • 1 year ago
  • Vic_Romano
    • +2
      Vic_Romano  
    • I disagree with the publicly financed part of elections only because it would favor the incumbent party, and create an entire shitstorm of political parties attempting to game the system.

      To me, just keep corporate money out of the political process and limit a personal donation amount to, say, $1000. If a political candidate can't spread her or his message on that kind of a budget, then they're just not doing something right.

      Furthermore, I think that the media should be regulated much heavier. It's obvious to me that the media has the ability to pick and choose, and give favorable coverage to, the candidates they like. Thus, if any Constitutional amendment is to come out of this, it should be worded to include congressional ability to regulate media coverage of political candidates.

    • 1 year ago
  • TomPhulery
    • +1
      TomPhulery  
    • It's now "We The Corporations," and it continues to get much worse. Elections for state Supreme Court justices can be bought by corporations and worst of all, IMHO, is tort reform. We have the right to file a lawsuit and the system has worked for centuries by allowing judges and juries to do their jobs. Tort reform is just another infringement on our rights and individual freedoms designed for the benefit of corporations only. A limit on damage awards, regardless of the different reasons for damages is corporate socialism.

      Suits filed by American citizens against corporations who have polluted which resulted in death and cancer are at a huge disadvantage in the court system because they are up against big finance which buys time and it forces individuals to settle because they cannot compete and the amount of their awards belittle the value of human life. This distinct disadvantage, along with tort reform is heinous.

      Also, fuck the SCOTUS justices appointed by Republicans who are sleeping with big business. it's "We The People" damnit!!

    • 1 year ago
  • HellenaHandbasket
  • CommieSOB
  • tverdell
    • +1
      tverdell  
    • ABSOLUTELY!

      But I think we should go all of the way.

      There should be NO donations and NO advertising.

      Each candidate gets the same amount of money from the government/tax payers.

      There are no TV advertisements.

      Candidates can only convey their platform at debates, town hall meetings, rallies, speeches, interviews, etc.

      And of course each candidate must get equal interview time.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
    • 0
      tverdell  
    • tverdell:

      Also, I would like to see more collegiate style debates.

      Today, debates are just sound bytes and rhetoric and domination.
      To call it a debate is silly.

      If you call it a debate, then let them debate.

    • 1 year ago
  • HellenaHandbasket
  • tverdell
shana

top videos