I think Sander’s proposed Amendment could be modified, as I did in Section 1, and made more explicitely fair in Section 4.  If these changes were made, it would probably work. 

One problem with such an amended Amendment is that labor unions and possibly even small political clubs would also be precluded from donating.  However, I think that if no one except individuals could donate and their donations were limited to, say, $200, it would make for much fairer and quieter elections.

I don’t know offhand how we could handle the Rush Limbaughs or the severely biased newspapers.

Occam

Occam. - 23 January 2012 02:19 PM

I think Sander’s proposed Amendment could be modified, as I did in Section 1, and made more explicitely fair in Section 4.  If these changes were made, it would probably work. 

One problem with such an amended Amendment is that labor unions and possibly even small political clubs would also be precluded from donating.  However, I think that if no one except individuals could donate and their donations were limited to, say, $200, it would make for much fairer and quieter elections.

I don’t know offhand how we could handle the Rush Limbaughs or the severely biased newspapers.

Occam

I don’t think Sanders would ever go for labor unions being precluded from donating.

Newspapers, I am not concerned about, but I would like to see a return to rules requiring equal time provision to opposing political views on radio and TV. 

What about the other proposed amendment (the serious one)?

I’m not really sure I agree that groups of any sort should be allowed to donate to political causes. All group participation corrupts the system. Regardless of your particular biases it seems like every group abuses its power and if all groups were forbidden from participating in the process then we would have a more democratic system. I don’t really see how it promotes democracy when you allow religious groups, corporations, unions, non-profits etc to collect money from their members and then use it to allow them to have a disproportionate influence in the political process. Allowing groups to have so much clout disenfranchises those who are not part of the group. The result is that the “non-group” voters are less likely to participate and that further exacerbates the power imbalance.

If we changed the system so that each candidate would have to open a campaign financing account which was audited by an independent agency we might be better off. Then we could allow only individuals to contribute and only in amounts less than $1,000.

I’m not sure you could stop a group from encouraging its members to donate but there would be no way for them to enforce it, which would reduce their clout to some degree.

macgyver - 23 January 2012 03:32 PM

I’m not really sure I agree that groups of any sort should be allowed to donate to political causes. All group participation corrupts the system. Regardless of your particular biases it seems like every group abuses its power and if all groups were forbidden from participating in the process then we would have a more democratic system. I don’t really see how it promotes democracy when you allow religious groups, corporations, unions, non-profits etc to collect money from their members and then use it to allow them to have a disproportionate influence in the political process. Allowing groups to have so much clout disenfranchises those who are not part of the group. The result is that the “non-group” voters are less likely to participate and that further exacerbates the power imbalance.

If we changed the system so that each candidate would have to open a campaign financing account which was audited by an independent agency we might be better off. Then we could allow only individuals to contribute and only in amounts less than $1,000.

I’m not sure you could stop a group from encouraging its members to donate but there would be no way for them to enforce it, which would reduce their clout to some degree.

I tend to agree with that, so maybe the 28 Amendment proposal is better than the Sanders proposal.

I read it over and though I am not versed in law or the many ways it can be abused by loopholes but I would think that as much detail and clarification as possible would be highly reccommended. The last part of the proposed amendment seems vague. There is alot to campaign finances and regulations can be taken to a very large extent. I agree that there should be transparency when it comes to where the campaign money actually goes but being able to impose any regulation would be to closer to helping or hindering. Unless given extrodinary circumstances I would not vote for this amendment as it is but that is not to say that it couldnt be better worded into a better proposition

catey.condon - 23 January 2012 04:07 PM

I read it over and though I am not versed in law or the many ways it can be abused by loopholes but I would think that as much detail and clarification as possible would be highly reccommended. The last part of the proposed amendment seems vague. There is alot to campaign finances and regulations can be taken to a very large extent. I agree that there should be transparency when it comes to where the campaign money actually goes but being able to impose any regulation would be to closer to helping or hindering. Unless given extrodinary circumstances I would not vote for this amendment as it is but that is not to say that it couldnt be better worded into a better proposition

I presume you are referring to the Bernie Sanders (SADA) amendment.  What about the Move to Amend the 28th Amendment proposal? (see post #11 in this thread) (you can disregard post #10, as I put that up for satirical effect)

I sent Bernie Sanders’ office the proposed changes I listed here earlier.  I’ll report back if they answer me.

Occam

Occam. - 23 January 2012 08:30 PM

I sent Bernie Sanders’ office the proposed changes I listed here earlier.  I’ll report back if they answer me.

Occam

You’re a good man (or woman)... er… person.

Yes I tend to agree with that one a little more. As I said I am not well verse in the ways that laws can be abused but I know that know amendment will be perfect. However I do like the inclusion of the word “inherent” in statement “The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.” and obviously the last section is important and seems explicit enough