Do not for a moment believe those who say “but bribery is already illegal.” In fact, it has been institutionalized by corrupt politicians. Most specifically, corruption has been legalized in the way that political campaigns are funded and conducted “under prevailing law” Real change can only come if the power is returned to the people, rescued from the hands of lobbyists and special interests motivated by greed rather than the public good.

We therefore propose the below Constitutional Amendment to prohibit bribery and the sale of public office. The effort here is to make politics an honorable profession. “Politicians” are too often demonized — unless they have been dead long enough to become “statesmen.” Many of our elected officials were motivated by public service when they began their careers and are very uncomfortable with the prevailing system. But if they fight the system, they know they will be out-campaigned by others who are better financed by special interests and will lose office.

But, how can we get such an amendment passed under the prevailing system? It would seem impossible — but it is not.

We suggest that you forward this amendment to ALL of your elected officials (national, state, and local) and ask them to support it. If they do not respond, or if they try to argue that prevailing law is enough, refuse to vote for them — ever! Vote only for candidates who are pledged to support this idea. Remember that Constitutional Amendments must pass the proper number of State legislatures as well.

We suggest that you forward this amendment to each candidate for the Presidency (or any office where you vote) in all political parties, and say that you intend only to vote for persons who supports the REAL change that this amendment can make. Do not vote for anyone, even the candidate of your favorite party, if that person is unwilling to change the present broken system.

If you have not been voting due to disgust with the system, register now! Register as “independent” if you wish, but put good government before political affiliation.

Constitutional Amendment against Bribery

1) Bribery of any public official of the United States or of any of the several States shall constitute a felony. The solicitation or receipt of bribery by such persons shall constitute a felony and is a high crime against this Constitution. This amendment shall not be construed to lessen the seriousness of any crime covered by existing legislation.

2) The public offence of bribery includes the offering or giving of payment in any shape or form that it may be a motive in the performance of official functions for which the proper motive is a conscientious sense of duty as accepted by such public official by his or her Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.

3) The same laws against bribery that currently affect appointed officials in each jurisdiction, shall also affect elected officials and judges. Bribery may not be disguised in the form of gifts to family members or associates, campaign contributions, or commitments for future employment.

4) Public office involving policy-making functions or policy implementation, may not be bought or sold. This applies to governmental positions of the United States and of the several States. The buying or selling of such a public office shall constitute a felony under this Constitution. Persons seeking elective office shall not spend in such pursuit of election a sum of personal funds that is more than half of the salary to be earned while in that office; to do so shall constitute an effort to buy public office.

5) Honest government, being necessary to the security of a free State, elected public officials shall be paid salaries that are independently adjudged to be commensurate with their responsibilities.

6) The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
////

Eric Bryant, CEO
Gnosis Arts

Obama has refused to reaffirm his promise to take public funding. .

It’s not entirely Clinton campaign “spin”, it’s McCain “spin.”

If Obama is 100% committed to public financing, one would hope that he would reaffirm it for no other reason then to not look like he was weighing honoring his pledge and not look like he was forced into it.

From USA Today:
Last week, Obama’s campaign manager Bill Burton told the Associated Press that public financing was “an option” that’s still “on the table.” Obama said, “It would be presumptuous of me to say now that I’m locking myself into something when I don’t even know if the other side is going to agree to it.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-cam.html

I understand that Obama stands to lose under this proposition because he can out-fundraise McCain. But it speaks poorly of his commitment to campaign finance reform. So what if Obama has to give back $6.1 million in general-election funds? If he really cared about campaign finance reform he would understand that that’s the reality of the type of reform he wants to push — in real elections, even the candidate who can out-fundraise the other candidate has to sacrifice these capabilities in the name of principle. If they don’t, who’s to say that true campaign finance reform will ever work? McCain has already stepped up to the plate. It’s time for Obama to do so, too.

Otherwise, it’s really just the same old politics.

And it strikes me as inefficient micromanaging that senators should be involved in choosing the location of libraries, community centers, off-ramps bridges – as opposed to just setting the national funding for such. – or keeping watch on the big things like Iraq, the economy…..

An earmark is just a way of funding a project – which could or could not be the same exact project that a competitive bidding would award – the same library or same off ramp or the same bridge.

The problem with earmarks is that they don’t go through the same evaluation – do we need this bridge to nowhere – and competitive bidding that other projects go through.

Because earmarks don’t go through the same evaluation – they are subject to improper influence such as campaign contributions to have the off ramp built on your property or earmarks to hospitals family members manage.

On the positive side for earmarks – they are another way for “good” projects to be approved if normal funding fails – for example if no civil servant wants to be ridiculed for funding a Woodstock Museum.

I’m really baffled how intelligent people can go ga-ga over Obama. He’s such an obviously apparent empty-suit, and the idea that “the Clintons” have engaged in some kind of dishonest, hard-ball campaign against him is, to put it bluntly, totally batty.

Obama’s gotten a free ride from people– this is all about celebrity-hood. And against McCain, he’s going to be cremed on the “experience” factor– he hasn’t a chance of winning the general election.

And about “earmarks,” has anyone examined exactly what’s wrong with them? Earmarks are things like libraries, and community centers, and park pools, and freeway onramps, and grade crossings, and all the things that make government work on the local level. There is nothing intrinsically corrupt about them, and this kind of unexamined premise– like the Clintons as Rovian operatives — is what charterizes most of our public discourse these days. It’s shamefully misguided.