Separation of Money and State

The constitution of the United States was written to form a practical and functioning government.  The constitution did this by limiting government.

 

Our present government and our two main political parties are profoundly warped and shaped by special interest money. We need a constitutional amendment to separate money and state. 

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Legal economic entities, corporations, partnerships, unions, and businesses, like religious institutions, must be constitutionally separated from government. 

 

Religious institutions cannot contribute to public political campaigns.  Why should other legal institutions be allowed?  Contributions to a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", should be made exclusively "by the people". Government political campaigns must rely exclusively on personal income contributions, limited by congress.

 

If we wish to spend "political capital" on constitutional amendments, lets spend it wisely.  We needn't look beyond our pocketbook to see a gaping money-politics   fault-line.

 

Here’s how an amendment to the constitution, separating money from state, might read:

 

The rights of the people, extended in this constitution shall not be construed or implied to extend to legal military, economic, social, or political entities.  Contributions to government campaign financing “of the people, by the people, and for the People” shall be made exclusively by the people, and limited by congress.

 

 

 

< It Can Only Be Put Off So Long | Israel Punches the US in the Mouth >
 Display:
The problem is that very same people have to vote on approving that and getting ratified by the states. I truly believe that it will take more than most of us are willing to do to right this ship. As long as most people can put food on the table and watch TV, they won't do much more than bitch.

by sisco66 on 03/14/2010 04:42:49 PM EST

we know the term "peasant revolt" for a reason; i think it takes a mere plurality of downtrodden to bring about radical social change.  of course, history also shows that radical change often manifests in the form of military dictatorship, so i'm not so sanguine about "the people rising up."

by jtzl on 03/15/2010 06:51:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ya, it falls in the area of careful what you ask for.

If 12 million people loosing their homes while wall street steals trillions ain't enough to wake people up, I don't know what is. I guess after fixing two elections, illegal wars, torture and domestic spying we have all become desensitized. 

by sisco66 on 03/16/2010 05:54:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]

If you want to see the future of America, all you need to do is look at Mexico. A massive police state ripe with corrupt officials, all on the take from top to bottom, where the biggest employer are the drug trafficking or gangsters.

The middle class in Mexico is non-existent, education is non-existent, a the future of that country is the same.

Why we are being pushed to that model is obvious, the elites need to control 99% of all wealth, and anyone who opposes them are labeled terrorists.

by wowisdabomb on 03/15/2010 10:02:56 AM EST

i think the solution lies in Larry Lessig's suggestion to hold a Constitutional Convention: http://wiki.lessig.org/Arti cle_V_Convention

 I *swear* there was a link to a formal organization trying to raise awareness, but now I can only find a few ragtag-looking sites related to it.  If you know the link I'm thinking of, please post it.

by jtzl on 03/15/2010 06:41:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
http://wiki.lessig.org/Arti cle_V_Convention

by jtzl on 03/15/2010 06:42:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that's the TYT software breaking my link...had never posted in a diary before.  I get it now and will stop spamming.

by jtzl on 03/15/2010 06:43:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: