OK, so you want to amend the Constitution, how about getting

[Greyhound]

all private money out of the system. As long as individuals, companies, and corporations control the purse strings you will have the sale and purchase of influence. Publicly funded elections would reduce the time spent on campaigning, open up the process to a much wider spectrum of views and reduce the chance for a repeat of the travesty of the last 3 elections.
It is our country, our airwaves, our future, take them back!
Whaddaya think? :party:

[wtbymark]

1. The legislature could be so corrupt that

any measure like this will never make it past committee, K street would make sure of it

[Raster]

2. No shit. I maintain that if Congress had really wanted to fix the

electoral mess, they had ample time to do so years ago. The last thing the bloated, corrupt system wants to do is reform itself. I mean, influence peddling and crony capitalism, it's what made America great, eh?:sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

4. You are correct, sir! There is no chance whatsoever of this happening

without a massive uprising of the sheeple, and we all know sheeple never stand up.

[MindPilot]

3. I agree; but nothing will change.

I would also like to see a right-to-privacy amendment.

[Greyhound]

5. I agree that we need an explicit right to privacy. This 'implied' BS

is just too vulnerable to reversal.

[flamin lib]

6. I'd like to see the right to contribute directly tied to the right to vote

If an entity cannot cast a vote, it can't donate in any way, shape or form. Then limit the max amount contributed annually.

All should have a right to speak, but none should have the right to shout others down.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Meaning that...

I live in legislative district 43. I may not contribute to a candidate running in district 34, even if she is my best friend? Since my state regulates "in kind" contributions, would that mean I could not even volunteer my time to be her campaign manager?

Since I live in Washington, that means I could not help out my brother, who is running for office in California?

Would that mean the Democratic Party -- a legal fiction with no right to vote -- would be prohibited from any assistance to Democratic candidates?

[flamin lib]

9. No, didn't mean any of that. Just that if a corporation can't vote, it

can't contribute. A voter can contribute through a national party and can volunteer to work for that party.

No voter registration, no contribution.

The party could do the same as PACs like Emily's List and "bundle" contributins. Each check would have to come from a registered voter and be made out to a candidate.

<edited to claify donate to party>

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. You didn't define "entity" as being distinct from "person"

That's what was throwing me off.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Here is a very simple amendment

The rights, immunities and protections derived from this Constitution shall not be construed as existing for corporations or other legal fictions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Gotta do it from the ground up. Start with the towns as that will get

clean election people into the state legislatures. Then enact it at a state level and try to get clean election people to the federal congress.

We're trying here in Maine but because it's a voluntary thing the people running for higher offices still opt to pour tons of money into their campaigns.

We have to break the "money = free speech" ruling in order to make it mandatory. Only then will we start to see some effect.

See my election page for more ideas about cleaning things up.

[Greyhound]

11. I am afraid that if the cost of electing our government is not borne

equally, by all, corruption will inevitably creep in. My proposal is to get all private money out, period. Media is required to give the air-time (they make their money at our indulgence) for a month or two every two years.
If there is a candidate you like, then volunteer for their campaign by all means, but no money.