[GPSCC-chat] Move to Amend

[Rob Means]

Trying to manage Congress-critters is addressing the symptoms.
Spencer's Constitutional approach attacks the source of our problems -
control of our government by corporate/moneyed interests.

Although I believe that Spencer's two rules are exactly what we need, I
am less sure that we need two Amendments rather than one that
incorporates both.


-- 
Rob Means,1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913
408-262-0420h, 408-262-8975w, rob.means at electric-bikes.com



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:53:14 -0700
> From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
> To: sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
> Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Move to Amend
> Hello:

>        I think we need two constitutional amendments.

>              1.  "A corporation is  not a person."

>              2.  "Money is not speech."
> 
>        If me combine these with each other or with anything else, we 
> will make it easier for the powerful to defeat them.  I'm not an 
> attorney, but I think constitutional amendments with this verbiage will 
> dramatically overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision in a 
> way that will allow congress to pass effective campaign finance 
> legislation.  They still won't do it unless the public demands it, but 
> that's another issue.  I think term limits are a bad idea, because they 
> deprive an electoral body of legislative memory, thereby giving more 
> power to lobbyists -- the opposite of what we need.
> 
> 
>        Spencer