Amending the Constitution. [W:97]

[obvious Child]

The primary focus of these orgs is education of a particular political philosophy and policies. According to the code as long as these orgs do not make their main focus on the election of canidates they are complying with the code.

Too bad many of them weren't.

Like the Republican leaning one who prior to acceptance by the IRS of the application at the same time telling them they were not going to be political was already running ads against Democrats.

The 501(c)4 is being abused to actively campaign while hiding donors. Citizens' United was a bad decision and the abuse of the 4 code makes this much worse. At least CU made donor lists open.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and our campaign finance system badly needs it. Voters should know who is paying for ads trying to influence them and the 501(c)4 abuse is directly trying to avoid telling them just that.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Too bad many of them weren't.

Like the Republican leaning one who prior to acceptance by the IRS of the application at the same time telling them they were not going to be political was already running ads against Democrats.

The 501(c)4 is being abused to actively campaign while hiding donors. Citizens' United was a bad decision and the abuse of the 4 code makes this much worse. At least CU made donor lists open.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and our campaign finance system badly needs it. Voters should know who is paying for ads trying to influence them and the 501(c)4 abuse is directly trying to avoid telling them just that.

As long as the orgs do not make a money contribution to any candidate then its lists may be kept secret. Technically the adds are separate by those who pay for the adds and is revenue for the website. I would think that the Democrat leaning orgs do the same. That said, I would be concerned is a canidate were to have one as a front. Instead of requiring the donor list to the org, I would only require the donners who are candidates the amount given. Since the orgs do give out the total amount of donations that would give an indication if it really were a front organization.

Sunlight is a good disinfectant for people who have positions of power and those who seek them; It is not so good when the targets of sunlight are ordinary persons which are the contributors to such orgs. Need I say that having been exposed the ordinary people would be targeted at the pleasure of those in power? Could not someone's boss fire a person who displeased where their employee is contributing to? Could not a bureaucrat find out who wants to eliminate their department or reduce it funding find ways of dealing with such people? No as long as the 401(c) 4 org does not make a contribution to a candidate or Party then the donner list must be kept secret to prevent abuse of power.

The 401(c) 4 could be suspended or revoked if it is found to violate this stricture. Subsequently, the candidate should be required to give back the money that was wrongly given. The privacy of the list should remain so unless the org had declared that they would be giving contributions before such contributions were given. If a officer of the org had contributed funds in his name or thru an S company or trust origination and had deducted such funds from the 401(c) 4 then that officer can be charged for embezzlement.
.

 

[johndylan1]

Term limits for congress are meaningless until we do something about campaign contributions. Who cares if we replace the people sitting in office if their successors are bought and paid for by the same corrupt business interests?

The supreme court could reasonably have a duration to the term, rather than a lifetime appointment. It should still be pretty long, though.

The commerce clause is working as intended. Commerce has changed. Intrastate commerce is a relic of the past.

Sure, make sure that congress must play by the rules it sets. This seems reasonable.

Absolutely the electoral college should go. It's another relic of state-centric thinking that has minimal bearing on the modern landscape of this country. The fear of big states pushing around little states is completely nonsensical. States do not act as cohesive wholes, and turning them into winner-take-all battlegrounds does nothing to help this country.

I couldn't help but notice that the location on your personal info said empire state. "Absolutely the electoral college should go", yea and what if you were from Montana?

 

[johndylan1]

Rural people, like urban ones, are split about 50/50. The red state / blue state split is nonsense. Most states split at most 60/40, others are almost even. Rural liberals are just as ignored as urban conservatives. Why should lines on a map matter so much? When it comes to national politics, the candidate with the most votes should win. Nothing else should matter. I'm talking about every vote counting, not discarding anyone. This whole system is based on the assumption that people who live near each other will always vote in a bloc. That's just nonsense. That's not what really happens.

Nope. you are just missing some facts. For instance in my rural precinct president Obama recieved 20% of the vote.

 

[johndylan1]

And I will not waste my time dredging up what the Federal government will sue in a few weeks in North Carolina when they are done suing Texas. Btw, I know you will check on this since your state will also be sued before the 2014 elections.

Don't know about NC but the suit in TX is not going anywhere. It is bs designed to rial up racial divisions hoping that the Hispanic vote will respond with fear and vote against the republican majority.

 

[Linc]

Hispanic American citizens will not respond with fear. If allowed to vote, they will vote as they did in the last election.

 

[Shadow Serious]

I have thought some more and have a few more ideas.


M. AMENDMENT RESTRICTING CONTRIBUTION FOR CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL OFFICE BY CORPERATIOONS AND EMPLOYEE ORGINIZATIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS

No corporation for profit shall contribute any money to candidates for elective office at the Federal Government whether by moneys out of the corporation's fund or thru other organizations that the corporation has founded or any other organization that contributed money to a candidate. Nor shall a corporation provide a material support or service without being paid at cost of such support or service. Nor shall an officer of a corporation contribute any funds to a candidate unless the corporation's shares or stock is owned by said officer and any monies that are dividends by of stock which can be purchased by the general public but also may declare and use revenue sources which are not contradicted here. In no manner shall this Amendment be construed to deprive a person of a sole proprietorship or persons of a partnership or a trust organization for profit as structured by laws governing said organizations as opposed to those who are owned by stockholders from contributing money to a candidate up to a limit that the law would permit to the general population.

No organization of workers or employees whether by contract at will or by commission shall contribute out of its own funds or thru other organizations that the employee organization has founded or any other organization that contributed money to a candidate. money to any candidate for elective office at the Federal Government. Nor Nor shall a officer of this organization shall contribute to a candidate if the officer does not work under an employer for representation but is hired by the organization itself whether under contract, at will, or commission. A member of said organization who is both an officer and and an employee of a corporation, trust, proprietor, or non-profit may contribute up to what is determined by law provided that the compensation for said employment is at least the amount as the contribution.


N. ALLOWING EXPOSTS IN RELATION TO THE PURCHASE OF DRUGS AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS IN THOSE COUNTRIES OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT FUNCTION AS AS EITHER A SOLE SUPPLIER OF MEDICAL SERVICE IN THAT COUNTRY OR OTHERWISE HAS A NEAR MONOPOLY IN THAT COUNTRY.

Given that foreign governments act as sole purchaser for medical equipment or medicines for the majority of their people. And given such this means that said government has a advantage against providers of medical equipment or medicines that are located in the United States of America. And given the cost of research and development of said medical equipment or medicines may not be covered by the price the government would pay and thus requiring a higher charge in domestic sales to compensate.

1. Congress shall have the authority to propose a bill for an expost for any country that has such and this expost may be up to 50% of the cost of purchase of said items.

2. Congress may impose a ban of selling to any country that has contravened a patent held by a supplier in the USA for all medicines and equipment.

3. Any money that is derived form this expost must be used for research into developing treatments for diseases that do not have a cure or the treatment is considered by medical experts to be seriously damaging to the patient.


Well it is two more.

 

[obvious Child]

As long as the orgs do not make a money contribution to any candidate then its lists may be kept secret

Sort of. Once they breach the political activity, they get revoked and technically their lists are suppose to be come public. The problem is getting them revoked.

Technically the adds are separate by those who pay for the adds and is revenue for the website. I would think that the Democrat leaning orgs do the same. That said, I would be concerned is a canidate were to have one as a front. Instead of requiring the donor list to the org, I would only require the donners who are candidates the amount given. Since the orgs do give out the total amount of donations that would give an indication if it really were a front organization.

Doesn't work that way though.

[quite]Sunlight is a good disinfectant for people who have positions of power and those who seek them; It is not so good when the targets of sunlight are ordinary persons which are the contributors to such orgs. Need I say that having been exposed the ordinary people would be targeted at the pleasure of those in power? Could not someone's boss fire a person who displeased where their employee is contributing to? Could not a bureaucrat find out who wants to eliminate their department or reduce it funding find ways of dealing with such people? No as long as the 401(c) 4 org does not make a contribution to a candidate or Party then the donner list must be kept secret to prevent abuse of power.[/quote]

Technically a 501(c)4 cannot engage in direct political behavior as its primary function. So once they start campaigning for candidates as many Republican 501(c)4s did as their primary function, their donor rolls are now suspect and they should be revoked. The whole section should be amended for no political activity, or nothing above 5% of total expenses. Keep it at the same level as 501(c)3s and it will be fine. They're limited to less than material lobbying which in the industry is typically 5%.

The 401(c) 4 could be suspended or revoked if it is found to violate this stricture. Subsequently, the candidate should be required to give back the money that was wrongly given.

You seem to think that it's only direct donations to the candidates that violates the statute. It's not. Running a separate campaign for or against a candidate without their involvement is still violating the rules.

 

[johndylan1]

Hispanic American citizens will not respond with fear. If allowed to vote, they will vote as they did in the last election.

Then why the bs law suit in TX? Everyone know Texas has been targeted for progressive gains. Fear and division are the tools of political conquest where integrity is lacking, and yes racial politics lacks integrity .
BTW I know and work side by side with Hispainc workers everyday. None call themselves Hispanic Americans, they refer to themselves as Hispanic from time to time but mostly just as American (many that I know gained their citizenship after Regan amnesty).

 

[Linc]

While Repubs immortalized Reagan, they say never again to amnesty. As with Reagan the felon on Iran-Contra. And Lebanon. And the beginning of the $17 trillion TAD. ETC.

This business in TX started in 1991 with that egregious remap. Hence, the onslaught to damn Holder's name. It will only end for me when I die.

Then why the bs law suit in TX? Everyone know Texas has been targeted for progressive gains. Fear and division are the tools of political conquest where integrity is lacking, and yes racial politics lacks integrity .
BTW I know and work side by side with Hispainc workers everyday. None call themselves Hispanic Americans, they refer to themselves as Hispanic from time to time but mostly just as American (many that I know gained their citizenship after Regan amnesty).