Congresscritter proposes stupid-acronym law that isn't crap!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics

ni on Nov 18, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) is tackling corporate money in politics head on.
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%. No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”

Holy shit! A stupid acronym law that doesn't suck, and not The Onion! Now I've seen everything!

[Highlord Laan]

Too bad it won't go anywhere.

[Kuja]

At least it's nice to see someone putting in a token effort.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. To tie into earlier comments, it suggests that even in our current system, there are politicians who aren't just Evil Suits.

That's a good thing to see. Moreover, a ban on corporate money in politics is something with potential bipartisan appeal- it's a great talking point against all the Evil Suits of both parties: "Why, exactly, are you opposed to this?"

[Highlord Laan]

Yeah. To tie into earlier comments, it suggests that even in our current system, there are politicians who aren't just Evil Suits.

That's a good thing to see. Moreover, a ban on corporate money in politics is something with potential bipartisan appeal- it's a great talking point against all the Evil Suits of both parties: "Why, exactly, are you opposed to this?"

"Because it's unamerican." Cue FauxNews and weeks long shrieking, feces flinging and hooting from the primate right in defense of the 'MURRICUN DREAM.

[Simon_Jester]

Laan, of course they'll say it.

The point is not to somehow find the Magic Words That Make Them Shut Up. Or to leave them so awed by your argument that they suddenly convert to your side. The point is that people who are sitting there, listening to all this, will be seeing you, over and over, arguing that the American Way is totally consistent with honorable, non-corrupt, non-stupid government that gives a damn about its citizens. While your opponents just babble and bluster and blather.

That's going to have an effect all its own- people can spot a total fraud when their noses are rubbed in the fraud's behavior.

[Stark]

If this doesn't work, what does that mean for all the people who think that the Occupy people are horrible anarchists who should use 'respectable' avenues to change law or policy?

[Lord Zentei]

It means that they should try to get more people elected, which was what that method entailed? Or at least get rid of those who were most aggressive in making it fail. 2012 is only one year away.

[Vejut]

While I do agree we need to do something about the excess of money sloshing around in politics, I actually would be a little leery of this bill, mostly because of the whole "overturn a supreme court decision by congressional bill" thing. Even if this usage isn't a bad usage, wouldn't it set a bad precedent for something like Roe v. Wade? Or am I misunderstanding what the bill is trying to do? That said, good on Rep. Deutch for trying to at least do something.

[Darth Holbytlan]

For reference, here's the text of proposed amendment:

ARTICLE—
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

EDIT: Added link.

[Simon_Jester]

While I do agree we need to do something about the excess of money sloshing around in politics, I actually would be a little leery of this bill, mostly because of the whole "overturn a supreme court decision by congressional bill" thing. Even if this usage isn't a bad usage, wouldn't it set a bad precedent for something like Roe v. Wade? Or am I misunderstanding what the bill is trying to do? That said, good on Rep. Deutch for trying to at least do something.

I think this is a constitutional amendment, not a bill.

It's perfectly all right for Congress (and the states) to amend the Constitution in ways that override Supreme Court decisions- the Thirteenth Amendment did exactly that for Dred Scott v. Virginia.

The main obstacle that keeps this from making problems is that it's much harder to pass constitutional amendments than to pass laws. Which is why, realistically, this amendment isn't likely to pass... but it serves the purpose of focusing attention, and is a nice start.

[madd0ct0r]

What are the arguments against it?

[Highlord Laan]

What are the arguments against it?

"It's un'merrikan" Once the magical phrase is spoken on FuckNews and circulated it'll be lapped up by the populace and die on the floor before even being discussed.

Hoping that something better than that could happen would require having faith in the american people, which is generally a bad idea.

[CaiusWickersham]

While I do agree we need to do something about the excess of money sloshing around in politics, I actually would be a little leery of this bill, mostly because of the whole "overturn a supreme court decision by congressional bill" thing. Even if this usage isn't a bad usage, wouldn't it set a bad precedent for something like Roe v. Wade? Or am I misunderstanding what the bill is trying to do? That said, good on Rep. Deutch for trying to at least do something.

Umm, Vejut? It's perfectly all right for the legislature to overturn a court decision through a law. That's how most legal systems work. If the legislature is not pleased with a court decision regarding a statute, they can pass a new statute or a constitutional amendment (whichever is the source of the problem) that fixes the issues the court has with the law.

[Vejut]

Yeah, sorry about that. Missed that it was an amendment, not just another backronym-named bill.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The main issue is if public awareness of the bill can be squashed before the bill itself is squashed. If congress is able to make sure it dies a quiet death before attracting public attention, then nobody really will have to be held accountable or answer the public. Only the usual concerned fringe will bring it up, and mainstream media will just ignore it. Honestly, it's really incumbent on those who propose the bill to trumpet it loudly. Hopefully someone will listen.