Let's Write A New Amendment Together To Drain The Swamp! Post Your Great Ideas Here.

PoliTalker

Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello and greetings,

Since we have so many great minds here, able to solve the problems of the world and all, what say we put our noggins together and come up with the wording for a new Amendment to drain the swamp of big money corruption in Washington DC?

We know that Citizens United greatly expanded the amount of big money being thrown at our government by the rich to buy influence.

A lot of that money has had the desired result.

The rich are getting a lot richer, taking almost all the wealth generated by amazing gains in productivity in recent decades, as workers are getting shoved out of good well-paying jobs and downgraded to lower paying work with fewer or no benefits. Working doesn't pay as much as investing big money, and it's taxed at a higher rate. The rich get richer, the rest find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

Where's the shared prosperity?

Clearly, our government is not doing a very good job of Promoting The General Welfare.

What can we do?

Well, if enough of us want to, we can amend the Constitution to make that illegal.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Let's see if we can write as few words as possible, make it succinct, that will accomplish the desired goal but be simple enough that enough Americans will agree it should be part of our Constitution.

We figure we know everything about our country, right? So this should be a piece of cake for us know-it-alls.

Here we sit, wasting time, and we could be putting our minds together and doing something for our nation. We have the perfect tool with this chat room. All we have to do is put our minds together.

OK? OK. Good. Let's get started.

First we need to jot down just what it is we are trying to accomplish. So we need to brainstorm about what this document should do.

Then, after we work that out, we can boil it down to the actual wording.

Then we send it out to the world, hope it goes viral, force our government(s) to ratify it, and we drain the swamp.

Long shot, I know, but you don't know what you can do until you try. One thing is for sure. It won't happen if we don't try.

This is not intended to be an arguing thread. It's a brainstorming thread. So how about drop your guard, accept that each participant really wants a better America, and let's just talk this out, OK?

Good. Alright. Let's work together:

 
I would just incorporate elements from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And I would add one of my own: It is hereby illegal for any person, organization, entity, or corporation to give money to a politician.

UDHR

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
 
OK, I'll begin.

I want to end lobbying, but then some lobbying might be a good thing, if it were not being carried out by capitalists just trying to make a buck.

But it gets tricky.

If you say lobbying isn't allowed what does that mean? If you don't define it then it could get misconstrued. That's not what is desired.

But some lobbying is good.

How could good lobbying be differentiated from bad lobbying?

What if a human rights group identified a need to change a law or write a new one? What if they wanted to hire an influential person who knew some people in DC? Or was polished enough to get some quality time with a legislator? Or make sure his/her staff made him/her aware of the need. That isn't something we want to prevent. So the Amendment would have to differentiate that from big fossil fuel extractor who just wants to pollute because it increases his profits if anti-pollution costs are eliminated.

It gets messy real quick, eh?

Should we even try to make lobbying illegal?

How about we limit the amount.

How could that be worded? Could that even be enforced?
 
Hello Cypress,

"No person organization, entity, or corporation may give any money to a politician."

I here ya, but do we really want to go that far?

How would a candidate raise campaign money? And if campaign money-raising became illegal, would then only independently wealthy people be able to run a campaign?

And we would have to do something about PACs.

That's how they got around the old campaign limiting laws.

People can give unlimited money to a PAC.

Then the PAC just goes out and runs a campaign to get a candidate elected. The politician still knows where the money came from and who to suck up to after being elected.

Maybe political advertising should just be illegal. Let's simply hear what the candidates have to say on the issues through the media. Oh wait a minute. It gets real sticky there. If they can tweet they don't need money. They can spread plenty of rhetoric.
 
Oh, I know.

Well, this may not be part of the swamp but we need this.

Make it illegal to pick your own question while being interviewed or in a debate.

Don't ya hate that?

There's a straight up question, often can be simply answered yes or no, but you never get a straight answer. It's almost like they just wait until it is their turn to talk and then talk about whatever they want to, completely IGNORING whatever question we would like to hear an answer to.

"Well, candidate X, should the US tax the rich more?"

"Deficit abnormalities will predominate the supposition of equal means, so there's always a need to balance the adjustable derivatives against the exponential receipts of declared liability."

What the heck did THAT mean? Nobody knows but it sounds just captivating enough that maybe we'll forget the original question. That's the idea. Drives me nuts. And the other thing is when they interrupt each other and then everybody is yelling at once. How about a new rule: If they don't answer the freaking question turn off their mic.
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,

Eliminate Public Employee Unions.

Hasn't that been largely accomplished already?

But I tell ya what.

I trade ya Public Employee Unions for Mega Corporations.

Throw one out and you have to agree to throw the other out too.

"No company may own another company."

How about that one?

What do you want your part to say?

"Public sector employees may not petition their common grievances or organize for that purpose?"

Should it also be illegal for them to vote or contact their representatives?
 
I would just incorporate elements from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And I would add one of my own: It is hereby illegal for any person, organization, entity, or corporation to give money to a politician.

Wouldn't your "add on" ensure that only rich people would ever be elected?
 
Hello Sirthinksalot,



Hasn't that been largely accomplished already?

But I tell ya what.

I trade ya Public Employee Unions for Mega Corporations.

Throw one out and you have to agree to throw the other out too.

"No company may own another company."

How about that one?

What do you want your part to say?

"Public sector employees may not petition their common grievances or organize for that purpose?"

Should it also be illegal for them to vote or contact their representatives?

Hi Politalker,

No, it hasn't been accomplished. Public unions are a cancer on government. As long as so called megacorporations aren't violating antitrust laws, I see no major problems with them.
 
Hello DonaldvoTrumpovich,

(from another thread)
Good idea. I would start with Term Limits for Congress and a Balanced Budget amendment.

Term limits!

I have thought about that. I was once a great proponent of term limits. Lately I am not so sure. The problem with no term limits is people who get in there and lose touch with society. They get good at making laws, but do they really know what laws to make? They use the power of incumbency + big money to get re-elected over and over. I like that they get better with experience at legislating, experience is good, but what are they using that experience for? Is that good? If we could really get the big money out of government, maybe we don't want term limits.

I don't know about that one.

I keep waffling.
 
Good morning Sirthinksalot,

Hi Politalker,

No, it hasn't been accomplished. Public unions are a cancer on government. As long as so called megacorporations aren't violating antitrust laws, I see no major problems with them.

Well then I still support public sector unions. Maybe they just need to be better regulated.
 
Hello Jack,

Take Money out of Politics. (No more bribes, ... oh, I'm sorry, I meant 'Political Donations')

Agreed. Ideally, people should be elected based on their positions on issues. Right now we have too many people getting elected based on big-money-enabled repetition of lies.
 
I wish we could fix the debate problem.

Viable voices are shut out of the debates, shut out of consideration. The two-party duopoly prevents a viable independent voice.

I think debates should be conducted by a nonpartisan nonprofit public entity. Maybe PBS.
 
Hello Cypress,



Maybe that could work, but the mechanics of it are unclear. Who would qualify? How would they qualify?

We obviously need experts to sort it out, not arm chair pseudo-experts on an obscure message board.

I would always suggest looking to where it has already been implementing and is reasonalbly successful We could copy what Norway has done for example, or at least consider elements of the Scandinavian model.
 
Hello DonaldvoTrumpovich,

(from another thread)

Term limits!

I have thought about that. I was once a great proponent of term limits. Lately I am not so sure. The problem with no term limits is people who get in there and lose touch with society. They get good at making laws, but do they really know what laws to make? They use the power of incumbency + big money to get re-elected over and over. I like that they get better with experience at legislating, experience is good, but what are they using that experience for? Is that good? If we could really get the big money out of government, maybe we don't want term limits.

I don't know about that one.

I keep waffling.

Take a look at this:

Today the average American is 20 years younger than their representative in Congress. This should come as no surprise, considering that over the past 30 years the average age of a Member of Congress has increased with almost every new Congress. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. This prompted us to take a further look at those graying averages.

Go beyond the age of Congress: learn how bipartisanship has decreased by 30% since 1989.

Democratic leaders in the House are two decades older than Republican leaders.

The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72 years old, whereas the average age of Republican House leadership is 48 years old. This trend continues in House committee leadership with Republican chairmen averaging 59 years old and ranking Democrats averaging 68 years old.

More than half of the Senators up for reelection in 2018 will be over the age of 65.

18 of the 33 Senators running for reelection in 2018 will be 65 or older. If they win, another six years in office would put Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Nelson, and Sanders well into their 80s. Looking ahead at the 2020 elections, 21 of the 33 Senators running for reelection will be 65 or older. The current chamber is already one of the oldest Senates by some measures according to the Washington Post, and the data suggests this trend would continue in the coming years.


You have to wonder why the age of members of Congress is getting older. I can only surmise that it's because they have such a great gig, they don't want to leave. Along with Term Limits, I would like to see a proposal that they are forced to retire once they turn 75. Commercial Airline pilots are forced to retire once they turn 65 because of the loss of cognitive abilities as one ages. Shouldn't that apply to the people that write our laws and manage our government?
 
We obviously need experts to sort it out, not arm chair pseudo-experts on an obscure message board.

Oh, but if you listen to some of our posters, they think they know everything, can offer a simple solution to every problem. This thread kind of calls that bluff.

I would always suggest looking to where it has already been implementing and is reasonalbly successful We could copy what Norway has done for example, or at least consider elements of the Scandinavian model.

I have no idea what they are doing. How is campaign finance handled over there?
 
Last edited:
Hello DonaldvoTrumpovich,

Take a look at this:

Today the average American is 20 years younger than their representative in Congress. This should come as no surprise, considering that over the past 30 years the average age of a Member of Congress has increased with almost every new Congress. In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61. This prompted us to take a further look at those graying averages.

Go beyond the age of Congress: learn how bipartisanship has decreased by 30% since 1989.

Democratic leaders in the House are two decades older than Republican leaders.

The average age of the Democratic House leadership is 72 years old, whereas the average age of Republican House leadership is 48 years old. This trend continues in House committee leadership with Republican chairmen averaging 59 years old and ranking Democrats averaging 68 years old.

More than half of the Senators up for reelection in 2018 will be over the age of 65.

18 of the 33 Senators running for reelection in 2018 will be 65 or older. If they win, another six years in office would put Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Nelson, and Sanders well into their 80s. Looking ahead at the 2020 elections, 21 of the 33 Senators running for reelection will be 65 or older. The current chamber is already one of the oldest Senates by some measures according to the Washington Post, and the data suggests this trend would continue in the coming years.


You have to wonder why the age of members of Congress is getting older. I can only surmise that it's because they have such a great gig, they don't want to leave.

That is a small part of it. They generally get re-elected because their seats are in gerrymandered districts and they face so little opposition.

Along with Term Limits, I would like to see a proposal that they are forced to retire once they turn 75. Commercial Airline pilots are forced to retire once they turn 65 because of the loss of cognitive abilities as one ages. Shouldn't that apply to the people that write our laws and manage our government?

That sounds like some cherry-picked right-slanted stuff there. And it was apparently from prior to the 2018 election in which the faces of Congress changed radically for younger and more female replacements. Is AOC even 30 years old? (besides being a total hottie)

With age comes wisdom. The job requirements for airline pilot and legislator are quite different. No way I would support an age limit for Congress.
 
Back
Top