In the Wake of the Successful General Strike in Oakland: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Occupy Oakland protestors successfully shut down the Port of Oakland yesterday [1], and although some wayward souls elected to engage in vandalism, the Oakland general strike can be properly characterized a success for the Occupy Wall Street movement as a whole. The city did not dare to respond with the violence it utilized last week, and the movement has demonstrated that it is capable of accomplishing its objectives.
The ultimate victory will be achieved when the grip of the plutocracy on our democratic institutions is removed. The Occupy Wall Street movement now has the credibility to push the political class toward that goal even though the political class is beholden to that plutocracy, because the only alternative is increasing violence on the part of the government in front of the world.
But specific measures will be needed. It should be presumed that politicians will attempt reforms that aren’t really reforms. They will try to enact legislation of labyrinthine complexity, assuring the People that they have given them what they want, but leaving sufficient leeway in the legislation to maintain current power structures. It thus appears that the very language of meaningful reform will have to emerge from sources outside of those power structures.
The most meaningful and necessary reform will be in the area of campaign finance, because promises of reform will be meaningless so long as politicians feel obligated to first satisfy the demands of moneyed special interests. A constitutional amendment will be necessary, since, under current law, corporations have a First Amendment right to contribute to campaigns. [2]
Here is offered for public consideration a suggested constitutional amendment for addressing the campaign finance issue. In subsequent postings I will try to explain the reasoning behind the provisions of this proposed amendment, and address any criticism. The proposed amendment follows:
Section 1 No person shall, directly or indirectly, provide or contribute money, services, or anything of value, to, or in support of, any candidate or campaign for any public office of the United States, who is not also eligible to vote for that candidate in the next election.
Section 2 No state shall permit any person to, directly or indirectly, provide or contribute money, services, or anything of value, to, or in support of, any candidate or campaign for any public office within that state, who is not also eligible to vote for that candidate in the next election.
Section 3 All contributions of money, services, or anything of value, that are permitted by this article shall be made directly to the candidate or his or her campaign by the person making the contribution, and not to any intervening person or entity of any kind.
Section 4 The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *