One Person, One Vote. One Person, One Voice.

Money Overpowers Free Speech  

In line with the idea of "one person, one vote," why should some people and institutions have so much more "free speech" than the average person?

The First Amendment enshrines the right to free speech. According to Dictionary.com, speech is linked to communications from people. So why do we think corporations have the same right to free speech as humans? Corporations can't vote in state and federal elections. Corporations can't be put in jail.

When you give corporations and large groups of people the same First Amendment rights as an individual person, you diminish the rights of individual people. This is especially true when you pervert the concept of free speech to include money as a form of speech, as the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling did.

Anyone can speak in support of a candidate to encourage voters to support that candidate. But how can a person raise their voice to be heard in a media environment where corporations and wealthy people can spend unlimited sums of money to carefully craft messages and blast them across multiple media platforms?  My speech is of less value. 

One person, one vote. Large sums of money should not be allowed to diminish the value of my vote or the value of my speech. The number of people I, as an individual, can reach is limited. With large sums of money from an individual, a corporation, or a large group of people, there is no limit. We don't allow candidates to directly give money or gifts to voters to gain their votes, but we allow large donors the means to overpower my speech by paying for unlimited access to media sources.

The billionaire Elon Musk, for a little over 1% of his net worth, could finance every candidate in every federal election for a year. That is every Republican, Democrat, and independent.

Let's suppose you have a net worth of $100,000. Would you pay $147 to become the BFF of a U.S. president? Elon Musk could easily pay the entire cost of Trump's 2025 campaign (about $1.5 billion) for the equivalent of your $147.

Do you think that is fair? More importantly, do you think that is good for our democracy?

Only voting-age citizens should be able to donate money, goods, or services to politicians running for elected office, and the amount should be limited. It should be an amount that an average voter might be able to give.  It should be no more than a few thousand dollars a year.

I suggest a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money candidates receive.

How about something like this:

"Only voting-age citizens of the United States may donate money, goods, or services (excluding the value of an individual's voluntary personal services) to candidates running for federal office (President, House, or Senate). Donations must be from one individual to one individual candidate. Groups of citizens may not pool their donations; this includes married individuals. An individual may donate to any number of candidates in any federal election, but the total amount donated in a year, including all donations made to all candidates, shall not exceed..."

Obviously, I am not a constitutional scholar, so that is just a suggestion.

I haven't suggested what the maximum amount should be. I have some thoughts. The amendment should contain a formula to calculate the amount so it could change each year without the need to amend the Constitution later. The amount should be relatively low. Perhaps it could be based on the federal minimum wage, multiplied by the previous year's rate of inflation and then by some multiplier. That way, any non-inflationary increase in the limit would benefit the lowest-paid workers. It would also make it harder to raise the limit substantially without broader economic implications.

I also didn't include state and local elections or other ballot measures, such as bond issues. Those issues should also be addressed. I am more concerned about large sums of money from individuals, corporations, or groups (and yes, that includes unions) being used to influence federal elections, but limits on state and local elections should also be considered. I think $2,500 a year sounds reasonable.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is how much a single individual can contribute to their own election. As mentioned above, Elon Musk could easily pay for his own presidential campaign. Yes, I know he is not eligible to run, but there are more billionaires every year. This gets tricky, but we have a billionaire in the presidency right now. How is that working?

We need to get big money out of elections. 

Why Is Trump Stalling Trials?

I hear a lot of politicians and pundits espouse that voters, not courts, should decide if Donald Trump should be president again.  As described in previous blogs, the 14th Amendment in clear text says he should not be allowed to be re-elected.  But courts are the place where Constitutional issues are resolved or at least we hope they would be resolved.

But if politicians and pundits believe so strongly that voters should decide Trump's fitness, why are they not calling for Trump to stop the judicial stalling?  If voters should decide the election, don't they have a right to know if Trump is guilty of any of the dozens of crimes he has been indicted for?  And know before the nomination and election?  If Trump is innocent it would be in his interest to get these trials over with.

If Trump is as innocent as he keeps telling us, he should fighting to get before a jury as soon as possible and be exonerated.

Silly me, I know why he is stalling.  He thinks the DOJ, the judicial system, jurors, the majority of voters, bankers, bus drivers, little old men, election workers, etc. are all against him.  The whole system, actually the whole world is against him and he can't possibly get a fair trial.

Truth is, he knows he is guilty as hell and will do anything to escape punishment for his crimes.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

I'm The President! Get Off My Yard Or I'll Nuke You!

Hey you kids, get off my yard!

When I first saw Trump's mug shot I started laughing.  My first thought was he looked like some grumpy old man yelling at the neighbor kids who were walking on his grass again.  

I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about what image he wanted to project and then practicing that glare until he got it just right.  He wanted to make sure that his first mug shot looked presidential.  

What a clown.

No Get Out of Jail Free Card for Trump

As one of the justifications for his vote against conviction during the second impeachment of former president Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell said that the acquittal did not allow Trump to escape consequences for his actions before and during the January 6th insurrection. McConnell correctly said Trump could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during or after his presidency after he was no longer president.

Donald Trump faces indictments this year from the DOJ and/or the state of Georgia. Convictions on any one of these additional indictments would be serious enough to disqualify him from ever holding office again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says any federal office holder, like Trump, who engages "in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States" is prohibited from holding office again.

Trump is no longer president, but he is already complaining that any legal actions against him should not be allowed since he is a presidential candidate.

By DOJ rules, but not by the constitution, Trump had a "get out of jail free" card for prosecution of any federal crimes while he was in office. (Note, this GOOJF card never applies to state or civil court cases.) Now that he is out of office, we need to make it clear that these cases will go forward whether or not Trump is a candidate or even if he is again elected president.

A wealthy person can't suddenly file for the presidency to delay any federal indictments or convictions until the next presidential election. 

I am not aware of any laws on this subject, but Trump and voters should expect that any indictments this year will be be handled as they would for any other citizen. They won't be delayed by campaign contingencies, the actual election or, should he win, by any responsibilities of his new status as president-elect or president.

Trump and his supporters have to accept the possibility that Trump could be inaugurated in a jail cell or the Oval Office moved to Leavenworth.  

We've all seen enough of Trump's play book to know that once he is indicted he will use every opportunity to slow down the judicial process. He is entitled to the same legal options as any other defendant, but he and his supporters need to accept that these slow downs increase his chances that the legal processes against him will interfere with what they see as his need to campaign or serve. If you can't accept that, don't vote for him in the primary.

Trump supporters have been able to turn a blind eye to Trump's inadequacies for years. From the day he walked down the escalator it has been been very clear that Trump lies about anything and everything. He has only a superficial understanding of the Constitution, science or the Bible. He has no idea of what is expected of a US president who is responsible for the entire country. He does not understand the concepts of independent and impartial judiciary system and justice department. He has practically no understanding of the US place in the world as an advocate and defender of democracy and as a leader who protects us, our allies and and world from countries and organizations that would harm us. Laws and norms that have guided us for centuries mean nothing to him.

Trump believes the world exists to serve him. He has repeatedly shown he is willing to sacrifice the constitution or country if he thinks that is needed to further his goals. His supporters must believe this also since nothing he does seems to affect their fealty. That is why he must face the law as any other citizen would until he is acquitted or convicted and his sentence is completed.

 

May The Best Fraudster Win

Elephant Shit

Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and candidate for governor of Arizona, was asked if she would accept the results of the election.  She replied something like "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".  When pressed if she would accept the results if she lost, she repeated "I expect to win the election and I will accept the results".

The fact the she basically refused to answer that simple question means she will not accept the results if she is not elected.  She obviously is a believer in "heads I win, tails you lose".

She logically can't object if her opponent makes the same election results statement.  That would mean that no matter who wins, someone is going to claim election fraud.  Of course that is insane. 

If Kari Lake really believes she can only lose if there is fraud, why is she campaigning?  Why try to convince voters you are the better candidate if you believe the other side is going to manufacture votes?  She can't know how many fraudulent votes her opponent could muster. 

If Kari Lake really believes the other side is going to produce fraudulent votes, wouldn't she be smart to tell us how the fraud will be committed so it can be prevented? Or maybe manufacture some fraudulent votes for herself? 

So extending Kari Lake's philosophy she believes both candidates will attempt to commit fraud and the winner will be the candidate that was the better fraudster.   

Kari Lake is wrong and should not be elected.  All candidates should commit to accepting the results of elections and to doing their part to make sure that elections are fair and accurate.   

 

MAGA Voting Sticker

 

On behalf of democracy loving Americans, we thank you!