Corporations shall be strictly barred from any political expenditures to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties. However, transparent free speech will in no way be infringed upon as it pertains to issues.
[Originally posted on the Delegate's Only Forum of the Continental Congress 2.0 website 5/21/12]
Are we Reformers or Partisans?
I wrestle with this regularly. I'm guessing many of you might, too.
Do I vote my single-issue or a sum of my values? The first tells me I am a reformer, no matter if the candidate is left, right or center, if he/she supports some of what some of us are calling the consensus reform agenda— I will vote for them. The latter tells me, since I am an independent, to vote for the candidate I think will do the best job on the items I care about other than reform.
My hope for the Continental Congress 2.0 is that we are Reformers, first. This is a redress of grievances of the federal government. We may be suing them. No one likes to get sued. Unless there is little doubt that the government is wrong, and we are right, we will lose. We might lose anyway. But then we will have the moral high-ground.
A few of the grievances, on the Continentall Congress 2.0 website, dramatically affect the mainstream media, they will not be CC2's friend. What good is having the moral high-ground if we only have the under-ground media to spread the word? I'd like to win this first round in months or years—not decades. With rephrasing, further explanations, a choice between a couple similar options, and letting go of perhaps only a 10th of what we ALL need, we could get some of the mainstream media to give us favorable coverage. Albeit, probably after the CC2.
I've heard it said, "Why are we all satisfied to fail alone, when we could so easily win together?" I believe we ALL can agree on a stunning, country-saving set of grievances, I just hope we are strong enough to forge the consensus where we can all get what we need to win, even though we will not get everything we want.
For example, I'm guessing there is unanimous support for
1. End the Legal Extortion and Bribery of Elected Officials.
2. Ban Corporate Political Expenditures To, or In Favor of Candidates and Political Parties.
But here's where the conservative visitors to my site balk. Should a, let's say, Marriott be allowed to advertise for a more lenient immigration policy? Should a national union be able to advertise for a more strict immigration policy? Some would argue that this is not only democracy in action, but really good democracy. Can environmental groups be able to spend money on their take on a national energy/environmental policy? If they can how about Exxon? How about a coalition of environmental groups, or a trade association?
On my website, aGREATER.US, we are getting evidence of high correlation reflectivity on our readers ranking of issues to national polls. Yesterday, US News and World Report announced a poll showing Americans support Ending the U.S. Prohibition of Marijuana by 74% (let it be a States' issue). That is exactly it's bipartisan, actually tripartisan, rating on aGREATER.US!
So, having said this, the two items above rate almost a perfect 100%. But anything that drifts into abridging free speech plummets into the middle 70%s. Does anyone want to chime in on "who" becomes the arbiter of free speech on "topics" and "issues"? If an ad implies support for or against an issue, do we want to lock people up?
I've been wrestling with this since the first of the year when we started to get thoughtful, detailed, content. Are we all willing to agree on 1 and 2, while trying to figure out if we can find consensus on corporate speech on issues.
Jon Denn, Editor, aGREATER.US, delegate for CC2.0 CT5
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).