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.
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment