Merge Proposal on Constitutional Amendment: Definition of “Bad Behavior” for Government Officials & Separation of Corporate and Political through Buyout Clause & Ban on any form of Lobbying

Merge Proposals
1

<Merge Proposal on Constitutional Amendment: Definition of “Bad Behavior” for Government Officials & Separation of Corporate and Political through Buyout Clause & Ban on any form of Lobbying>

I propose that the following # policy proposals, about Constitutional Amendment: Definition of “Bad Behavior” for Government Officials & Separation of Corporate and Political through Buyout Clause & Ban on any form of Lobbying, get merged:

1

Written by @JustSayWhenn

2

Written by @Eric_K

3

Written by @Eric_K

Explanation & Justification

*These policies correlate in function, closely resembling functions that could be used to identify “BAD BEHAVIOR”. It stands to reason that while each has its own angle of approach they all converge into one simple subject, what would be considered “BAD BEHAVIOR”. With the parent being identification of what is bad behavior, the applications that apply to it would include lobbyist, violations of such conditions would also be identified as such, which include violating the separation of corporate and political, all leading to conduct that is identified as “BAD BEHAVIOR”.

With this regard I suggest a policy merge of the above proposals.

2

I’m not responsible for any of that above proposals but as a personal opinion, I am strictly opposed to the kind of merger you’re asking for here.

You’re taking an individual singular proposal someone else made as a singular issue and trying to hijack it to support your own proposal, and in the process setting a precedent that no one can discuss any of the issues you’ve grouped together in your overarching proposal as an individual topic.

In short, you’re trying to ensure that people have to be ‘all or nothing’ on your concept of a proposal that constitutionally defines what “Bad behavior” is.

Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

3

So when a ban on lobbying is applied should it not be “bad behavior” to accept?

4

The point is that someone should be allowed to discuss a ban on lobbying as an individual issue without it having to be part of your larger constitutional amendment proposal.

5

You can discuss it, in terms of the forum it won’t interfere with your discussion on the topic, but when and if they access the application of your suggestion, I am assuming they will observe it was merged with another and access it as a whole. They may decide that this is not applicable, they may not even consider the merged topic as a possible constitutional addition but rather a united states justice code or some other judiciary definition to provide a baseline concept for “what is Bad Behavior”.

I suggested the merge to help consolidate concepts that the public considers “bad behavior” as a whole, though you and me are not the creators of that legislation, that resides in the executive branch and a constitutional amendment would be a act of congress.

The merge is just a way to help identify conditions of “bad behavior” it is not meant to remove the spotlight to your mention. It also provides a background for restrictions of lobbying and how we can better define what is acceptable by constitutional law.

Though chances are they will refuse to even highlight a single aspect of “bad behavior” so that they can continue to abuse and exploit the public. Presently there is no real determined concept of this, which shows just how exploitive and immoral present political members are. Just as they enjoy concepts of “insider trading” “kickbacks” “donations” “bribery” “unethical contract awards” “selling insider info” “foreign aid abuse” and many other clearly for self profit conditions.

Personally I think it needs to stop, all of it, but in terms of what is lawful and or ethical under fair use may reflect a little differently. The issue we see in politics today is, people become politicians not to server the country, or to make the republic of the union more perfect, to do what is moral and right, but solely to get rich and or famous.

This is highlighted by the wealth increase the moment they are elected as an official or placed into a position that gives them control of tax payer funding and even just access to people that have those abilities. These create for-profit systems of governance and selection of companies and organizations for contract awards or other funding use. To them we are just cash monkeys for them to exploit. Every member of office goes from a few hundred thousand dollars to multi million within a year, the same is said for those selected for key positions through appointment.

If you look at covid for instance, the shit has been proven to literally kill people, and they still blast it everywhere nonstop without even the slightest concern for public safety. This is because they are getting rich from it. Pharma pays allot of money and gives huge donations to everyone to peddle death for profit.

I am 100% in agreement with you voicing zero lobbying but I would like to see a definition of “bad behavior” to which restrains such aspects in a way that we can remove corrupt members from holding office, being employed by the government.

6

By asking for those other proposals to be merged with your own, you are in fact interfering with people’s discussion by trying to prohibit them from discussing such proposals in a way that is not directly a part of discussion your own proposal.

You are trying to create a situation where people can not discuss the elements of your own proposal unless they are part of a larger ‘bad behavior’ amendment.

7

“ban on lobbying” is not a policy, its a statement. This merge gives it a policy, an effective construct in legislature. A purpose to which the BAN receives as a concept of law, a result of violation.

I understand that you want to be able to talk about it. I however want to be able to make it a reality. Just saying, discussing it, these things have a purpose yes. But giving it a concrete foundation to be applied, solidified, ratified, placed into actual use is the purpose of this entire forum. It is the reason this exists. To give “We the People” a means to communicate, and create a more perfect UNION.

8

Let me show you what your up against.

Lobbying in the United States is protected by several laws and constitutional provisions:

  • First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is explicitly mentioned, which has been interpreted by court rulings as protecting lobbying activities as a form of free speech.

  • Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA): This act provides the legal framework for the regulation of lobbying at the federal level. It requires lobbyists to register with Congress, disclose their activities, and report contributions and expenditures. It aims to bring transparency to lobbying practices without prohibiting the act of lobbying itself.

  • Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946: Although this is an older law, it set the stage for lobbying regulations by requiring registration and reporting from those who lobby Congress. This law was the first significant attempt to regulate lobbying at the federal level.

  • Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007: This act further tightened lobbying regulations by imposing additional restrictions on gifts to federal officials, extending the cooling-off period for former senators before they can lobby, and enhancing transparency in lobbying activities.

  • Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938: Specifically targets lobbying on behalf of foreign entities, requiring those who lobby for foreign governments or organizations to register as foreign agents and disclose their activities.

These laws collectively ensure that lobbying is conducted within a regulated framework that promotes transparency while still allowing citizens and organizations to influence legislation and government policy, aligning with the constitutional right to petition government.

9

A “Ban on lobbying” is the starting point for a policy that can be developed without being hijacked as part of your larger “Bad behavior” amendment.

10

You need to realize, that is exactly what I am doing. Developing it, I want you also to understand that it has been used and applied as a constitutionally protected right under the first amendment as “redress of grievance” which means in order to apply it, a condition must be fulfilled, that condition would be a constitutional amendment which identifies it explicitly under “bad behavior” not as a prevention of redress of grievance. They must still be allowed to address a grievance but it needs to be highlighted as accepting money to encourage or promote that grievance to be in favor of the company over a citizens right/freedom/safety.

A form of this could be created specifically as legislation but if that is how it works, they can simply quietly augment it to create a loop hole or still apply it behind closed doors, mask it with shell companies, launder money off the books for it ect.

There is already framework in place to apply it, that is established by law which is clearly not enforced or not explicit enough and they have no intention of actually changing that, in order to invalidate all forms of it, the most effective method is to begin defining what kinds of lobbying is considered bad behavior and this places into risk their entire political career in its entirety, which could include far more severe punishments.

I think it is also important to realize that I am not hijacking your discussion, I have merely identified it would or could be included into this identification.

I feel like at this point, you are on the offensive because you think I am taking something from you. When in truth I am providing the framework to make it lawful under the constitution.

If you expanded upon your Ban on Lobby, to identify that it would still allow people to redress a grievance as a company or organization but would limit the ability to send or give them money this could be effective in an application that would not require a amendment to the constitution, but it would be temporary if deployed as they will redress a grievance for its augmentation shortly after and use donations claimed under a different cause or reason with a behind closed door deal that this be modified to include a legal loophole in which we return to the same thing but under a different method of application.

11

I will help you.

Proposal for Regulating Corporate Influence in Legislation

Objective: To design a regulatory framework that ensures companies and organizations cannot unduly influence legislation to favor their interests over public rights, freedoms, and safety, while respecting constitutional rights and existing legal frameworks.

Key Components:

  1. Amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA):

  • Transparency in Funding: Enhance the LDA to require detailed disclosure of all financial transactions between corporations or organizations and politicians, not just direct lobbying expenses. This includes any form of financial support like campaign donations, sponsorships, or indirect contributions through third parties.

  • Public Access to Information: Ensure all disclosed financial interactions are publicly accessible in real-time through an advanced, user-friendly database to increase transparency and public oversight.

  1. Corporate Political Contributions Oversight (CPCO) Program:

  • Formation: Establish an independent body, the CPCO, which would oversee and analyze corporate contributions to political campaigns or entities.

  • Function: This body would evaluate whether contributions are made to influence legislation directly related to the contributor’s interests. If such a pattern is identified, the CPCO would flag these interactions for further scrutiny or investigation.

  • Regulatory Action: If contributions are found to be aimed at self-serving legislative influence, the CPCO could recommend to Congress or relevant agencies to enact temporary bans on further contributions from the involved corporation or organization, similar to sanctions in FARA for non-compliance.


[image]

3. Reform of Campaign Finance Laws:

  • Ban on Certain Contributions: Propose a ban on contributions from corporations or organizations to politicians or political parties when there is a direct, upcoming legislative matter that could significantly benefit the contributor financially or strategically. This would not infringe on the right to petition but would regulate the financial aspect to prevent undue influence.

  • Cooling-Off Period for Legislators: Extend the cooling-off period under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act for all members of Congress before they can engage in any form of compensated lobbying or political consulting, ensuring they cannot immediately leverage their office for corporate gain.


[image]

4. Public Funding for Campaigns:

  • Increase Public Funding: Enhance public funding options for political campaigns to reduce dependency on corporate donations, thereby minimizing the leverage corporations might have over legislators. This could be structured to provide matching funds for small donations, encouraging broader, less influential funding.
  1. Ethics Training and Enforcement:

  • Mandatory Ethics Education: Require all federal officials, including those in legislative roles, to undergo regular training on ethics, conflict of interest, and the impact of corporate influence on public policy.

  • Strengthen Enforcement: Empower existing ethics committees in Congress with more resources and authority to investigate and act on violations of campaign finance and lobbying laws, ensuring there’s a deterrent against misuse of corporate funds.

Constitutional Consideration:

  • First Amendment: The proposal does not prohibit lobbying or the right to petition but focuses on the financial aspect of political influence. It aims to regulate how money can be used in political processes, not the act of communication or advocacy itself. This ensures that while corporations can still advocate for their interests through speech, they cannot buy influence directly with financial contributions.

This framework attempts to balance the constitutional right to petition with the need to protect the democratic process from being overly swayed by corporate financial power, ensuring legislation serves the broader public interest rather than narrow private gains.

12

Honestly though I think it is best to apply it as part of separation of corporate and political and when that is violated it is then identified as Bad Behavior.

Which is why identifying what is “Bad Behavior” is important.

13

Removing the ability for corporations to lobby politicians while still adhering to constitutional rights and existing legal frameworks is complex due to the First Amendment protections. However, here are some strategies that could be implemented to significantly restrict or transform corporate lobbying:

  1. Redefine Lobbying Under the Law

  • Amend the Definition of Lobbying: Narrow the definition of what constitutes “lobbying” to exclude direct financial contributions or benefits to politicians. This would shift lobbying to be more about information sharing rather than financial persuasion.

  • Focus on Communication: Ensure that lobbying remains an informational exchange where corporations can express their views but cannot provide any financial or material incentives to legislators.

  1. Campaign Finance Reform

  • Ban Corporate Donations: Legally prohibit corporations from making any financial contributions to political campaigns, PACs, or Super PACs. Only individual contributions with strict limits could be accepted, significantly reducing corporate financial influence.

  • Public Funding of Elections: Implement or expand public financing of elections to decrease politicians’ reliance on corporate donations, making campaign finance less about corporate backing and more about public support.

  1. Lobbying Transparency and Accountability

  • Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Require more detailed and frequent disclosures of all interactions between lobbyists and politicians, including topics discussed and outcomes sought, making the process transparent and accountable to public scrutiny.

  • Real-Time Reporting: Establish systems for real-time reporting of lobbying activities to prevent under-the-table deals and to allow public oversight.

  1. Restrictions on Former Officials
  • Strengthen Revolving Door Policies: Extend the cooling-off period for former government officials before they can become lobbyists, particularly in industries related to their previous governmental roles. This would deter officials from making decisions with future employment in mind.
  1. Constitutional Interpretation and Legislation

  • Legal Interpretation: Push for judicial recognition or reinterpretation of the First Amendment to differentiate between free speech and paid advocacy, potentially limiting what can be considered protected “speech” in lobbying contexts.

  • Legislative Action: Introduce legislation that, while not banning lobbying outright, places severe restrictions on corporate lobbying through financial means, emphasizing education and advocacy without financial leverage.

  1. Public Engagement and Education

  • Educate the Public: Increase public awareness about lobbying, encouraging grassroots movements and public engagement in policy-making to counterbalance corporate influence.

  • Public Forums: Create mandatory public forums where corporate interests must debate their positions openly, allowing for public feedback before legislative decisions are made.

  1. Use of Technology
  • Blockchain for Transparency: Implement blockchain technology to create an immutable record of lobbying activities, ensuring transparency and integrity in the tracking of influence efforts.
  1. Ethics and Integrity in Government
  • Strengthen Ethics Laws: Enhance ethics laws to include strict penalties for any form of quid pro quo between politicians and corporations, ensuring that personal or political benefits from lobbying are clearly illegal.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations:

  • First Amendment: Each step must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on the rights to petition the government. This means focusing on the method rather than the message, regulating financial aspects, and ensuring that all forms of speech are still allowed, just not through financial persuasion.

  • Legislative Action: Any changes would likely need bi-partisan support and might involve constitutional amendments or, more likely, new interpretations or applications of existing laws through court decisions.

This strategy aims to preserve the essence of lobbying as a democratic tool for influence while significantly altering how corporations can engage in it, focusing on transparency, accountability, and the democratic process.

14

I think there has been sufficient evidence that the sway of big businesses in any area, and the foreign lobbyists promoting their own best interests is NOT in the best interests of U.S. citizens. Thus, I support a legislative act that abolishes any and all lobbying. If senators and representatives need “expert” input, any benefit or gift, in any amount or form, to that senator or representative, even a dinner to them or their families must be considered a bribe, for which that legislator must face charges.

15

I definitely agree, but to effectively do this it must be aligned to allow the process of “redress of grievance” while separating any and all functions of gain or for profit, since there are already definitions of this, they will pretend that its already established, those that defend it are using it for self gain, profit.

The most effective method I see is to assign a separation of corporate and political on every front, and define violations of that separation as bad behavior.

What would solidify it on equal terms of constitutional authority is to provide an amendment that explicitly defines what is bad behavior.

Our difficulty will be those that exploit it for self gain will attempt to defend lobbying as if their lives depended on it.

16

Consolidated Policy Proposal for Ethical Governance and Reduced Corporate Influence

Title: Integrity in Governance Act

Preamble: Recognizing the necessity to maintain the integrity of governmental operations, protect national sovereignty, and ensure public officials serve the interests of the citizens, this Act aims to:

  • Prevent undue influence by corporations on government entities.

  • Define and penalize “bad behavior” among public officials.

  • Eliminate the practice of lobbying by establishing direct constituent engagement.

Article I: Corporate Influence and Transparency

  1. Disclosure and Severance of Interests:
  • All members of political parties, including their family members, must disclose any stock holdings, silent investments, or financial interests in companies before any government contract or funding is awarded.


[image]

  • Companies must include a buyout clause in contracts, mandating the severance of any political member’s or their family’s interest in the company before contract award. This includes a mandatory buyout of shares or stocks.


[image]

  • A 6 to 12-month investment barring period post-contract award for political members and their families to prevent insider trading and profiteering.


[image]

2. NoKickBack Clause:

  • Companies awarded government contracts are prohibited from giving any form of compensation, donation, or gift to political members, parties, or their affiliates for 8 years after contract award, including through third parties.


[image]

3. Definition of Influential Entities:

  • Establish criteria for defining “Influential Entities” based on their control over economic sectors affecting policy.


[image]

Article II: Definition of “Bad Behavior” and Accountability

  1. Behaviors Constituting “Bad Behavior”:

  • Abuse of power for personal or corporate gain.

  • Actions that undermine national sovereignty or individual freedoms.

  • Conflicts of interest involving Influential Entities.

  1. Penalties:
  • Immediate removal from office and permanent disqualification from public service for guilty officials.


[image]

  • Civil and criminal penalties, including restitution where applicable.


[image]

3. Enforcement:

  • An independent oversight committee to investigate, monitor, and ensure compliance.


[image]

  • Judicial review for constitutional compliance.


[image]

Article III: Lobbying Ban and Constituent Engagement

  1. Lobbying Prohibition:
  • All forms of lobbying by companies or organizations directly with elected officials are banned.


[image]

  • No monetary, gifts, or donations from companies or organizations to political members or their families are allowed.


[image]

2. Constituent Engagement:

  • Elected officials must gather feedback solely through polls, direct constituent contact, or public forums to maintain “redress of grievances” without financial influence.


[image]

Article IV: Implementation and Oversight

  1. Public Disclosure and Transparency:
  • All disclosures, investigations, and their outcomes must be publicly available to maintain transparency.


[image]

2. Transition Period:

  • A 90-day transition period from the enactment of the law for existing officials to comply with disclosure and severance requirements.


[image]

3. Educational and International Aspects:

  • Mandate public education on corporate influence and governance.

  • Encourage similar legislative frameworks globally to limit corporate influence on national policies.


[image]

Conclusion: This comprehensive act seeks to restore trust in government by ensuring officials act in the public’s interest, not for personal or corporate gain. By defining “bad behavior”, restricting lobbying, and demanding transparency in corporate dealings with government, this legislation aims to safeguard democratic integrity and national sovereignty.

17

Dude, the conversation here is about merging proposals.

Your proposal outline belongs in your amendment proposal.

18

Regardless if you want them to be or not to be merged, they are relevant, and since you are not addressing the problem yourself, do not complain about someone else doing so.

You have a issue:
“redress of grievance”

You offer no solution. I however do.

You must first understand it is a constitutional condition and you must separate the voicing of a grievance from the acceptance of gain.

You will then have to combat the multiple pieces of lawful framework.

You can address them individually which will take allot of time, and will most likely just be given loopholes to permit the exact thing you do not want to occur in the first place.

Going to the source of the issue and applying it as a constitutional amendment bypass’s that framework and loophole creation system to place the identification of “bad behavior” and violations of such behavior into the same equal standing as the law of the land itself.

You can complain about wanting a separate and single use concept but you will still have to contend with the constitution and every individual piece of legislation, policy that has already been created to justify such a condition.

If you are unwilling to do this yourself, step aside.

Again here is what you must contend with:
Lobbying in the United States is protected by several laws and constitutional provisions:

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is explicitly mentioned, which has been interpreted by court rulings as protecting lobbying activities as a form of free speech.

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA): This act provides the legal framework for the regulation of lobbying at the federal level. It requires lobbyists to register with Congress, disclose their activities, and report contributions and expenditures. It aims to bring transparency to lobbying practices without prohibiting the act of lobbying itself.

Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946: Although this is an older law, it set the stage for lobbying regulations by requiring registration and reporting from those who lobby Congress. This law was the first significant attempt to regulate lobbying at the federal level.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007: This act further tightened lobbying regulations by imposing additional restrictions on gifts to federal officials, extending the cooling-off period for former senators before they can lobby, and enhancing transparency in lobbying activities.

Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938: Specifically targets lobbying on behalf of foreign entities, requiring those who lobby for foreign governments or organizations to register as foreign agents and disclose their activities.

Your opinion is noted.

19

The problem is “You are insisting that a proposal be merged with your own because it covers one of the topics in your own mega-proposal.”

My solution is “No, allow the topic to be discussed as its own thing”.

20

Ok just make sure you add this to your discussion.

A politician arguing against a ban on lobbying might focus on several key points:

  1. First Amendment Rights:
  • Freedom of Speech: Lobbying is often seen as a form of free speech, where individuals or groups have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances as outlined in the First Amendment. The politician could argue that banning lobbying would infringe on these fundamental rights.

“Lobbying is an essential component of our democracy, ensuring that citizens and organizations can influence legislation in ways that reflect their interests and rights under the First Amendment.”
2. Expertise and Information Sharing:

  • Valuable Insights: Lobbyists often bring specialized knowledge to the legislative process. They can provide legislators with detailed information about industries or issues that might otherwise be overlooked or misunderstood.

“Lobbyists provide crucial expertise that helps lawmakers draft more informed, effective, and nuanced legislation. Without their input, we risk creating laws that are out of touch with reality.”
3. Representation of Diverse Interests:

  • Balanced Representation: Lobbying ensures that various interests, including those of small businesses, minority groups, and non-profits, have a voice in the legislative process, balancing out the influence of major corporations or well-funded entities.

“Banning lobbying would silence many voices, particularly those less represented or with fewer resources to engage directly with policymakers. It’s about ensuring all stakeholders can participate in our democracy.”
4. Checks and Balances:

  • Government Accountability: Lobbying can act as a check on government power, ensuring that legislation is scrutinized by those it impacts. It can prevent the concentration of power by keeping legislators accountable to the public.

“Lobbying serves as a mechanism of checks and balances in our system, making sure that laws are not passed in a vacuum but are debated and refined through diverse perspectives.”
5. Economic Arguments:

  • Job and Economic Impact: The lobbying industry itself supports jobs and contributes to the economy. An outright ban could have unintended economic consequences.

“The lobbying sector not only employs thousands but also supports an ecosystem of legal, research, and advocacy jobs. A ban would disrupt this without necessarily reducing corruption or influence.”
6. Reform Over Ban:

  • Transparency and Regulation: Instead of a ban, the politician might argue for better regulation of lobbying, like more stringent disclosure laws, cooling-off periods for former officials before they can lobby, or caps on campaign contributions to reduce undue influence.

“Rather than an outright ban, which could be seen as a draconian measure, we should focus on reforming the system to enhance transparency and fairness, ensuring that lobbying benefits our democracy rather than undermining it.”
7. Historical Precedent:

  • Long-standing Practice: Lobbying has been a part of democratic governance since the founding of the nation. A ban would represent a significant departure from historical practice without a clear demonstration of overriding benefits.

“Lobbying has been part of our political system since the founding fathers; it’s woven into the fabric of how we govern. We should consider whether such a drastic change would truly serve the interests of democracy.”

By framing the argument in this way, a politician can present lobbying as an integral, if flawed, part of the democratic process that needs reform rather than abolition.