An elaboration on the Solon Amendment

Here again is my original proposal for a Constitutional Amendment:

I. All political campaign contributions should derive solely from registered voters within the district, territory or state that the candidate is seeking to represent.

II. Contributions from registered voters shall be limited to a single candidate per office in each primary or general election

III. The total value of all political contributions, monetary or of material value, given by a registered voter during a calendar year shall not exceed 10% of the average per capita income, as determined by the most recent United States census. 

IV.. This limit on monetary and material contributions shall not be construed to limit a registered voter, or any other citizen, from contributing any amount of their personal time or labor to any political cause or candidate of their choosing, or in any other way limit the rights of speech or assembly.

But now you might be asking: what does it all mean?  What are you trying to accomplish? 

Simply, I am trying to put the government back into the hands of the people, so that citizens elect representatives to actually represent THEM, with the representatives beholden to the voters and their own consciences, NOT beholden to and representing big money interests that come from outside the state, territory or district that representative (and by "representative" I am referring to any elected official, school board to President of the United States, not just Representatives and Senators in Congress)is supposed to represent.

Let us look at each of the clauses, one by one, and look at what each one would do:

I. This means just what it says: No campaign money from multi-national corporations, from labor unions, from PACs and Super PACs and Mega PACs, from foreign nationals, from resident aliens, legal or illegal, from those who have lost the voting franchise or are too lazy or uninvolved to actually register and exercise their right to vote (how many media blowhards and political wannabes have been found out not to have registered to vote in the last several decades?), from those who do not live in the state or district that the candidate is supposed to represent, etc.  All money comes from those INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS that the candidate is wanting to REPRESENT. These representatives were not put in office to auction themselves to the highest bidders, nor to repesent the interests of foreign powers, labor unions, big corporations, unless these entities are themselves supported by the voters and the voters agree with the policies recommended by these entities. The only faction that an elected representative should be beholden to are the CITIZENS he directly represents!

II. Why should anyone want to give to multiple candidates running from the same office?  The only obvious reason is to have WHOEVER wins feel beholden to him/her/them.  In other words, legalized BRIBERY on the part of the contributor, and/or INFLUENCE PEDDLING on the part of the candidate, i.e. the ol' quid pro quo, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.  Just as you do when you vote, you should pick the best horse and run with it - one candidate per primary or general election cycle (i.e. a voter can contribute to the Romney campaign in the Primary, but contribute to Obama in the General, but he/she can't contribute to BOTH Romney and Obama in the General, or to Santorum AND Romney in the Primary.)

III. This figure is somewhat arbitrary, but based upon the Judeo-Christian concept of "tithing", whereas 10% is dedicated to God/charity/church, etc.  As Republican candidate Herman Cain said earlier in the primary season (although referring to taxes), "If 10% is good enough for God..." Most anyone can save up 10% towards retirement, towards their rainy day fund, towards their church/synagogue tithe, towards the college fund, towards that kitchen improvement, or towards that new bass boat they want to buy.  If someone were really politically motivated, really believed in the candidate or party platform they support, they could save 10% back.  Note however that this is based on the US AVERAGE per capita income - the 2010 figure was $39,945, so the limit on anyone's yearly contributions would be $3995 - whether you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or the janitor at the local high school or the secretary at your office or the "bum" (as some might call him) panhandling pencils on the street corner. If you crave the endorsement of a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, it will be because you respect his intellect, his ideas, his character - NOT because you crave his money in your war chest. These endorsements will still be important - but NOT for the reasons of filthy lucre.  (The only problem here is that one would have to watch for the fraud of a wealthy contributor giving $4995 to that "bum" on the street corner - or 10 or 100 or 1000 "bums" - with the understanding that $3995 will be contributed to a certain candidate, etc. but we are certainly talking about fewer cases with smaller amounts of money than under the current "legalized bribery" system...)

IV. Lest someone say that a Bill Gates or an Oprah Winfrey charges a speaking fee of, say, $10,000 an hour, so he/she can only speak on behalf of any political candidate in a public forum for no more than 20 minutes total per year (this is the danger of living in a society where EVERYTHING is monetized, or so it seems), I added this clause, so if Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump or Warren Buffet wants top travel for a month with the Romney campaign or the Obama campaign and speak from the stump, he may do so without any limits on his personal rights to speak or assemble.  However, he couldn't hire 10,000 doorknockers at $8/hr to go out and canvas neighborhoods on behalf of Obama or Romney - that would obviously be a contribution of monetary value far exceeding our earlier determined limit.  However, he personally can go door-to-door, or make phone calls, or public speeches, or write op-ed pieces or letters to the editor, or post a blog on the Internet, to his heart's content. However, he couldn't purchase a $1,000,000 worth of airtime to run commercials for the candidate - again, this would be a contribution of monetary value.  But if the candidate can get 250 contributors to donate the full $3995, they could buy the airtime to run Bill Gates endorsement ad. See how this works?

There would still be a place for PACs  - in educating both the candidates and the voting public on the issues, and their particular take on them. but NOT in funneling money to specific candidates.  I belong to several professional associations as part of my job, and I see the important aspect of what their PACs do - going to representatives and telling them how those specific professions view pending legislation, what good or bad might result, etc.  A good STATESMAN (as was bandied about earlier) would listen and weigh those arguments WITHOUT having to be PAID to support them, which is nothing more than legalized BRIBERY.  

For example, the Home Builders Association has been fighting legislation to mandate that every new house built have a built-in sprinkler system - adding $5000-$8000 to the cost of every new home built!  The manufacturer of these devises stands to make a MINT if every home built in America is REQUIRED to have those systems, so they are pouring money down the throats of elected officials to get them on board. It is fairly common knowledge that that there is generally as much loss from water damage (or more!) as from an actual fire, and so mandating sprinklers at that kind of cost is a boondoggle, but in a world where legislation is BOUGHT with campaign contributions, then all bets are off, and the Home Builders Association will have an uphill fight against a contributor with such deep pockets. 

There is my "two bits"...and my proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America!  This shouldn't be an issue of Left or Right, but of anyone wanting to return to a government OF, By and FOR the PEOPLE...not of, by and for the PACs, special interests, big corporations, big unions, foreign gov'ts, etc.

By the way, you can show your support at facebook.com/SolonAmendment  , which was just put up about 10 days ago! Follow us there, and come back here for more in-depth coverage and commentary!

The Solon Amendment - an introduction

In short, the Solon Amendment is a proposed Constitutional amendment, intended to remove the influence of money upon our elections and our political processes, which is causing the alienation of our citizens from the very government whose power is to be derived from their consent.

I have named the amendment after the ancient Greek thinker, Solon, considered one of the Seven Sages of the Ancient World, who is credited as the originator of Greek democracy over 2500 years ago. His reforms included those meant to broaden political participation and limit the influence of money over the political process.

His name is adapted to this proposed amendment to the US Constitution, to highlight the link between our Founding Fathers of 200+ years ago with those "Founding Grandfathers" of 2000+ years ago, to illustrate the desire to return our Republic to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently described it, and to remove the pernicious influence of money upon our elections and our political processes, which is the chief obstacle alienating the citizens from the very government whose power is supposedly derived from their consent, and which is supposed to provide for the common welfare and defense, not the interests of a privileged and select few.

The proposed amendment reads as follows:


I. All political campaign contributions should derive solely from registered voters within the district, territory or state that the candidate is seeking to represent.

II. Contributions from registered voters shall be limited to a single candidate per office in each primary or general election

III. The total value of all political contributions, monetary or of material value, given by a registered voter during a calendar year shall not exceed 10% of the average per capita income, as determined by the most recent United States census.

IV.. This limit on monetary and material contributions shall not be construed to limit a registered voter, or any other citizen, from contributing any amount of their personal time or labor to any political cause or candidate of their choosing, or in any other way limit the rights of speech or assembly.

The proposed amendment is not meant to be a Conservative or Liberal thing, a Left or a Right thing, a Republican or a Democratic thing - it should be beyond all partisan argument, just as our rights to freedom of speech, assembly and religion have nothing to do (or shouldn't, at any rate) with political ideology or party.  It should be something which conservatives and liberals should agree, which Democrats and Republicans should agree, which Tea Partiers and Occupiers should agree. People from both ends of the political spectrum should be able to agree that our elected representatives very often do not represent the interests and desires of the people who elected them, but seem to be held in sway by the power of money, the power of select groups and individuals who pour huge sums of money into political campaigns, which raise the volume level or the debates without adding any real depth to what is being debated - actually, just the opposite, reducing the "debate" to cliched slogans, 10-second sound bites and 30-second attack ads that distance the candidates and the election process from any meaningful discourse, and making the winning candidate beholden, not to the voters in his/her district or state, but to the donors who paid for the noise that put him/her in this new position of responsibilty to begin with. Those within the thrall of Big Money belong on the Left AND the Right, in the Democratic AND Republican Parties, call themselves Conservatives AND Progressives.  

So it will take people who are BOTH Progressives and Conservatives, Left-wing and Right-wing, Democrats and Republicans, Tea Partiers and Occupiers to get the word out, get this before the state legislatures, and get moving on restoring government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" before it truly does disappear from the face of the Earth.

Are you in?  Can I count on you raising your voice nad making a difference?