NOTE!! This page does not necessarily reflect the views of Occupy Tacoma or Move to Amend national or Move to Amend Tacoma. It is still in development and will remain so for some time but use these ideas as you please. Your comments are solicited — TruthMerchant

We want the United States Federal government to represent the people of the United States and to "promote the general welfare". We are of the opinion that government serves no other legitimate function. If "provide for the common defense" does not "promote the general welfare" (and we believe it does), then "provide for the common defense" is not a legitimate function of government. And if our current government does not "promote the general welfare" then it should be repaired or replaced.

It is our opinion that government cannot accomplish its legitimate ends unless it is truly representative of the people it serves. And this cannot be achieved while there is a continuing flow of misleading propaganda from both business and government designed to enhance the power of those institutions at the expense of the people. It is the top down funding of election campaigns that promotes the autocratic and plutocratic nature of the information. And this misinformation has created a non representative government at the federal level. If we want a truly representative government then we must limit the funding of electoral campaigns to those funds that are supplied directly by the people themselves, both rich and poor. So the first section of a proper constitutional amendment that assures government of, by, and for the people would read something like this:

"Only individual breathing American Citizens may participate in any way in the funding or propagation of paid political advertising that identifies any candidate or potential candidate for any federal office"

There are two and possibly three further clarifying sections to the suggested amendment. But let us attend the word "propagation" in the statement above: It says that all electioneering communications (paid political advertising that identifies a candidate competing for an elected office) must be advanced in the name of a breathing person who can be held accountable for any slander or libel that may be contained in the message . The key word here is "accountable". The above statement declares that an entity defined as "Americans for apple pie and puppy dogs", or the Sierra Club, or the NRA (entities with no real assets) cannot promote electioneering communications unless an INDIVIDUAL BREATHING PERSON (normally a candidate for office) endorses the advertisements. The reason for this should be clear to any and all fair minded rational people. Non-profit corporations and "political action" groups are not realistically/financially accountable for their speech. And the contributors and shareholders have limited (if any) liability for the acts of the incorporated group. A non-profit organization which spends all its funds libeling a candidate cannot pay any award to a plaintiff. And if the only purpose of the organization was to defame a candidate then no amount of "punishment" will deterred such acts. A corporate charter sitting on a chair in a jail cell is a proper illustration of the lack of accountability of non-profit corporate entities. A corporate charter does not care if it is in jail or sunning itself on the Riviera. Corporations and political action committees are not people.

We hasten to add that this restriction does not apply to organizations that indulge in issue advocacy, or ideological promotion, or economic opinion. The "naming" of individual candidates is clearly an electioneering activity as opposed to issue advocacy. Nor does this constitutional restriction prevent incorporated entities from endorsing candidates for office. The sole purpose of this action is to stop the unaccountable lying that takes place in the current electioneering system. If criticisms of candidates competing for office and attacks on their character must be delivered by opposing candidates then there will be far less lying. Criticisms of government itself are ideological and never barred. Suggestions on improving government, or shrinking it, or extending it are not in any way affected by this proposed clarification. True "freedom of speech" is not impaired.

If electioneering communications are endorsed by a candidate for office then that candidate will be held accountable by the press and at the polls and by possible civil actions. This provision does not prevent electioneering by very wealthy individuals. Such individuals, however, will still be subject to prosecution or civil actions for any lies and distortions perpetrated through the ads. No matter who endorses/propagates the ad, there will be one or more individual citizens who can be held accountable for any slander or libel. The constitutionalization of McCain Feingold as suggested by the above clarification signals the end of false and misleading "attack ads", forcing all campaign advertising activity to be accountable for libelous speech. This essentially forces most, if not all, electioneering communications to be delivered by actual candidates for office using funding from the people who will be represented by the candidate. And now we add the second section as a clarification of the first:

"No candidate for federal office may accept support from any person that will not be directly represented by the candidate."

That means that senate elections must be funded by people residing in the state and that congressional elections must be funded by people residing in the district. Wealthy people will INDIVIDUALLY have just as much control at the Senatorial level as they do now. But the House of Representatives will stand a much better chance of belonging to the common people as was the original intent. This is not a restriction on what people can do with their own money. It is a restriction on what candidates and political parties can do to control an election or prevent the election of a non partisan candidate for office. And those elected representatives who fail to represent their constituents will be quickly replaced. That is something we all should want. We suggest that those who are concerned with liberty and justice and the intent of the founders would benefit from the following excerpts:

(This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).

Did representatives exist primarily to protect the people at large against arbitrary power by preventing government from acting without the expression of popular consent? Or do they not provide as well a mechanism whereby the people could authorize government to make law in the positive sense, actively adopting policies that contribute to the prosperity of the society and the happiness of its citizens?

What if the representative is actually in the pay of those outside our constituency who are much more concerned with their own happiness or their own power than they are with our opinions and concerns? Or what if our supposed representative is concerned with his or her own power and advancement to the detriment of those (s)he is supposed to be representing? And what if his or her self preservation and advancement are determined not by us, but by forces actively pursuing our unwitting and unwilling compromise?

"A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

What we will find in all cases is that the smaller the group being represented and the more often the representative stands for office, then the more truly representative the chosen person will be. And if the position is well rewarded many persons will WANT the job and the contenders for the position will constantly review the actions of the individual in that position, searching for actions that indicate a lack of concern for the constituency. So:

"The membership of The House of Representatives of the United States of America will be composed of no fewer members than twice the cube root of the total population of the nation as determined in the last preceding count conducted by the United States Census bureau. Members will be directly elected in even numbered years from equally populous, contiguous, and COMPACT, single member districts."

NOTE!!!

The number of House members was unconstitutionally locked at 435 in the 1920's by the Two Party as they sought to ensconce themselves forever. They seem to have succeeded. Until 1921 the House grew as the population grew. Our representative districts are too susceptible to MONEY because they are too big.

"Should Experience or public opinion require an equal and universal suffrage for each branch of the Government such as prevails generally in the U.S., (then) a resource favorable to the rights of landed and other property, when its possessors become the Minority, may be found in the enlargement of the Election Districts for ONE branch of the Legislature and a prolongation of its period of service. Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater. And although an ambitious candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object, it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency of a longer period of service would be, to render the Body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason and justice could regain their ascendancy.

AND

Each election year produces NEW members on the Senate even though some of the members remain. And as such, the Senate must adopt its rules by majority vote of the members at the beginning of the Senatorial session that begins in each odd numbered year. Hence, a clarifying amendment:

"The Senate is not a continuing body".

These are suggested CLARIFICATIONS to the United States Constitution, that improve the representative nature of our government. It is hoped that people will comment on these suggestions and that we can reason together and decide what we want to do and what we can reasonably expect the 99% to want to do. And remember:

"** IN THIS COUNTRY THE FAT LADY NEVER SINGS **". We evolve.