We will PRE-APPROVE Candidates that support the Plan to Reform Elections. We ask the President, all sitting members of Congress, and all candidates running in the 2012 national elections to publicly support the PRE Plan (Plan to Reform Elections).
The framework's exact wording is in the Op-Ed below. The summary is to agree on Clean Elections Standards, Term Limits, and to End Gerrymandering.
These three issues have overwhelming supermajority support across the full spectrum from conservatives, independents, to social liberals. For systemic issues such as these what right does government have to not listen to the people? Obviously, blatantly, the defiance can only be to preserve a dysfunctional system unwilling to release its hold on power.
There are many in this movement that want far more sweeping electoral reforms. We have chosen to only focus, this year, on these items that are bulletproof with respect to public support.
If candidates publicly show support for the framework (in the Op-ed below) we the overwhelming majority of people supporting this systemic change to our system, will engage with those candidates on the critical issues of the day.
If the candidate does not support the framework, we will engage with that candidate's opponent if s/he supports the framework. If neither candidate supports the framework we will find a candidate who does support it. We will engage with any and all candidates who support the framework. This is a sorely needed nonpartisan effort.
Inotherwords, only candidates that support the framework will be PRE-Approved candidates—to rebuild democracy in America.
To be perfectly clear, the overwhelming majority in support of these changes can swing any election we desire.
The framework is from http://rebuilddemocracy.org and is already showing bipartisan support from a wide spectrum of political thought.
There are those in this movement that want to fully boycott candidates who do not support PRE. There are those who wish to fully boycott the elected official's next candidacy if they fail to pass the resultant legislation. We can't stress enough how urgently we feel that all candidates need to support this framework and live into its passage.
I am in complete support of the Pre-Plan you are promoting (i.e., Americans United to Rebuild Democracy: A Conceptual Agreement for Fundamental Election Reform). While, with regard to election finance reform, it is not as aggressive as the self-imposed limits of my presidential campaign (see http://tjohara.com/html/donate.html), it is clearly in conceptual alignment with what I believe.
I completely embrace the concept of term limits (as I wrote in one of the books, The National Platform of Common Sense. While there may be other alternatives worthy of consideration, the ones expressed in your Pre-Plan offer a significant advancement over our current system.
Thank you for working toward a better and more equitable system of political representation.
As you may know, I have made the corrupting influence of money in politics the major theme in my campaign for President. Until we root out the corruption, it will be very hard to fix anything else. I also support congressional term limits and an end to gerrymandering. In doing so, I fully support the PRE Plan on aGREATER.US. Thank you for activism and public service.
Jon Huntsman [publicly supported the tenets]
Paul Passarelli (L)
Brian K Hill (R)
Bill Cimbrelo (I)
Robert Mardis (I)
Dan Reale (L)
WM (Mike) Trout (I)
Mark Quick (Reform)
Steven Cody Reynolds (Progressive)
Jack Todd Arnold (I)
Chuck Meyer (R)
This is from rebuilddemocracy.org
Americans United to Rebuild Democracy: A Conceptual Agreement for Fundamental Election Reform
I. Clean Elections
In order to discourage moneyed interests from shaping legislation and entrenching incumbency, we agree that we will work to replace the current campaign financing system with a Clean Elections System, meaning:
1. All campaign contributions to federal office seekers from economically-self interested entities, including corporations, labor unions and trade organizations, and representatives from these groups, shall be unlawful.
2. Any collusion between a candidate for federal office and any economically self-interested entity making independent political expenditures shall be a criminal offense and subject to stiff penalties.
3. Political campaigns for federal offices shall be funded by either:
A. A system similar to the Fair Elections Now Act, in which small-dollar contributions to political candidates are matched and multiplied with public money during various campaign intervals.
B. A voucher system in which every voter receives a political campaign donation voucher in a sum of $50 or more to be divided, at the voters' discretion, between US House, US Senate and Presidential candidates.
C. Private contributions filtered through a blind trust of the sort described by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers (Voting with Dollars - Yale University Press, 2002). (Supporters of the Agreement must agree to A or B and may also support C)
II. Congressional Term Limits In order to promote citizen government and discourage political careerism, it is agreed that the number of consecutive terms in which Members of Congress may serve in office are to be limited by law.
or and possibly
1. A. US House Members may not serve more than 3 to 6 consecutive two-year terms. US Senators may not serve or than 2 consecutive terms or
B. No Member of Congress may serve more than 12 consecutive years, in the House, the Senate or some combination of the two. (Supporters of the Agreement must agree to A. or B.)
2. A. After being term-limited, and forced out of Congress, that member is banned for life from ever serving in that same office again or B. The term limited Member of Congress may run for the same office again after retiring from elected office for the equivalent number of years that he/she had been permitted to serve. In other words, if 12 consecutive years are permitted, then no one may serve more than 12 years in any 24year span. (Supporters of the platform must agree to A. or B.)
III. A Ban on Gerrymandering In order to promote competitive elections, it is agreed that the practice of Gerrymandering shall be unlawful. Congressional districts shall be drawn in a way free of political influence, meaning:
1. Congressional districts are to be drawn in a neutral manner by independent officials without collusion with incumbent office holders or political parties. Language for an anti-gerrymandering provision could be similar to that of California Proposition 11. or
2. An automated approach to redistricting might be adopted using a split-line algorithm or similar method. Or
3. States may choose between #1 and #2 IV. Other Provisions Supporters of the conceptual agreement, while agreeing to the above provisions, are free to bring additional proposals to the table. The final proposal is not limited to the above concepts.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).