THE PLEDGE TO AMEND CAMPAIGN
TAKING BACK AMERICA FOR THE PEOPLE
The purpose of the Pledge to Amend campaign is threefold:
1) To inform the public about the critical need to get special interest money out of elections and abolish corporate personhood to Take Back America for the People.
2) To educate the public about how we can pass a constitutional amendment that will take us that critical step forward toward democracy.
3) To elect representatives in Congress and state legislatures who will show that they want to serve We the People by making support for a strong constitutional amendment a central issue in their campaigns.
FOR A COMPARISON OF AMENDMENTS CLICK HERE.
FOR A COMPARISON OF AMENDMENTS CLICK HERE.
PLEDGE TO AMEND
MAKING AN AMENDMENT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE
The only way to
achieve democracy in the United States is to make candidates for Congress and state legislatures prove
they want to represent We the People over They the Corporations is to make them
pledge to support an amendment that will:
1) Ban corporate campaign expenditures.
2) Empower Congress to limit individual campaign expenditures.
3) Abolish corporate personhood.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE:
1) Ask all candidates for Congress and state legislatures to make a public pledge to support such an amendment.
2) Educate politicians and voters of the need for an amendment to strip corporations of “rights” that should belong exclusively to We the People, not an amendment that would only give Congress the power to regulate what should be illegal: Corporate campaign expenditures.
2) Empower Congress to limit individual campaign expenditures.
3) Abolish corporate personhood.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE:
1) Ask all candidates for Congress and state legislatures to make a public pledge to support such an amendment.
2) Educate politicians and voters of the need for an amendment to strip corporations of “rights” that should belong exclusively to We the People, not an amendment that would only give Congress the power to regulate what should be illegal: Corporate campaign expenditures.
3) Encourage local groups to promote the message that all progress toward social justice,
environmental responsibility and general prosperity depend on all of us working to
end corporate influence over the US government.
4)
Pass
resolutions in city councils, county commissions and state legislatures. Get political, social, church or other groups to calls on your members of Congress and state legislators to take the pledge.
If you receive a written pledge to amend, please send an email to: staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q:
Wouldn’t any amendment be an improvement?
A: NO! Giving Congress the
power to regulate will NOT lead them to cut off the source of their campaign
funding. Worse, it will implicitly enshrine corporate personhood in the
constitution by acknowledging the “right” of corporations to contribute to
campaigns.
Q: What other “rights” would be eliminated?
A: Corporations could not claim the right to lie to the public, among other things. They would still have the privilege of limited liability and other privileges necessary to conduct business and protect investors.
Q: What other “rights” would be eliminated?
A: Corporations could not claim the right to lie to the public, among other things. They would still have the privilege of limited liability and other privileges necessary to conduct business and protect investors.
Q: Why should we expect this amendment to pass?
A: By making support for a
proper amendment a campaign issue, we can force incumbents and candidates to
tell us whether they are working for us or corporations. If they don’t support
the amendment we will vote for candidates who do, as people increasingly
recognize that this is the single most important issue that we can agree on.
Q: Isn’t campaign finance reform enough?
A: The Supreme Court gutted
model public financing laws in Arizona and Vermont using the same twisted “free
speech” argument upon which Citizens United was decided.
The
only way to effectively introduce campaign finance reform is to BAN SPECIAL
INTEREST MONEY IN ELECTIONS. The same amendment can establish the basis for
public financing by abolishing all forms of bundled money and placing
restrictions on individual donors.
SEE CANDIDATES WHO MADE A
WRITTEN
PLEDGE TO AMEND IN 2012 AND MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS WHO HAVE SPONSORED OR ENDORSED AMENDMENTS INTENDED TO
ABOLISH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD AND/OR DECLARE THAT MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
As Candidate for US Senate from the State of New York, I will diligently work for an ammendment to abolish Corpotate Personhood. This legal fiction which appears with the Slughterhouse Cases in the 1870's is long overdue for a serious challenge. In the instance of the the Slaughter House Cases (4 decisions), granted to corpotatre entities as personhood, a legal fiction. Why were the very first decisions of the HIGHEST COURT in the land the granting of personhood to corporate America? Its hard to imagine that the brand new 14th Ammendment which granted natualization,equal protection of the law and due process to 4 million newly freed Africans in the first instance empowered Corporate enslavers as persons before the law. How very strange, an ammendment which represented the former enslaved providing protection to corporate world as persons under the law!
ReplyDeleteIn Solidarity,
Colia L Clark
New York State Green Party Candidate US Senate
I'm sorry I missed this reply to my request for a pledge, Colia. In order to add you to the list I will need you to confirm that you pledge to support an amendment that will not only abolish corporate personhood but declare that money is not speech and that bans all special interest bundled money from elections.
ReplyDeleteYour statement is great but does not address the issue of money as speech nor the need for an explicit ban on campaign donations from special interest associations of individuals.
Just to clarify, the Citizens United and Buckley decisions were not based on free speech "rights" of corporations, so neither abolishing corporate personhood nor declaring that money is not speech are sufficient to get special interest money out of politics, though both are important in and of themselves.
I just sent you an email to this effect and eagerly await your reply.
Please let me know if you are aware of other candidates willing to make a pledge who are not on the list.
In solidarity,
Rick Staggenborg, MD
2010 Progressive Party of Oregon candidate for US Senate
Amending the Constitutional to ban "Special interest money" does not get to the root of the problem. Big $$$ in politics is only a symptom of the larger problem--"corporate personhood". We don't need to pledge, we need to MOVE.
ReplyDeleteMove to Amend wants to amend the Constitution to say "Corporations are not people and money is not speech." MTA is a coalition of over 200 organizations; you could join us. www.movetoamend.org
I support this idea, and my party,THE GREEN PARTY. has this as a PERMANENT plank in our platform since its inception.
ReplyDeleteHumboltus. I have a little trouble understanding why MTA believes that corporate personhood is the root of the problem with special interest money in elections. Neither Citizens United nor Buckley v Valejo were decided on the basis of corporate free speech "rights," as I am sure Cobb would tell you.
ReplyDeleteCorporate personhood is a separate issue and an important one, which is why I include its abolition in the elements of any amendment that candidates would have to support by taking the Pledge to Amend.
I have not found it helpful to try to work with MTA because of the steering committee's unwillingness to reconsider the tactical blunder of writing an amendment many people object to and expecting the coalition they "represent" to blindly follow them rather than working with other groups who do not share their narrow agenda:
http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org/2012/02/how-to-build-movement.html
Thanks Smith for letting me know that. I realize that the Greens do not allow candidates to take corporate money, but I was not aware that they were expected to support a constitutional amendment. I will have to double check, because the Green candidates I have spoke to did not seem to realize that either.
Doctor Rick
ReplyDeleteMichael Cavlan RN here. Thank you for your good work. I am sure you have heard of my political critique of MTA and their leadership. As an aside- I will never run for office again. I am in the process of writing a book called "Censorship- A Liberal Value- A Progressive Activist Tale" which should be ready for publication by July.
There will be a chapter on the Green Party and Move To Amend.
Keep up the good work Sir.
In Solidarity
Michael Cavlan RN
Minnesota
Thanks Mike and thanks for all you have done for progressive politics. I am sorry that you are not going to continue the fight as a candidate but obviously you intend to continue to contribute in other ways. I look forward to reading your book.
ReplyDeleteIt may interest you to know that after all its criticism of Pledge to Amend when I began to promote the idea in early 2012, the steering committee of MTA in its wisdom has launched their own version as of January. Bully for them! Too bad it is a little late to help candidates such as yourself who were trying to make it an issue in a presidential election year, when people were paying attention.
I look forward to the day when the steering committee of MTA realizes we are all headed to the same destination and we will get there faster by working together than by trying to stifle those who prefer not to wait for their instruction on how and when to proceed.
Someone pointed out that You Tube has labeled the video on this page "private." I leave it here because I believe that it was removed for political reasons, as the creator clearly wanted to spread this idea, not make a "private" statement on You Tube.
ReplyDelete