2014 Texas Republican Convention
Dedicated TUTA member, Mike Badzioch from Houston initiated an Indegogo campaign to raise funds for a space at the Texas Republican Convention. He and another TUTA member, Kellye Kirkpatrick from Denton attended the convention to hand out information and discuss the issue with convention attendees. Photos and more info coming soon!
Report from the Republican Convention by Mike Badzioch
Most people who stopped by our table (maybe 85%) walked away with good feelings about what we were doing. Some said they would study the handouts further. (the TUTA double sided color sheet and revised MTA tri-folded brochure.) A portion said they would talk with their group (these would include more than one precinct captain) or pass up the line to higher-ups (these would include simple delegates). Many expressed their appreciation. Some even thought Republicans would be more willing to support an amendment than Democrats. Two men, one an MD and interestingly both from Texarkana, said they wanted to do more in supporting us. I took a clip board for signups but it was just too much to maintain it in the hustle and bustle of a crowded hall.
Here is the 2-minute 'elevator speech' I gave over and over at the convention. My objective was to keep it short and sweet and send them on their way with good feeling toward TUTA.
“We are interested in just two issues:
One is the massive amounts of money flowing into our elections. We feel that the voices of average Americans, like you and me, are being drowned out by the millions of dollars coming from essentially a few individuals. We no longer have an equal voice in determining the future of our country. [Often here is a verbal 'yes, I agree' or a nod of the head indicating agreement.]
The other issue is that over the past 100+ years the Supreme Court has been giving constitutional rights* to man-made entities such as unions, corporations, and the like. Americans have never voted on this. We feel that constitutional rights belong only to real, flesh and blood, people and not to artificial entities like as unions and corporations. [After a little thought there is often agreement here too.]
To deal with these two issues we are proposing to override these Supreme Court rulings by passing a 28th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Its first section would state that artificial, man-made, entities like unions and corporations do not have personhood status and the rights given to people by the constitution. The second section states that money is property and does not have a First Amendment right of Free Speech of its own. Only people have this right.
Sixteen states have already passed non-binding resolutions in support of our approach. We will be working in the Texas legislature in January to get a similar resolution passed that states that Texas also supports such an amendment.”
* Having a constitutional right means that no law or regulation can be made to restrict that right. This means that unions and corporations can do pretty much anything they want without us being able to regulate their actions, ie, we have no control over them.
Here are some questions that popped up.
Q: But corporations are made up of people- they should have rights, no?
A: We have no problem with people coming together to form groups and pool their money for different purposes. They keep all the rights they had before. What the Supreme Court has done, however, is to create a new person or 'life' out of the group itself. A group that is the sum of the parts is fine. But, the court has made the group greater than the sum of the people in it. As an analogy, Dr. Frankenstein's experiment was to create life by sewing body parts together. This was fine because it was still just a bunch of dead body parts. However, when the good Doctor zapped the dead parts with electricity the dead thing came to life as a new but uncontrollable monster. This is what the Supreme Court has done with both regular money like hundred dollar bills and unions and corporations when it gave these non-human entities a separate 'life' by bestowing them with constitutional rights. We don't think that the Supreme Court should be 'creating life'.
Q: So when the constitutional rights of the New York Times Corporation are taken away, we can kill it?
A: No, sorry. The Press has special privileges under our constitution and in light of the new corporate restrictions found in Amendment 28 the relationship between Freedom of the Press and corporate non-personhood will have to be defined in more legal detail.
Q: But I'm a libertarian and think that no laws should restrict us from participating in elections.
A: Look at it this way- its basically a money war between two sides. First one side spends more and wins more races (on the average). Then the other side spends more still and wins the majority of elections. At each step fewer and fewer people (those with more and more money) are deciding the future of our country and more and more people are left out of real decision making. How would you stop this loss of democracy? [I did not hear any constructive response to this scenario.]
Here is the 2-minute 'elevator speech' I gave over and over at the convention. My objective was to keep it short and sweet and send them on their way with good feeling toward TUTA.
“We are interested in just two issues:
One is the massive amounts of money flowing into our elections. We feel that the voices of average Americans, like you and me, are being drowned out by the millions of dollars coming from essentially a few individuals. We no longer have an equal voice in determining the future of our country. [Often here is a verbal 'yes, I agree' or a nod of the head indicating agreement.]
The other issue is that over the past 100+ years the Supreme Court has been giving constitutional rights* to man-made entities such as unions, corporations, and the like. Americans have never voted on this. We feel that constitutional rights belong only to real, flesh and blood, people and not to artificial entities like as unions and corporations. [After a little thought there is often agreement here too.]
To deal with these two issues we are proposing to override these Supreme Court rulings by passing a 28th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Its first section would state that artificial, man-made, entities like unions and corporations do not have personhood status and the rights given to people by the constitution. The second section states that money is property and does not have a First Amendment right of Free Speech of its own. Only people have this right.
Sixteen states have already passed non-binding resolutions in support of our approach. We will be working in the Texas legislature in January to get a similar resolution passed that states that Texas also supports such an amendment.”
* Having a constitutional right means that no law or regulation can be made to restrict that right. This means that unions and corporations can do pretty much anything they want without us being able to regulate their actions, ie, we have no control over them.
Here are some questions that popped up.
Q: But corporations are made up of people- they should have rights, no?
A: We have no problem with people coming together to form groups and pool their money for different purposes. They keep all the rights they had before. What the Supreme Court has done, however, is to create a new person or 'life' out of the group itself. A group that is the sum of the parts is fine. But, the court has made the group greater than the sum of the people in it. As an analogy, Dr. Frankenstein's experiment was to create life by sewing body parts together. This was fine because it was still just a bunch of dead body parts. However, when the good Doctor zapped the dead parts with electricity the dead thing came to life as a new but uncontrollable monster. This is what the Supreme Court has done with both regular money like hundred dollar bills and unions and corporations when it gave these non-human entities a separate 'life' by bestowing them with constitutional rights. We don't think that the Supreme Court should be 'creating life'.
Q: So when the constitutional rights of the New York Times Corporation are taken away, we can kill it?
A: No, sorry. The Press has special privileges under our constitution and in light of the new corporate restrictions found in Amendment 28 the relationship between Freedom of the Press and corporate non-personhood will have to be defined in more legal detail.
Q: But I'm a libertarian and think that no laws should restrict us from participating in elections.
A: Look at it this way- its basically a money war between two sides. First one side spends more and wins more races (on the average). Then the other side spends more still and wins the majority of elections. At each step fewer and fewer people (those with more and more money) are deciding the future of our country and more and more people are left out of real decision making. How would you stop this loss of democracy? [I did not hear any constructive response to this scenario.]
Report from the Convention and thoughts on Republicans Who’ve Spoken Out Against Money in Politics
Kellye Kirkpatrick, Citizens for Truth Blog and Denton County Organizer
Last month, Texans United to Amend set up an exhibition table at the Texas State Republican Convention in Ft. Worth (thanks to Mike Badzioch). On one of the days, I helped out. We were all glad to hear that Republican delegates shared the same concerns we had about the influence of too much money in politics. It's hard to say what percentage of all the delegates agreed with us, but of the delegates who stopped at our table to talk, 95% of them agreed with us on the 2 issues that we discussed with them.
Besides the issue of too much money influencing our political process, the other issue we discussed with them was our belief that corporations are not people and should not have the same constitutional rights as individuals. From what I could tell, none of them had heard of a constitutional amendment to solve those 2 issues. However, those in agreement with us, did not seem adverse to a constitutional amendment.
None of this should be too surprising. Republicans and Republican leaders, past and present, have spoken out against money in politics, the Citizens United decision, and corporate personhood. Here is a sampling: Read more of this post
Besides the issue of too much money influencing our political process, the other issue we discussed with them was our belief that corporations are not people and should not have the same constitutional rights as individuals. From what I could tell, none of them had heard of a constitutional amendment to solve those 2 issues. However, those in agreement with us, did not seem adverse to a constitutional amendment.
None of this should be too surprising. Republicans and Republican leaders, past and present, have spoken out against money in politics, the Citizens United decision, and corporate personhood. Here is a sampling: Read more of this post
Party Platform
Here is a link to the entire Republican Party Platform.
Below are the related portions:
RESTORING INTEGRITY TO OUR ELECTIONS
Unions- We support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain consent of the union member before that member’s dues can be used for political purposes. We strongly oppose card check.
Campaign Contributions- We support full disclosure of the amounts and sources of any campaign contributions to political candidates, whether contributed by individuals, political action committees, or other entities.
Campaign Finance Reform- We urge immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act.
Conflicts of Interest- We support legislation prohibiting influencing or voting of any elected official or appointee where a conflict of interest exists. No such official should represent paying clients before a state agency.
Lobbying Limitation- We support legislation to prohibit former officials and government employees from lobbying for a foreign government and/or any business for five years after leaving public service. We support legislation to prevent lobbying by any organization receiving federal grants except that relating to its tax status.
Below are the related portions:
RESTORING INTEGRITY TO OUR ELECTIONS
Unions- We support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain consent of the union member before that member’s dues can be used for political purposes. We strongly oppose card check.
Campaign Contributions- We support full disclosure of the amounts and sources of any campaign contributions to political candidates, whether contributed by individuals, political action committees, or other entities.
Campaign Finance Reform- We urge immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act.
Conflicts of Interest- We support legislation prohibiting influencing or voting of any elected official or appointee where a conflict of interest exists. No such official should represent paying clients before a state agency.
Lobbying Limitation- We support legislation to prohibit former officials and government employees from lobbying for a foreign government and/or any business for five years after leaving public service. We support legislation to prevent lobbying by any organization receiving federal grants except that relating to its tax status.