Campaign Finance / Corporate Personhood

A. Would you commit to introducing into Congress Move to Amend’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of big money on elections?

B. If  yes, what additional steps will you commit to taking to restore democracy to the citizens of this country?

C. If no, what steps would you commit to taking toward getting big money out of elections?

Background   The strongest amendment to the U.S. Constitution introduced into Congress so far as an antidote to the corrosive influence of big money on elections is the Deutch/Sanders Amendment.   While this amendment would prohibit for-profit corporations from making campaign contributions, it would not prohibit not-for-profit corporations such as Citizens United and other PACs and SuperPACs from spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.  In addition the Deutch/Sanders Amendment has little chance of gaining support from conservatives because it limits spending by for-profit corporations but not by unions.  In contrast, Move to Amend is proposing an amendment that would go much farther toward leveling the playing field.

Move to Amend is a grassroots organization with 75+ affiliates nationwide.  Based in the 2nd Congressional District city of Eureka, Move to Amend’s affiliates within the district include:  Humboldt, Marin, Point Arena, San Rafael, Sonoma County, Ukiah and Willits.  Through their leadership, many organizations, towns and counties in the the 2^nd district have already passed resolutions in support of Move to Amend’s proposed amendment.

Daniel Roberts

In order to limit money in election, we must remove money from the political decisions: “squeeze the tumor”.

Norman Solomon

For decades — as an activist, author and nationally syndicated columnist — I have detailed how big money in politics promotes everything from war and environmental degradation to economic injustice and unfair trade treaties to media conglomeration and corporatization of health care. In my largely volunteer-driven campaign for Congress, I have implemented a grassroots approach to fundraising: raising over half a million dollars from more than 5,000 (mostly small) donors, while refusing to accept a penny of corporate PAC money. Principle is key to our strategy.

As a member of Congress, one of my top priorities will be to push for legislation and a constitutional amendment aimed at removing money from politics. I will absolutely promote a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, and to affirm that campaign-related spending can be strictly regulated, thereby overturning the Citizens United decision.

I will immediately cosponsor the Fair Elections Now Act — which would establish public financing of elections (sometimes called “clean money”) and enable federal candidates to avoid large donations, big money bundlers and donations from lobbyists.

I will also cosponsor legislation banning elected officials from working as lobbyists after they leave office. Polls show that public financing and lobbying bans are popular with the U.S. public — whether Democrat, Republican, some other party or independent. I pledge to go to Washington to fight to fulfill the public’s desire to take money and corruption out of politics.

Susan Adams

Our Board has already passed a resolution supporting the Move to Amend amendment.  Big money is a cancer on our electoral system, and must be removed from the equation.  Until that time, full disclosure must be made by all who contribute to PACs, Super PACs and campaigns.

I will fight for this in Congress, and I will support Clean Money initiatives and public financing for elections.  I will go further than the Move to Amend amendment, but this is an important first step.

Andy Caffrey

Yes.  It is already one of the seven fundamental agenda items of New Green America.  It is agenda item 4.  It’s one of my highest priorities

My entire campaign is built around the premise that grassroots leaders can now get elected to Congress as registered Democrats in the most liberal districts of the nation, such as CA-2.  This is because a million dollar campaign uses that money mostly to buy TV ads.  We can now reach as many people using the internet/social networkers, real world grassroots communities such as Occupy WS, our own guerilla videos and public access/internet streaming networks to reach the same number of people.  My campaign is proving that as there are now major stories about me in four of the six counties including two front page stories (Press Democrat and Times-Standard).

Brooke Clarke

Yes I would introduce and/or support undoing corporate person-hood.  This is just part of the problem of big money controlling the government.  Even bigger than a SuperPAC are the Democratic and Republican national committees.  They have much more money and power than the lobbyists.  This is what’s behind the “split on party lines” votes.  That does not happen because of PAC or SuperPAC money, only party politics.  We need radical reform in how elections are held to remove party politics as well as big money.

If  yes, what additional steps will you commit to taking to restore democracy to the citizens of this country?
There are a number of things but some of the more important ones are to restore justice.  Starting with Ford’s pardon of Nixon for criminal behavior all the succeeding presidents have pardoned their predecessor for criminal activities.  This has now been passed down to corporations, for example Obama granted immunity from criminal prosecution to the telecom industry.  Another area is Regulatory Capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Capture) where government agencies who were founded to regulate an industry now work to protect them from criminal prosecution.  One of the most public examples is the SEC which has protected a lot of Wall Street people from going to jail.  For more on this see the book:
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful by Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)
Also see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog

William Courtney

No response received.

Larry Fritzlan

No response received.

Mike Halliwell

Would you commit to introducing into Congress Move to Amend’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of big money on elections?

I do not support ANY amendments to the Bill of Rights, and believe that the antidote to excessive influence of large political spenders is the matching of small contributions with public funds.  Barack Obama destroyed public financing of presidential elections, when he refused to honor his pledge to limit himself to the available equal funding of both major party nominees.  Senator Barack Obama had the most lopsided spending advantage in the history of presidential elections, including more in Wall Street contributions than Senator John McCain.  The Democratic Party is MORE dependent on large contributors (such as hedged fund manager George Soros) than the Republican Party.

If no, what steps would you commit to taking toward getting big money out of elections?

There is room within the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to keep large “independent” election information spenders from buying influence with candidates to a) crack down on a candidate’s top supporters who cannot meet the “lack of co-ordination” requirement for exceeding limits on direct contributions (upheld in the Buckley v Vallejo decision), and b) require instantaneous filings via the internet, identifying the source of contributions to so call “Super PAC’s”, and c) include source of funds statements in all political ads. When voters realize that an attempt to “buy” an election is underway, candidates beholden to unpopular special interests are hurt, not helped, by this linkage.  Highly respected six term Indiana Senator Richard Lugar spent more than three times as much as combined spending against him from all sources, but he lost to his (May 2012) primary challenger 39% to 61%.

Really big money in elections is less influential than the cumulative impact of contributions that do not exceed the $2,500 ceiling.  I am running in the 2^nd CD to assure a choice for voters who resent the excessive influence of big money in politics, along with seven others with low budget campaigns.  Whatever one’s political views, there is ample opportunity to cast a vote in support of keeping political office from being “sold to the highest bidder.” Anyone who thinks there is a need to silence big spenders, should consider the failure in 2010 of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, whose main credential was their ability to spend lavishly on political ads.

Jared Huffman

Would you commit to introducing into Congress Move to Amend’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of big money on elections?

Yes, I will introduce or co-sponsor such an amendment. I’m committed to overturning Citizens United and reaffirming the authority for Congress and states to enact meaningful reforms to restrain campaign spending, ban independent expenditures, and hopefully embrace public campaign financing.

If  yes, what additional steps will you commit to taking to restore democracy to the citizens of this country?

My previous answer indicates my support for public financing, which I’ll continue to champion. I’ve consistently supported public financing measures. I’m also in favor of increased transparency of campaign contributions and I am a co-author of the California DISCLOSE Act, AB1648. This bill is currently making its way through the state legislature and would fight back against unlimited hidden spending on campaigns by letting voters know who really is paying for political ads– on the ads themselves.

Stacey Lawson

No response received.

John Lewallen

Would you commit to introducing into Congress Move to Amend’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of big money on elections?

Yes.  Electing John Lewallen to Congress will show that reformers can elect one of our own without the influence of big money or political parties.  Reform candidates throughout the nation will be encouraged to join me in Congress for fundamental reform.

If  yes, what additional steps will you commit to taking to restore democracy to the citizens of this country?

I will remain connected to the Occupy movement while in Congress, and to other grassroots movements of which I am a founding member: Veterans for Peace Chapter 116, the Mendocino Environmental Center, the Ocean Protection Movement, Occupy Fisheries, and others. Join me in governing as a mass reform movement!                                                                                           

Tiffany Renée

Would you commit to introducing into Congress Move to Amend’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of big money on elections?

Yes.  I have already supported an amendment with a Petaluma City Council resolution and letters to State and Federal committees to move forward with an amendment process.

Last fall, I made a huge commitment to change how I would finance my campaign.  After discovering that it takes 30-40 hours a week dialing for dollars to finance a typical campaign for congress, I realized part of the breakdown in D.C. was that our representatives are not working on the people’s business, but campaigning for the next election.

Emily’s List training also supports this financing model.  Their candidates are likely  supported because they will commit to spending that time fundraising, and do.  This system feeds on itself. Sadly, the voters are the ones that buy into it.

As long as the media hypes campaigns that have the most money, and voters vote for candidates based on money raised rather than principals we get representatives that can get their message out through paid political media and corporate media, but can’t get anything substantial done.

I was making strides earning $2500 a week for my campaign under the old paradigm.  It’s not that I can’t raise the money.  I was the top cookie seller in my Girl Scout troop.  It’s that I won’t do it the old way.  I want to go to Washington unencumbered.  If I can’t do that, why be there?  I won’t be able to get anything done unless I’m free of the financial influence that controls our representation.  That’s a powerful statement.  And those propped up by that old paradigm don’t want people like me making waves.  That’s why I’ve refused to campaign for political endorsements that work off the old system.  We need a new paradigm that is based on getting the message out through public media, not corporate media.  That’s why I’ve been thrilled to attend over 23 public forums, many that have been taped and shared on public access stations.  So, the voters will have to decide if they want effective change or the continued broken system of representation.  Until we enact public financing, I doubt we will see effective change.  My campaign offers 20+ years of public service and experience without the baggage.  It’s up to you, the voters to share that with friends and neighbors if you want me representing you.