PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND LAWS

This page is < http://www.well.com/user/lanephil/LawsAndConstitutionAmendments > (Phil Lane, 12/9/2011; send suggestions/edits/ideas to lanephil [antispam]{AT} well [antispam]{DOT} com).

This list started 11/17/2011, most recent update 12/9/2011. Let's develop a list of major government policies that need to be changed at the federal level of the United States, in the form of specific proposed laws and constitutional amendments. This is a proposed demand list for the current Occupy Wall Street / Berkeley / Oakland / etc. political movement(s).

The major gripes of Occupy Wall Street seem to be: corporatism (corporate greed, especially among Wall Street financial corporations, and undue corporate influence on politics and legislation); increasing income and wealth disparities; and badly functioning / non-functional federal government. In addition, for campus protests, add on unfeasibly high tuition costs.

NOTE, google <"PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND LAWS This list started 11/17/2011."> as of today 11/17/2011 1028am PST, again 11/21/2011 1233pm, yields zero hits. However, as of 11/30/2011 1203pm, this yields 1 hit, this page. success! but, only if you click the google search blue button; if automatic search, yields ~4.05 million hits, with this page as #7 (pretty good). Wonder if other folks been visiting? need to implement an (a?) hit counter. need to figure out HOW to implement a hit counter. sheesh.

1. REVISE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD / REVERSE SUPREME COURT "CITIZENS UNITED" 2010 DECISION

(This section substantially revised 12/7/2011.) Corporations having the same free speech rights as individual citizens is crazy, is actively bad for civil society, and isn't in the Constitution. It's a byproduct of 2 centuries of misguided Supreme Court decisions. Although the Citizens United case did not alter the ban on contributions from corporations (or unions) to candidate campaigns or political parties in federal elections, it held that First Amendment free speech rights prevent the federal government from censoring political broadcasts funded *directly* by corporations (or unions). That censoring had been implemented in the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, which (in part) prohibited corporation- (or union-) sponsored political broadcast advertising in the 60 days prior to a federal general election (and in the 30 days prior to a federal primary election). Corporation-funded negative campaign advertising - "attack ads" - have become a significant damaging influence in federal elections in recent years. Because this decision found that part of the McCain-Feingold act to be unconstitutional, based on freedom of speech considerations, reversing it will probably require a constitutional amendment. Let's write a Constitutional Amendment to remedy this. How about: "The right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment applies specifically to individual citizens of the United States and not necessarily to corporations. " But, wait (this added 11/21/2011 pkl), some "personhood" category rights which apply to corporations - including Mom-and-Pop small companies, non-profits, etc. - perhaps should NOT be tampered with, for example due process, equal protection, search and seizure, and privacy. OK, how about this (from 11/17/2011 from < http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/17/1037499/-Occupy-Wall-Street:-Crafting-a-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Stop-the-1 > ) (proposed amendment originally drafted by Greg Colvin, January 20, 2011, see < http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011010320/only-people-can-vote-only-people-should-finance-campaigns > ): "[PROPOSED] Amendment XXVIII. Section 1. Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States may make contributions and expenditures to influence the exercise of a citizen's right to vote, although Congress and the States may also institute systems of public financing for election campaigns. Section 2. Congress and the States shall have concurrent power to implement this article by measures that may set limits on the amounts of each citizen's contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own spending, and authorize citizens to establish committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of contributions and expenditures, and by other appropriate legislation." Hmmm, that seems appropriately limited in scope, and sufficiently cautiously worded to prevent or minimize unintended consequences (fiddling with the Constitution ought not do be done lightly). Then, Congress must re-implement McCain-Feingold, and must pass additional laws to limit corporate spending in politics, on Political Action Committees, etc. Also other strategies to control corporation damaging influences on politics?

1.1 LIMIT THE LENGTH OF THE CAMPAIGN SEASON

Permanent campaigning is very damaging; this needs to be fixed, somehow. See ideas scattered below.

1.2 OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE INCREASING WEALTH AND INCOME DISPARITY AS AN ISSUE OF MAJOR NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

(Added 12/2/2011) After several decades of stability, in the late 1970s income and wealth disparity in the USA started to increase, and have been increasing ever since. A study by the Congressional Budget Office in 2011 shows that the top 1% of households improved its income between 1979 and 2007 by 275%, while the bottom 80% of households actually suffered a *decline* in income (when adjusted for inflation). The USA is one of only a very few developed countries on the planet where the Gini index, a statistial measure of income inequality, has increased over that period. The USA Gini index was 39.7 in 1967, and 46.9 in 2005, representing a huge increase in income inequality. For reference, current Gini indexes in the world range from Denmark (24.7) and Sweden (23) to Namibia (73). In 2005 the Gini index for the European Union was about at 31. Most developed, post-industrial countries - western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. - have Gini indexes in the high 20s to mid 30s. In the USA, public policies (and brutal partisan politics) have played major roles in this unsettling and dramatic increase in wealth and income disparity. The strength of the USA economy has traditionally been based on a broad middle class; this shrinkage of the middle class is critically important and must be addressed. The very first step is that this increase in wealth and income disparity must be *recognized* as a major problem. A Presidential and Congressional statement of this in some form would be a start. Then, formulation of policies designed specifically to slow and then reverse this trend must commence. Some of the following proposals would address this issue.

2. TAX WALL STREET TRANSACTIONS / "ROBIN HOOD TAX"

(This section revised 12/7/2011.) A common stock marketplace contributes to the general welfare by increasing liquidity (ability to convert stock shares into cash) and corporate ability to raise capital for commercial activities. Rapid, high volume computerized trading contributes to neither goal, and causes significant market and social problems. A small tax on stock trades would help control this, and would yield significant funds for reduction of income / wealth disparity, reduction of third world poverty, reduction of the federal government deficit and the national debt, reduction of tuition in public universities, etc. Congress should implement a tax on share trades sufficiently small to yield a minimal impact on these two socially useful goals, but sufficiently large so as to discourage high volume rapid computerized trading. (See "The Robin Hood Tax", 12/7/2011, The New York Times, < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/business/global/micro-tax-on-financial-trades-gains-advocates.html?ref=todayspaper > ).

3. IMPLEMENT A CARBON TAX

Encourage reduction in fossil fuel use, alternative energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil, address problem of global climate change.

details?

4. INCREASE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES BACK TO 50% FOR THE WEALTHY; INCREASE CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE; OTHER TAX REFORMS.

(Revised 129/2011.) During Roosevelt years the marginal income tax rate for the wealthy was 90%. Kennedy in 1963 proposed, but was unable to enact, a reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate from 91% to 65%; ultimately Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was able to get Congress to pass a reduction from 91% to 70%. In Clinton years, that rate was 39%; it's now 36%. A progressive tax system is the primary mechanism to address wealth and income inequality. Let's revise the income tax system so that the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest is 50%. Also, increase capital gains tax rate, currently 15%, back to 28%. Eliminate favorable treatment for hedge fund managers. Specifically state as a manner of national policy that the current (30-year) trajectory of increasing wealth and income disparity is bad for the country.

5. OTHER TAX POLICIES TO ADDRESS WEALTH AND INCOME INEQUALITY.

details?

6. USE NEW TAX REVENUES FROM THE ABOVE TO FUND EDUCATION, JOBS, REDUCE DEFICIT

details?

6.1 REINSTITUTE GLASS-STEAGALL SEPARATION OF INVESTMENT BANKING FROM COMMERCIAL (DEPOSIT-TAKING) BANKS

On November 12, 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed provisions of the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act so as to remove the separation that previously existed, since 1933, between investment banking (which issues securities) and commercial banks (which accept deposits). This may well have led to the mess we're currently in, with banks essentially too big to fail and thus able to take unreasonable risks and still expect to be bailed-out by the federal government if they run into trouble. Repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and reinstitute separation of investment banking from commercial banking.

7. MANDATORY VOTING

Make voting mandatory and implement a fine for failure to vote. Or, implement a tax credit ($20?) for voting, payable even if no income tax is due.

8. ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM - VOTER VOUCHER

Voucher system. Every U.S. citizen gets a $50 voucher, which reduces his/her income taxes paid (and gets such a voucher even if no income taxes due). May donate voucher, or portions thereof, to any candidate or candidates for federal elective office. Candidate may turn in voucher to government and receive $50 (or portion thereof) cash, which can be used for campaign finance funding (as defined in such a law), but only if the candidate agrees to accept campaign finance money ONLY from this voucher source and from individual non-voucher contributions of $100 or less from individual citizens (idea from Lawrence Lessing, "More Money Can Beat Big Money", The New York Times, 11/17/2011, see < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-campaign-financing-more-money-can-beat-big-money.html?ref=opinion > ). In order to shorten the campaign season (see below), limit candidate's ability to spend funds from such vouchers to only 90 days prior to a federal general election (60 days prior to a federal primary election) in which he or she is a candidate.

8.1 SHORTEN THE CAMPAIGN SEASON

(added 11/30/2011)(see < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/compromise-and-the-supercommittee.html >; "How To Free Congress's Mind", Op-Ed piece, By Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson, Nov. 29, 2011, The New York Times; appears in 11/30/2011 print copy Op-Ed page). A 2-year presidential campaign season is awful, and that's what we have now. During campaigns, voters are inspired by (and therefore candidates give out) "high-flying promises never to give in on their favorite causes", while the media "thrive on low-lying attacks, endlessly repeated, even - or especially - if they are mendacious." Both these tendencies, but especially the first, mean compromise is nearly impossible in our two-party system. If we could shorten the campaign season somehow, the extreme positions could be bandied about only during a short campaign season, and after the vote the politicians could get back to finding out ways to compromise. In Great Britain, under the parliamentary system, Parliament must be stand for election every 5 years, but usually the Prime Minister calls an early election at around 4 years, picking a time for the election based on political calculations; or, an election is called if there is a Vote of No Confidence. The PM asks the king or queen to dissolve parliament, by Royal Proclamation; the election for a new Parliament is then held 17 days after the Proclamation. In practice, the election campaign season is usually less than 60 days. Then, Parliament can go on for another 3 years and 10 months (on average) *not* in campaign season, doing compromises necessary to governing. In the USA, especially lately, essentially NOTHING gets done for the last 2 years of every 4-year presidential term, and also nothing gets done for about the last 18 months of every 2-year Congress (House of Representatives) term. Stupid. Let's find some way to shorten the campaign season to, I dunno, maybe 90 days? No political advertising prior to 90 days before an election? Group all primaries within 2 months of one another? If using the above voucher system, limit ability to use vouchers according to such a 90-day limitation. I don't know how to limit free speech rights of an independently wealthy candidate using only personal funds... What a mess. But a permanent campaign season means government DOESN'T WORK (like now, for example).

8.2 OPEN PRIMARIES

Allow all voters, or perhaps independent-registered voters, to vote in ANY primary of either party. (added 11/30/2011)(see < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/compromise-and-the-supercommittee.html >; "How To Free Congress's Mind", Op-Ed piece, By Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson, Nov. 29, 2011, The New York Times; appears in 11/30/2011 print copy Op-Ed page). This might need to have a "model law" recommended by the Congress but then passed at the level of the 50 state legislatures.

9. FILLIBUSTER REFORM IN THE SENATE

(This section added 12/2/2011.) The easing of rules in the Senate regarding fillibusters in recent years has added to Congressional gridlock and inability to compromise. Fillibustering a proposed law used to require a Senator to stand and orate for many hours, a difficult task and thus rarely used; a fillibuster could only be broken by a "cloture" vote, requiring a two-thirds majority. However various rules changes in the Senate have made fillibustering much easier, while changing the cloture requirement to a 60% vote. The net result of these changes has created a circumstance where in practice virtually no legislation can pass in the senate with a 50%-plus-1-vote majority; instead a 60% majority is almost always necessary. This circumstance has led to dramatically increased gridlock, dramatically increased partisan politicking, and dramatically reduced ability to fashion compromise and thus to actually govern. Senate rules must be revised to change the fillibuster back to a rarely used tactic, and change the 'typical' vote requirement back from 60% to 50%.

10. OTHER IDEAS?