Operation Hope - Anti Corruption/Campaign Finance

Operation Hope Discussion
41

What:

The Problem:
We allow the unfettered bribery of all our local, state, and federal politicians. The legal basis that allows this is, quite literally, based on fiction. That doesn’t matter now. It is happening, in real time, and by both parties. They brag about it, so transparency isn’t the problem. We don’t need to debate this one and it has nothing to do with political party, political perspective or any culture war. It is just common sense. We allow our government officials to, routinely, be bribed and its all perfectly legal. It is an existential threat.

The Answer:
A national voting referendum that, PLAINLY, asks the American people: Do you want to continue allowing the unchecked bribery of our body politic, OR do you want to restore democracy? We immediately dissolve all fictional and material mechanisms of legalized briber. Bribery is party agnostic and presents a very real threat to our way of life. Every time I look at my phone, a precedent is being smashed and/or a rule ignored. We have the technology and infrastructure to easily present ALL the people with the opportunity to vote on the issue of legalized bribery. Yes, it will take people with whom we disagree or may even despise.

Why:
It is time to choose. Legalized bribery presents a clear and present danger. It is an existential crisis threatening our way of life. Everyone agrees with this. We have been philosophizing, discussing, debating, protesting, writing letters, etc. for decades. What have we been protesting? War, environment, foreign policy, wages, healthcare, guns, immigration, nukes, et.al, yet here we are, in worse shape than ever. I don’t need to go back and cite all the legal fiction that led to this moment. Right now, today, we allow the unbridled, obscene, gross bribery of all our local, state and federal politicians. The legal basis that allows this is, quite literally, fiction. That doesn’t matter now. It is happening, in real time, in plain sight and by both parties. If this is not an existential threat to our way of life, then what is? We are for sale. These guys represent us and they routinely prostitute themselves. I, for one, am sick of being used by sociopaths.

The Where and kina how::
It is bribery and that is how we should refer to it. If the messaging is focused, on target, presents people with a clear picture, we can win. We don’t have to attach it to anything else. Operation Hope and TYT have the credibility to remain politically agnostic by championing this issue and organizing around it. I am just saying maybe we can pull the old Star Wars move here and sneak a nuke down the vent of the Death Star. If we could rally, organize and deploy thousands of people at a time, focused on the one single message, we could force a referendum. Either we get rid of the money or it gets rid of us.

1 Like
42

I agree with your premise. Except if for instance the SAVE act passes the odds that we will get any proton torpedoes in any Deathstar becomes much less likely. That is a bill they are trying to sneak by right now. The whole point I am making is fixating will doom us all. We must triage, what you’re talking about is very important and the time could be right coming up. All I am saying is if you focus on that at the cost of voting rights. It will be the biggest blunder we make. To the extent we can focus on both great, and that is what we should do. If we must focus on one it should be voting rights until 2026.

1 Like
43

Which is precisely why they have and continually work so hard to repress the right itself from so many.

1 Like
44

Well, maybe repression isnt working so well for the left? Im just saying, the scoreboard looks real bad, right now. Engagement, with empathy, on the other hand, does have a shot at the success we need to make a real difference. We need to be the adults, if u will. Its not like its an issue, that if presented to, virtually, any U.S. citizen they would hesitate to say no, its not a good idea to allow unlimited bribery of our, so-called, political leaders. It has nothing to do with left, right, center or anything like that. We allow our poliitical leaders to be bribed to the tune of hundreds of billions. Are we ok with that? Its absurd…

1 Like
45

You had better register for the meeting this Wednesday at 7:30 Central Time! Plus, Cenk will be at this one. You’ll love him, he’s great. :wink:

Open this link, scroll down to the calendar, and click on where it says “Operation Hope: Chat with Cenk!” on March 5.

1 Like
46

Wouldnt miss it…

1 Like
47

C) I expect that such a carefully considered approach is likely to be too slow. Progressives need our own ``Flood the Zone’’ campaign, to bring the traitors to their knees. If we wait to get started banning the vehicles by which campaign finance is corrupted, we will be left in the dust of the remnants of our democratic republic.

3 Likes
48

Well struck, hound… Welcome to the party, pal!!! :rofl: I am old, so I apologize for the dated reference. Its all I got…

2 Likes
49

We need to find an argument that will be picked up by right wing influencers and online platforms that will bring attention to their side being hurt by voter suppression. The more established outlets won’t change from the “illegals voting” narrative, and the ones who are dead set on winning by any means know that they win by mass suppression.
I don’t think it would take many far right platforms pointing out how the new ID laws, mail in and drop box access reduction will hurt the ability of old people who overwhelmingly vote republican, to get some steam and a bit of its own momentum.
It’s nothing to rely on, but I agree that any push toward protecting voting rights is worth at least a little time and effort. The corruption can’t be removed without the voting public support.

1 Like
50

Federal: Ethics In Government Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/senate-bill/555

Ethics Reform Act (1989)

STOCK Act

  • All investments should be required to be held in a blind trust while you are in office.

  • When you are a regulator of an industry, you should be barred from working in it after you leave that role. If you were to enact such rules, pensions should also be boosted for regulators at the same time, to obviate the need for doing that.

2 Likes
51

Hi! Conservative from LA here interested in partnering on this topic. I saw your Jubilee and I’ve long known about Wolf-PAC’s Article V resolution. Two things:

  1. I tend to believe that the main issue with Citizens United is the misapplication of “freedom of association”. I have less of an issue with Americans pooling their money privately in a corporate structure to make political contributions. Where I take issue is with publicly traded companies whose shareholders are so loosely associated and not at all aligned in purpose making political contributions. Also, foreigners who bypass contribution rules by simply buying up or forming American companies and thereby making political contributions. Certainly a targeted bill of this sort would not require amendment and could pass muster with Citizens United.
  2. I am a California state level volunteer with Convention of States who seek to impose term limits on federal offices, limit the size and scope of the federal government, and impose fiscal restraints. They currently have 19 of the 34 states needed to call a convention. Would you entertain partnering with them and perhaps negotiating a reframing of the scope of their movement to include campaign finance reform? I have to believe that COS will not reach 34 without negotiating. Campaign finance reform is a topic they didn’t select which I believe is popular enough with conservatives to be adopted and will bolster your ambitions. A very strange marriage, but one I would love to see happen and would do everything I could to see succeed.

Thanks for reaching out to other Americans to work together!

1 Like
52

I just posted this on Cenk’s twitter thread but below is a sample amendment that could be passed under the Convention of States resolution which has already been passed in 19 states.

Think about the merits of the below. Suppose Wolf PAC is successful and we make a blanket rule for campaign finance across the nation, it would only take a single loophole, validated by a Supreme Court decision to then circumvent that amendment and corporations will then be able to again funnel money across the nation to buy up politicians.

HOWEVER, if we push this authority to the states to regulate, any corporation large enough to influence nationally would need to follow the rules within just one state. The amendment proposal here even clarifies that domicile for corporations is determined by the state of incorporation. States can then close their boarders from receiving “foreign” state influence in the form of Republican (or Democrat) PACs funneling money into certain key districts or state positions. States can make their own laws on barring corporations from contributing if they see fit.

53

Disclaimer–COS doesn’t endorse any proposed amendments, this is simply my attempt at illustrating how campaign finance reform might be best suited in the Convention of States resolution.

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Regulation of Federal Campaign Finance by the States

Section 1.

The power to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections for federal office, including candidates for President, Vice President, Senate, and House of Representatives, shall reside with the legislatures of the several States, in regard to contributions made by individuals or entities domiciled within each State.

Section 2.

No law of Congress nor decision of the Supreme Court or any inferior federal court shall restrict or override a State’s authority to regulate campaign finance for federal elections, with respect to contributions made by its residents or corporations domiciled therein.

Section 3.

Each State may determine, by law, limits, prohibitions, disclosure requirements, or other conditions applicable to campaign contributions or expenditures intended to influence federal elections held within that State, regardless of the source or origin of such contributions or expenditures.

Section 4.

For the purposes of this Article, a corporation shall be deemed domiciled in the State of its incorporation. No corporation, nor any group of corporations under common ownership or control, as defined by federal securities law or applicable state law, shall be deemed domiciled in more than one State for the same federal election.

Section 5.

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to permit States to restrict political speech, except insofar as such restrictions pertain to the source, amount, or disclosure of money used to influence federal elections.

Section 6.

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to impair or restrict the authority of Congress to prohibit or regulate contributions, expenditures, or other financial activities by foreign nationals, foreign entities, their agents, or any domestic entity beneficially owned or controlled by such parties, in connection with any federal, state, or local election.

Section 7.

The States may establish cooperative enforcement frameworks or interstate compacts to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Article, including the identification and tracking of contributions made in violation of any State’s campaign finance laws.