Wolf PAC

[LazyBoy]

Found this recently. Not a news article, so move it if you must...

An effort to stop money from dominating national politics.

Can't get a constitutional amendment through congress?
Use an Article V convention.

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

Our Ultimate Goal:

To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country. There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our federal government (2) Go through our State Legislators via an Article V. Convention.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our federal government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a suffient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 87% of the country wants...take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

This is not a left or a right issue – it’s an American issue.

Thoughts?

[flintlock]

Re: Wolf PAC

I have to agree with the premise. Our government today is bought and paid for, nothing less.

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

End corporate personhood, publicly finance all elections, and I would add:

- Term limits for Congress (1 term for senators, 2 or 3 terms for representatives)
- Revoke the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

Because politicians will never vote for anything that restricts their power.

But the really frightening aspect of a Constitutional Convention is that you can go into it with a specific agenda, but once it has started, anything can happen. Delegates could propose amendments revoking the Bill of Rights, or calling for the revocation of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of all firearms, or totally banning abortion, or ... whatever... and with enough votes it becomes law.

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

In spite of my reservations regarding a Constitutional Convention, we might now be at a point where there is no other civilized way to dial back the abuses of centralized money and power in Washington. The only other options seem to be putting up with ever more abuses, or rioting, then after the riots fail, putting up with ever more abuses. But a Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous process, for reasons stated in my previous post.

How can you be absolutely certain that the convention delegates would stick to the limited agenda and not go off the rails? You can't.

Whomever is calling for and trying to organize a Constitutional Convention.. who are they, really? Who funds their organization? Are they a front for people who want to dismantle the Constitution and place us under another form of government? Maybe pure socialism or fascism, or a dictator for life? Because it could happen.

But if we do have one, I'll add to my wish list:

- Abolish the Fed. Only the US Treasury should have the right to create money.

- No military service people shall be sent to fight in foreign countries without a Declaration of War being made, and no Declaration of War shall be made unless the immediate families of the President, Senators and Congressional Representatives be sent to fight on the front lines of that war.

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

Admirable goal, but to think that state legislators are less corrupt than federal ones...well, let's just say I'm more than a little dubious.

[verdo]

Re: Wolf PAC

I heard about this from the Young Turks. If I were American I would be so on board with this

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Wolf PAC

Found this recently. Not a news article, so move it if you must...

An effort to stop money from dominating national politics.

Can't get a constitutional amendment through congress?
Use an Article V convention.

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





Thoughts?

Here are my thoughts: with mass communication now free (internet), why does it cost more money than ever to run for office? And if "everybody" believes the biggest problem is too much money influencing politics, why do people generally vote for those who raise the most money?

If the Constitutional Convention doesn't succeed because people are afraid of it getting out of control, here's an alternative idea: a billionaire patriot is found who will finance a two year television and print campaign to convince people that the two main parties will only give them choices of candidates who will protect and preserve the interests of those who finance their campaigns. If Americans want change, they need to stop waiting for the parties to tell them in November who to vote for and, instead, log on to "x" website and chose either the liberal or conservative candidates there who have pledged to raise absolutely no campaign money. The liberal and conservative candidates will be narrowed by a panel of judges who are non-politically connected Americans from a variety of backgrounds and socio-economic groups. The process of selection will be merit-based --- one part AP History/Economics exam, one part debate/oral communication skills. Once the panel has found, say, three top candidates from each wing, the two groups of three will debate before a televised audience over three nights. At the end of the debate, only those who have watched all three nights will be allowed to vote. The winner will then run as the "liberal" or "conservative" candidate in the "No Strings Attached Party" in November. The winner will not be allowed to raise any campaign money, appear at any rallies or on any television shows, and will give no interviews. Instead, each winner will submit their positions in writing on a website open to all Americans. The website can offer opportunities to submit questions to the candidates for a reasoned, written response.

If this or something like it were tried, I know I would vote for any generic winner of such a process (whether liberal or conservative) over any presently employed politician, with the possible exception of people such as Ron Paul and, so far, Elizabeth Warren.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

I strongly believe(and have posted on this forum over the last few years) that the only way for the US to regain national momentum is to sever the financial connection between special interests and political campaign contributions/lobbying.

I think it should be banned and violations should be treated with the same severity as acts of treason/sedition.

If such control measures were in place 10 or 20 years ago....the US would be in a far better place than it currently is.....which seems to be a perpetual orbit around the 4th level of hell.

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

Here are my thoughts: with mass communication now free (internet), why does it cost more money than ever to run for office? And if "everybody" believes the biggest problem is too much money influencing politics, why do people generally vote for those who raise the most money?

If the Constitutional Convention doesn't succeed because people are afraid of it getting out of control, here's an alternative idea: a billionaire patriot is found who will finance a two year television and print campaign to convince people that the two main parties will only give them choices of candidates who will protect and preserve the interests of those who finance their campaigns. If Americans want change, they need to stop waiting for the parties to tell them in November who to vote for and, instead, log on to "x" website and chose either the liberal or conservative candidates there who have pledged to raise absolutely no campaign money. The liberal and conservative candidates will be narrowed by a panel of judges who are non-politically connected Americans from a variety of backgrounds and socio-economic groups. The process of selection will be merit-based --- one part AP History/Economics exam, one part debate/oral communication skills. Once the panel has found, say, three top candidates from each wing, the two groups of three will debate before a televised audience over three nights. At the end of the debate, only those who have watched all three nights will be allowed to vote. The winner will then run as the "liberal" or "conservative" candidate in the "No Strings Attached Party" in November. The winner will not be allowed to raise any campaign money, appear at any rallies or on any television shows, and will give no interviews. Instead, each winner will submit their positions in writing on a website open to all Americans. The website can offer opportunities to submit questions to the candidates for a reasoned, written response.

If this or something like it were tried, I know I would vote for any generic winner of such a process (whether liberal or conservative) over any presently employed politician, with the possible exception of people such as Ron Paul and, so far, Elizabeth Warren.

I think the majority of voters would still vote Dem or Repub because they're had it drilled into their heads for so long that to do otherwise would be "throwing away their vote" and/or letting the 3rd party candidate "steal" the election from the "better of two evils" candidate. Remember how Nader was accused of stealing votes away from Gore?

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

I strongly believe(and have posted on this forum over the last few years) that the only way for the US to regain national momentum is to sever the financial connection between special interests and political campaign contributions/lobbying.

I think it should be banned and violations should be treated with the same severity as acts of treason/sedition.



If such control measures were in place 10 or 20 years ago....the US would be in a far better place than it currently is.....which seems to be a perpetual orbit around the 4th level of hell.

It should be banned, but it won't be via legislative means. Human nature being what it is, and politicians being the lowest form of humans, you can't expect them to vote for legislation that will curtail their power. They aren't going to vote to shoot themselves in the foot.

Most everyone but the Supreme Court agrees that the connection between money and politics should be severed. The question is HOW, SPECIFICALLY, do we do it?

Too much power is centralized in DC, too much money is clustered around those politicians. They aren't going to give it up willingly, so someone is going to have to take it from them. Civilly or via bloody revolution?

Revolution won't work. The noose is complete. All communications are monitored, the Internet can be killed with a switch. Bank accounts can be frozen with a switch. Civilian control methods are absolute. And most citizens are too doped up on antidepressants to do more than drink beer, watch TV, and wait for their government check.

That, IMO, leaves it up to the State governments to decentralize Washington's power and take back control via the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Before signing on for a Constitutional Convention, I'd rather see a convention of Governers agreeing to work together to do this. Only if this attempt to restore the Constitution fails would I be willing to consider a Constitutional Convention.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wolf PAC

Admirable goal, but to think that state legislators are less corrupt than federal ones...well, let's just say I'm more than a little dubious.

I think that's a very California view, c1ue. In Cali, state legislators represent nearly as many people as federal legislators.

In smaller states, where they might represent only 10,000-50,000 people, folks might feel a bit different.

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

Admirable goal, but to think that state legislators are less corrupt than federal ones...well, let's just say I'm more than a little dubious.

They may or may not be as corrupt, but it's easier for people to influence their state and local governments than Washington. And it's harder for special interests to buy politicians in 50 states than in Washington.

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

If the Constitutional Convention doesn't succeed because people are afraid of it getting out of control, here's an alternative idea: a billionaire patriot is found who will finance a two year television and print campaign to convince people that the two main parties will only give them choices of candidates who will protect and preserve the interests of those who finance their campaigns.

Unfortunately, besides the billionaires who are (on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum) who are paying to ensure the opposite, there has been a billionaire who tried to fix the system: Ross Perot.

That didn't work.

I think that's a very California view, c1ue. In Cali, state legislators represent nearly as many people as federal legislators.

In smaller states, where they might represent only 10,000-50,000 people, folks might feel a bit different.

Why do you think representing less people somehow automatically makes you more honest?

Montana, for example, is a very low population state - yet exerts a very strong (and corrupt) influence nationally. I fail to see why the state scene would be any different - especially given what I hear from those who hail from that state.

http://www.stateintegrity.org/montana_story_subpage

During the 2009 regular legislative session, members of the Senate Agriculture Committee were invited to a private dinner with representatives of the biotech giant Monsanto and a group calling itself “Growers for Biotechnology.” Both were opposed to a seed-testing bill that would eventually die in committee.

...

Monsanto never testified on the bill. Neither the company nor Growers for Biotechnology, which reportedly paid the check, were registered as lobbyists. Nor were they required to, unless each had spent $2,400 lobbying that session. The dinner never appeared as a lobbying expense.

The short-staffed agency responsible for overseeing lobbying has trouble monitoring the records it does have. This summer, while probing a two-year dispute over what defines lobbying by private citizens, officials discovered that the National Rifle Association had failed to register or report its lobbying for the 2009 legislative session.

Statehouse reporters and others veteran political observers were unanimous in their frustration with Montana’s weak lobbyist disclosure law and its inability to audit compliance. They have little confidence that lobbying reports accurately reflect the extent of lobbying that occurs during legislative sessions.

“It’s a joke,” said John Adams, who covers state government for The Great Falls Tribune.

The above article goes on to detail all sorts of interesting stuff - like the governor appointing a relative to head the Department of Fish and Game, various other nepotism or self serving legislation, etc etc.

And Montana has relatively draconian campaign finance restrictions.

I also have historical ties to West Virginia. Do I really need to go into how corrupt that state is? How about Louisiana? The list goes on and on and on.

They may or may not be as corrupt, but it's easier for people to influence their state and local governments than Washington. And it's harder for special interests to buy politicians in 50 states than in Washington.

I disagree.

In my view, there is a larger operational challenge in buying politicians in 50 states, but each of those politicians is much cheaper.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a wash overall.

However, it isn't necessary to buy politicians in 50 states. It is only necessary to buy 17 of them - that'll kill any Constitutional Amendment proposal dead.

[vinoveri]

Re: Wolf PAC

Unfortunately, besides the billionaires who are (on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum) who are paying to ensure the opposite, there has been a billionaire who tried to fix the system: Ross Perot.

That didn't work.

Except of course for Bill Clinton I actually think that model could work, especially now that the country/population is even more disenchanted with the political class. Perot got 19% of the vote, no small feat.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Wolf PAC

Why do you think representing less people somehow automatically makes you more honest?

I think it makes people more responsive. When you represent 30,000 people, 6,000 votes is more than enough to win. You eat in the down, you drink in the town, the 6,000 people meet and see you. You can't be quite as shady. And you can't hurt the neighborhood so bad. How corrupt is Vermont? Maine? New Hampshire?

When you look at corruption convictions per capita by state you will find that Alaska tops the list and the Dakotas follow. Corruption does follow resource extraction. But after that, you can find a significant correlation with population represented vs. corruption convictions.

But that's not the whole of it. Public perceptions of corruption more highly and more strongly correlated with the number of population per representative than actual convictions would bear out. In English, the more distant your representative is from you, the more corrupt you will assume they are on average.

Sorry the table will turn out so small, but here's the actual corruption conviction rate data per state: