It’s Time to Get Money Out of Politics

Boss TweedVia GetMoneyOut.com:

Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we’re angry. Now, we’re turning our anger into positive action. By signing this petition, you are joining our campaign to get money out of politics. Our politicians won’t do this. But we will. We will become an unrelenting, organized wave advocating a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.

As the petition grows, we can use on The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC as a platform to force this issue to the center of the 2012 elections. From our former Washington lobbyist, Jimmy Williams, here is a DRAFT of our constitutional amendment:

“No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for federal office.”

Join us. Sign up. Tell your friends. Facebook it. Tweet it. #GETMONEYOUT

69 Comments on "It’s Time to Get Money Out of Politics"

  1. wont work. more propaganda. 

  2. wont work. more propaganda. 

    • It is definitely a possible feat, though a great one.   All that’s necessary is make all poiltical contributors put the funds in one campaign account and each candidate for any given office gets equal amount of funds.   Anyone misusing the funds gets life in prison; OK

  3. It would need to be paired with something to guarantee public attention to all candidates; because even in a situation like this the former CEO of a large corporation who has acquired millions in assets will out-campaign someone with only thousands in assets; work to pass legislation that benefits his business, and when done with politics return to his former business/industry in an environment better for him and not the people.

  4. It would need to be paired with something to guarantee public attention to all candidates; because even in a situation like this the former CEO of a large corporation who has acquired millions in assets will out-campaign someone with only thousands in assets; work to pass legislation that benefits his business, and when done with politics return to his former business/industry in an environment better for him and not the people.

    • That’s exactly the problem – taking “money out of campaigns” is perhaps one of the single most populist, myopic ideas to grace campaign finance reform. Sure, it directly stirs up the masses under some “sounds good on paper” banner and indirectly whispers of class warfare, but it is hardly thought out politically or economically. If no one can contribute to political campaigns, then effectively only the extremely wealthy can run, as they will be the only ones with sufficient resources to advertise (print, broadcast, and internet), visit caucuses and primaries across the country drumming up support, and pay campaign staff and advisors. The Presidents of the United States throughout the whole of our history have already been overwhelmingly of wealthy and/or of elite backgrounds, and to suggest that they finance their own campaigns – thus creating an unsurpassable barrier to political entry – would be to ring fence an already unspeakably powerful American political oligarchy. I would strongly suggest you rescind and/or substantially reconsider the phrasing of your petition to reflect these considerations, lest you throw the baby out with the bath water.

      • Mysophobe | Oct 1, 2011 at 10:22 am |

        Usually those who organize to “get the money out of politics” are arguing in some part for public financing of election campaigns. The wealth disparity of two candidates can be negated by a system of matching public contributions for candidates with demonstrable public support. In addition, the FCC could designate political radio and TV advertising as a public service and mandate that the “airwaves” we all own be used for the purpose of providing free and equal airtime to candidates with demonstrable support. This all could be funded on a national level through relatively minimal voluntary individual annual contributions.

      • Guest6055 | Oct 6, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

        The above amendment states that “no person…shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate” which could easily be interpreted to mean that a person cannot contribute to their own candidacy.  Therefore a wealthy person could not use their own money to fund their own campaign.

      • Cpsoldout | Oct 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

         campaign spending limits

  5. Anonymous | Sep 30, 2011 at 10:33 pm |

    It’s a nice thought, but the only way to cure generations of corruption is by the torch.

  6. It’s a nice thought, but the only way to cure generations of corruption is by the torch.

  7. De Carabas | Sep 30, 2011 at 10:44 pm |

     The supreme court ruled that money = speech with Citizen’s United v. F.E.C. That makes most campaign finance reform a non-starter. This included.

  8. De Carabas | Sep 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm |

     The supreme court ruled that money = speech with Citizen’s United v. F.E.C. That makes most campaign finance reform a non-starter. This included.

    • De Carabas | Sep 30, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

      Sorry I just noticed they want this to be a constitutional amendment. That would circumvent the supreme court problem. There is still the issue of the impossibility to get a amendment through, especially one that takes money away from the people who decide whether or not to vote for said amendment.

    • If money = speech then campaign finance is equivalent to a loudspeaker or PA system in a public place being used to disrupt public tranquility

  9. De Carabas | Sep 30, 2011 at 10:47 pm |

    Sorry I just noticed they want this to be a constitutional amendment. That would circumvent the supreme court problem. There is still the issue of the impossibility to get a amendment through, especially one that takes money away from the people who decide whether or not to vote for said amendment.

  10. If money = speech then campaign finance is equivalent to a loudspeaker or PA system in a public place being used to disrupt public tranquility

  11. “Get money of politics”, huh?

    I’m thinking my plan to legalize the extermination of the elites is a little more likely than getting money out of politics.

    But if we can pull it off, that’s great.

  12. “Get money of politics”, huh?

    I’m thinking my plan to legalize the extermination of the elites is a little more likely than getting money out of politics.

    But if we can pull it off, that’s great.

  13. It does seem odd that “candidates” spend significantly more money to obtain a job, than they will ever earn from that job.

    Obummer will spend somewhere $1 billion for a job that pays $400K per year. Most Congress members will spend several million for a job that pays $174K year for two years.

    Somehow, despite high campaign spending and low salaries, they have all managed to increase their wealth during the “financial crises.” They must be very shrewd investors.

  14. BuzzCoastin | Sep 30, 2011 at 9:51 pm |

    It does seem odd that “candidates” spend significantly more money to obtain a job, than they will ever earn from that job.

    Obummer will spend somewhere $1 billion for a job that pays $400K per year. Most Congress members will spend several million for a job that pays $174K year for two years.

    Somehow, despite high campaign spending and low salaries, they have all managed to increase their wealth during the “financial crises.” They must be very shrewd investors.

    • Redacted | Oct 1, 2011 at 2:54 am |

      It is mysterious. That’s also why I recommend a full Purge of any candidates Family.

      Gotta Kill them all!

      Flamethrowers work wonders.

  15. Anonymous | Oct 1, 2011 at 6:54 am |

    It is mysterious. That’s also why I recommend a full Purge of any candidates Family.

  16. you can’t outlaw a persons right to give. Yes corporations fuck this whole idea up, but you can’t outlaw intent.

  17. you can’t outlaw a persons right to give. Yes corporations fuck this whole idea up, but you can’t outlaw intent.

  18. That’s exactly the problem – taking “money out of campaigns” is perhaps one of the single most populist, myopic ideas to grace campaign finance reform. Sure, it directly stirs up the masses under some “sounds good on paper” banner and indirectly whispers of class warfare, but it is hardly thought out politically or economically. If no one can contribute to political campaigns, then effectively only the extremely wealthy can run, as they will be the only ones with sufficient resources to advertise (print, broadcast, and internet), visit caucuses and primaries across the country drumming up support, and pay campaign staff and advisors. The Presidents of the United States throughout the whole of our history have already been overwhelmingly of wealthy and/or of elite backgrounds, and to suggest that they finance their own campaigns – thus creating an unsurpassable barrier to political entry – would be to ring fence an already unspeakably powerful American political oligarchy. I would strongly suggest you rescind and/or substantially reconsider the phrasing of your petition to reflect these considerations, lest you throw the baby out with the bath water.

  19. Mysophobe | Oct 1, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

    Usually those who organize to “get the money out of politics” are arguing in some part for public financing of election campaigns. The wealth disparity of two candidates can be negated by a system of matching public contributions for candidates with demonstrable public support. In addition, the FCC could designate political radio and TV advertising as a public service and mandate that the “airwaves” we all own be used for the purpose of providing free and equal airtime to candidates with demonstrable support. This all could be funded on a national level through relatively minimal voluntary individual annual contributions.

  20. Anonymous | Oct 1, 2011 at 8:40 pm |

    As long as money exists, it will be in politics. 
    It is mainly a problem in representative democracy in mass societies. It could only be rectified by relocalization and at least an attempted switch to more direct democracy.

  21. Anarchy Pony | Oct 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    As long as money exists, it will be in politics. 
    It is mainly a problem in representative democracy in mass societies. It could only be rectified by relocalization and at least an attempted switch to more direct democracy.

    • A direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule.  Which mob would yu prefe to be n; the wealthy one r the primaitve one that someone else must carr teir fright.

      • Anarchy Pony | Oct 5, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

        Please try to type coherent statements and not be a mindless materialist obsessed with “wealth”.

  22. Personal wealth should be outlawed. It’s a primitive, selfish and obsolete notion.

    “When you think you have to want more than you need … until you have it all, you wont be free.” Eddie Vedder

  23. Personal wealth should be outlawed. It’s a primitive, selfish and obsolete notion.

    “When you think you have to want more than you need … until you have it all, you wont be free.” Eddie Vedder

  24. jasonpaulhayes | Oct 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

    Personal wealth should be outlawed. It’s a primitive, selfish and obsolete notion.

    “When you think you have to want more than you need … until you have it all, you wont be free.” Eddie Vedder

    • Anarchy Pony | Oct 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm |

      Actually, most societies that are characterized as “primitive” don’t have these problems.

  25. Anonymous | Oct 2, 2011 at 1:40 am |

    Actually, most societies that are characterized as “primitive” don’t have these problems.

  26. The Night Fox | Oct 2, 2011 at 3:12 am |

    If only we could whip up something like FOXDIE… 

  27. frank griffin | Oct 5, 2011 at 3:09 am |

    You can’t get the money out of politics until you get the politics out of money.

  28. frank griffin | Oct 4, 2011 at 11:09 pm |

    You can’t get the money out of politics until you get the politics out of money.

  29. Buckskin | Oct 5, 2011 at 3:11 am |

    it may burn like a torch but leaves no blisters

  30. It is definitely a possible feat, though a great one.   All that’s necessary is make all poiltical contributors put the funds in one campaign account and each candidate for any given office gets equal amount of funds.   Anyone misusing the funds gets life in prison; OK

  31. A direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule.  Which mob would yu prefe to be n; the wealthy one r the primaitve one that someone else must carr teir fright.

  32. I think small amounts to a candidate express my support, but only up to a certain point. The second part of the amendment is the most important part. “Citizens United” was a horrendous decision!

  33. I think small amounts to a candidate express my support, but only up to a certain point. The second part of the amendment is the most important part. “Citizens United” was a horrendous decision!

  34. Please try to type coherent statements and not be a mindless materialist obsessed with “wealth”.

  35. Guest6055 | Oct 6, 2011 at 6:07 pm |

    The above amendment states that “no person…shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate” which could easily be interpreted to mean that a person cannot contribute to their own candidacy.  Therefore a wealthy person could not use their own money to fund their own campaign.

  36. What’s the plan for financing campaigns. They are expensive, and how else will you get to know the candidates?

  37. What’s the plan for financing campaigns. They are expensive, and how else will you get to know the candidates?

  38. Parkerel | Oct 7, 2011 at 9:59 pm |

    I tend to agree with the commenter who questioned the first part of the proposed amendment.  If an individual wants to give his/her own money and I emphasis (their own money ) then do so but a corporation is not a person no matter what Alito or for that Romeny think.
    Any money no matter what entity, be that entity an individual gives be that amount $10.00 or $1,000,000,000.00 the entity should be named and the information available for free within in days not next year after the elections, (the internet would be an ideal place to post the names. 
     Supepacs, 527s, any of the various secret money sources should be eliminated.  If you are ashamed to let the world know where you stand then you at the very least shouldn’t be allowed to give money.

  39. Parkerel | Oct 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

    I tend to agree with the commenter who questioned the first part of the proposed amendment.  If an individual wants to give his/her own money and I emphasis (their own money ) then do so but a corporation is not a person no matter what Alito or for that Romeny think.
    Any money no matter what entity, be that entity an individual gives be that amount $10.00 or $1,000,000,000.00 the entity should be named and the information available for free within in days not next year after the elections, (the internet would be an ideal place to post the names. 
     Supepacs, 527s, any of the various secret money sources should be eliminated.  If you are ashamed to let the world know where you stand then you at the very least shouldn’t be allowed to give money.

  40. Cpsoldout | Oct 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

     campaign spending limits

  41. Cpsoldout | Oct 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

     campaign spending limits

  42. Cpsoldout | Oct 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

     campaign spending limits

  43. yahoouser | Oct 11, 2011 at 1:21 am |

    Jimmy williams Amendment is the best.
     I suggest  we add:

    No person, corporation or business  entity of any type shall be allowed  to influence any in-position  law-making, policy-making or rule-making  Federal officials by giving them money directly or indirectly, regardless of what pretext and pretence are used.

  44. yahoouser | Oct 10, 2011 at 9:21 pm |

    Jimmy williams Amendment is the best.
     I suggest  we add:

    No person, corporation or business  entity of any type shall be allowed  to influence any in-position  law-making, policy-making or rule-making  Federal officials by giving them money directly or indirectly, regardless of what pretext and pretence are used.

  45. yahoo user 1 | Oct 11, 2011 at 1:29 am |

    Jimmy williams amendment only deals with money given to candidates.

    We also need ban on money given to already-in-office federal law-making, policy making or rule-making persons which is intended to influenc the law, policy and rules of our country. This is equally important, if not more important , as compaired with influencing the candidates..

  46. yahoo user 1 | Oct 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

    Jimmy williams amendment only deals with money given to candidates.

    We also need ban on money given to already-in-office federal law-making, policy making or rule-making persons which is intended to influenc the law, policy and rules of our country. This is equally important, if not more important , as compaired with influencing the candidates..

  47. Instead of passing a constitutional amendment what do people think about making the giving anonymous. If cooperation or individuals want to give money, they have to give it through a third party entity financed by the US government that will direct the check to the candidate or party without disclosing the donor identity. This way the courts ruling of money equals speech is supported but not the corruption of the system. Also all meeting of “registered lobbyists” with any member of congressional staff needs to be recorded and posted.  There is no defense for having secret meetings. The government works for us. They are a public institution and have no trade secrets. If industry had a great idea that they want congress to work on, let the employers of congress know.

  48. Instead of passing a constitutional amendment what do people think about making the giving anonymous. If cooperation or individuals want to give money, they have to give it through a third party entity financed by the US government that will direct the check to the candidate or party without disclosing the donor identity. This way the courts ruling of money equals speech is supported but not the corruption of the system. Also all meeting of “registered lobbyists” with any member of congressional staff needs to be recorded and posted.  There is no defense for having secret meetings. The government works for us. They are a public institution and have no trade secrets. If industry had a great idea that they want congress to work on, let the employers of congress know.

  49. What does the group think of the idea of forcing contributions through an organization that makes the donation anonymous. Cooperation and citizens would give but to the organization with a designation to the campaign or party that they want the funds to go. This way we can bypass the money is speech issue and not have to worry about a constitutional amendment. Also all “Corporate Lobbyists” will have to record the meeting and conversations with congress and staff and that will be posted on the web. The government works for the people and if organizations have great ideas that will help the people there is no reason why they cannot share it will the employers of the people they are talking to.

  50. What does the group think of the idea of forcing contributions through an organization that makes the donation anonymous. Cooperation and citizens would give but to the organization with a designation to the campaign or party that they want the funds to go. This way we can bypass the money is speech issue and not have to worry about a constitutional amendment. Also all “Corporate Lobbyists” will have to record the meeting and conversations with congress and staff and that will be posted on the web. The government works for the people and if organizations have great ideas that will help the people there is no reason why they cannot share it will the employers of the people they are talking to.

  51. Which will is most likely happen the 53% that have a job, becoming one of the 99% with no hope or job or a 99% will become a millionare? I know that the Koch brother wish the 99% group would just fade away but where are they expected to fade away to! China for of Capitalism is coming to America at record speed. Will all nation worship the Chinese Captialism or freedom and democracy America once knew?

  52. Which will is most likely happen the 53% that have a job, becoming one of the 99% with no hope or job or a 99% will become a millionare? I know that the Koch brother wish the 99% group would just fade away but where are they expected to fade away to! China for of Capitalism is coming to America at record speed. Will all nation worship the Chinese Captialism or freedom and democracy America once knew?

  53. Thekillerbigmac | Oct 20, 2011 at 2:26 am |

    that’s cute…it needs to happen but…I am guessing it won’t. Better to ban corporate donation and make a very public register of personal donations

  54. Thekillerbigmac | Oct 19, 2011 at 10:26 pm |

    that’s cute…it needs to happen but…I am guessing it won’t. Better to ban corporate donation and make a very public register of personal donations

    • I live in Richmond VA and I talked to Eric Cantor at one of the meet and greets. He said that donations are registered and the voters are free to vote based on what they think of the representative. There is a sense that all citizens are experts in everything – check on their doctor, be a finanical expert and manage their 401K, monitor their representatives, etc. I think we have a better chance of passing a law than a constitutional amendment. Any one want to help we spread the idea please feel free to copy and paste

  55. I live in Richmond VA and I talked to Eric Cantor at one of the meet and greets. He said that donations are registered and the voters are free to vote based on what they think of the representative. There is a sense that all citizens are experts in everything – check on their doctor, be a finanical expert and manage their 401K, monitor their representatives, etc. I think we have a better chance of passing a law than a constitutional amendment. Any one want to help we spread the idea please feel free to copy and paste

Comments are closed.