Apparently hard mode: What is your name?

Updated the main post. Good question: John Rose.

In running, do expect to win, against stars like Adam Schiff and Katie Porter?

Or is it that you hope to shine a light on important issues like, as you stated, campaign finance reform?

I'm also running because I'd be a hypocrite if asked other people to run for something and didn't do it myself. As the stars in the race are deeply embedded in the establishment, as junior Senators they will do slightly worse than Dianne Feinstein. Dianne has been my Senator for over 30 years and the Congress' job approval declined from 40% to 18%.

I would be ashamed to be part of an organization with such low job approval ratings and would make it my #1 priority to fix things and provide actual leadership.

Calling Katie Porter "deeply embedded in the establishment" tells me all I need to know about your campaign. If you can't be honest about a subject like that, in a forum like this, you can't be trusted.

Katie is deeply embedded in the campaign finance establishment. She is a tremendous fundraiser. Do you deny her ability to raise political donations?

Katie Porter does her own fundraising and last election didn't take a penny from the party at large, even in her toss up race. Are you seriously trying to claim that the ability to rake in individual donations is a bad thing? Is your inability to fundraise somehow a positive? This is ridiculous.

Katie is excellent at playing the game and making money. Kudos to her.

If by "playing the game" you mean actually engaging with her constituents (me included, she's my rep) and representing my interests at a national level, then yes, she absolutely plays the game. I donate to her because she pushes the issues I want her to. Do you think you speak for me or something? Do you claim that you know what I want out of a representative better than me?

Go right ahead and check my user history, I'm an OC resident and very vocal about how happy I've been with her representing me. I'm also an engineer with a background in change management (I've been the head of the change control board for one of the largest aerospace companies on the planet), and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but after this AMA I can see that you're a clown.

By playing the game I mean using campaign donations to keep score. There isn’t a lot of difference between Porter, Schiff, and Lee. Any one of them would do a decent job of representing our state. They would definitely be following the standard practices of Feinstein except would not have seniority in the Senate.

Why not run for the house?

Because the Senate is at the core of the problem. The Senate filibuster rule kills our democracy by letting anonymous Senators block debate and votes on legislation. The House is problematic and if I lived in Kevin McCarthy's district I might have opposed him. Most of the Representatives from California are good and decent people, including the ones choosing to abandon their seats to run for the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren is my hero and Katie Porter was mentored by her. She is absolutely not “the establishment”. You are being unfair.

I respect the fact that you want to champion campaign finance reform but acting as if everyone else is inherently corrupt is not the way to do that imho.

I am not implying that Katie Porter is corrupt. The campaign finance system is corrupt and Katie is doing a decent job of fundraising and avoiding taking direct contributions from PACs. She hasn’t stated that will not spend her campaign contributions at media outlets that have promoted election fraud lies or whose algorithms promote divisions between Americans. She could easily take a stance on not using her campaign to reward those corporations and their owners.

Frankly the media outlets that use our public airwaves or have their cables running on our public and civic infrastructure should be required to provide campaign coverage.

I hope to get enough votes to win a Senate race in Wyoming or one of the other less populated states. Although Schiff took in over $8 million dollars in contributions last quarter each vote in theory costs absolutely nothing.

As my Engineering friends would tell me, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice there is."

The act of running is a win unto itself and does shape the conversation and opens the Overton window.

Why would you run if you don't expect to win, especially against other candidates who also want to reform campaign finance?

For the same reason I vote: I still have hope for American democracy. I might win, that's really up to the majority of voters. Actually I only have to come in second place in the jungle primary to advance to the general election.

https://ballotpedia.org/United\_States\_Senate\_election\_in\_California,\_2024

I'm also going to have to challenge the statement that the other candidates want to reform campaign finance. It's big business and they are immersed in the system. They say they want change, but do they really? That's like them saying they want to strengthen labor rights, but it hasn't happened in 30 years.

Why not provide your name??

I thought you'd never ask. I am John Rose.

https://rose4us.com/

https://ballotpedia.org/John_Rose_(California))

Why didn’t you provide it in your initial post?

People are human. It happens.

Corporations are people too. Just saying. We can always amend the definition if we don’t like it.

Frankly I have had a hard time getting the mainstream media to give my campaign any attention. I don’t have a high enough batting average apparently. They didn’t care, so I thought my name was irrelevant, people would find it if they cared enough to follow the link.

But yeah, I got a BFA in Art, so I am sketchy.

🤷‍♂️ there's congress people who barely even got a GED. California is different but standards have significantly lowered themselves recently

Not sure if you are looking for the baseball star to get in the race, but the republican Eric Early is also a BFA.

I also studied western civilization and humanities and read the books that the inspired our founding fathers to write our Constitution. I can tell you that what we have today is not what they intended.

If the mainstream media don't give your campaign any attention, you need to make sure your own messaging is super clear and effective, and not bury your own name (ie who you want people to vote for) beneath links... it should be the headline. Name = message. Rose = voting fairness. Your name is the most important thing you can get potential voters to remember. This response doesn't really inspire any confidence in your leadership.

Point taken. The election is in March and I will be certain to do better.

If you aren't sure if you are a registered voter, check https://www.vote.org/ It takes a minute.

Want to run for something? Do it https://runforsomething.net/

Btw, it isn't that Congress isn't trying to reform campaign finances from time to time, but without changing Senate rules on the Filibuster, bills like this are blocked from debate and voting by anonymous Senators. We don't even know which Senators stand against the American People:

Congress.gov. "Cosponsors - S.J.Res.25 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." September 20, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/25/cosponsors.

Would this amendment not allow the government to pass laws making it a crime to publish in newspapers, on TV, or on corporate owned websites information and opinions which disagreed with the views of the government?

This amendment would allow Congress to set laws and regulations on corporations. Presumably a CEO could take a stance on behalf of the corporation that compensates him. That probably wouldn’t even make him liable for damages caused by the corporation except in the case of damages caused by the free speech.

right, and since all of these entities are corporations, this amendment would allow Congress to regulate basically all speech in the areas where we most commonly encounter speech.

the current political class might not abuse it to suppress free speech, but someone will.

In which case a law could be written or a new amendment passed. Corporations are created by law, not the Creator, and lack the inalienable rights which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle natural persons.

This would be a good change my opinion topic.

if the amendment itself has this broad an application, IMO it's a fatal flaw in the amendment.

a law couldn't protect us from the side effects, that's the whole point to it being in the constitution --- and a world where congress could freely ban speech it didn't like on television, radio, or the internet is a worse world than the world we're in now.

You haven’t changed my opinion. Corporations are entities created by law and should be regulated by law. Humans are created by nature. We eat, drink, and make merry. Corporations do none of these things. Should they have the same rights as us humans when they can’t be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

corporations shouldn't in general have the same rights as humans, no, but since a rounding error of all public speech is mediated through corporate entities, if corporations don't have freedom of speech, then in practice people do not either.

denying corporations freedom of speech opens the door to congress banning, for example, public advocacy of legalized abortion.

sure, you as an individual can advocate for it, but as soon as you put it on a website, the company can be fined.

this would be the greatest power for suppressing freedom of speech in the history of the modern world.

I think you are misunderstanding section 230

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Corporations and individuals running a website are both protected under this wording.

I’m certain a corporation would find a workaround to protect their corporate speech. Perhaps the CEO maintains a privately held business but he is “owned” by the corporation. I’m sure they will find a creative solution.

the point is that the constitutional amendment would make it possible for congress to change this and then ban speech it didn't like.

yeah, the law doesn't do that now. but laws can be changed, and amending the constitution in a way that hands that power to Congress on a platter is a terrible idea.

Congress shouldn’t have the authority to pass laws? I thought that was the whole point of a legislative branch. I don’t think the Supreme Court should be forced to be activists and invent new ways to interpret outdated laws.

Legislators are elected and can be removed if the voters don’t like the laws. A huge part of the reason Congress only has an 18% job approval rating is that they aren’t passing laws.

The Senate race in California includes the front runners, Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee. Lexi Reese is a new candidate running as a Democratic candidate. Eric Early is the Republican, though baseball all star Steve Garvey has hinted at running as a Republican. I'm running as a Democratic candidate.

Spoiler: A Democratic candidate will win the State. It really shouldn't take millions of dollars for the top three candidates to make their case.

https://imgur.com/a/9pvguou

Hey dude, why do you refuse to write out your name? Why would we need to click a link to find out who you are?

With this kind of campaigning, you'll not even get in the single digits in the primary election.

Updated. Thanks for really good advice. I wasn't refusing, I just didn't think about it.

Why are these your platforms when it seems like there are so many much more important things that need fixing?

It feels like you're just adding the buzzwords-du-jour to your platform.

Open to your advice. Name some.

I’m going to stand by my assertion that defining the nature of personage is the single most important issue to humans. We simply cannot accomplish anything else when money drives our political system.

There’s a lot of other things that should be fixed immediately after we can act for the good of the people and not obsess over fundraising.

What's your favorite King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard album?

Dude. Share your playlist.

1) Could you please elaborate on what that mean by "distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities to ensure fair elections"? Are we talking about campaign finance reform or are we talking about adding a CAPTCHA to ballots?

2) What kind of experience do you have in other government positions?

3) Would you rather fight 1 horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?

Campaign finance reform.

I come from the private sector and don’t work in government. I used to trust them to look out for our interests, but I don’t think they have a clue on how to drive change. Since replacing the status quo is precisely what I did in high tech, I probably have the rare skill set to actually implement change. I would certainly have to rely on experts and take the well documented advice that is out there.

How many artificial entities have you caught voting? Do they vote by mail or in person? If voting by mail, how did they get a state ID and register a signature with the state? Did they fill out a paper ballot on their own or did a real person help them in which case how do you know it wasn’t the real person doing the voting? If in person, how come the elections officials didn’t catch them?

?

Campaign Finance reform is about the campaigning, not the actual voting. It is placing reasonable limits on the influence of donations on candidates. Billionaires, corporations, and artificial entities spend a lot more influencing elections than the vast majority of voters.

Do you think you can stand up against the proven voting records of Schiff and Porter, both of whom have voted for HR1 each and every time it has come for a vote?

They have a proven record of failing to pass a bill? Yes, I think a new approach will stand up to that.

The failure is theirs if they voted for it? 🙄

It didn't become a law did it? Congress is notorious for voting for things that don't become laws. Often they will vote for things that they know will never become laws simply to boost their fundraising.

It is not enough to simply vote, they have to lead the people and promote their legislation.

If you succeed and if that Resolution passes, how do we deal with corporations' first amendment rights?

Do they lose them?

If yes, how do you propose we deal with Section 230 then being the only protection the US based Internet companies will have from interference from law enforcement, thin-skinned officials and moralizing busy bodies. ( 1st currently gives those companies another layer of protection)

Per the currently proposed amendment, only natural persons have rights. See below for the wording.

Regarding Section 230, it seems that a corporation would have exactly the same protections as a natural person. No more, no less.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)).

Proposed Amendment in the Senate:

“Article —

“ Section 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people shall be the rights of natural persons.

“ Section 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘citizen’ shall not include a corporation, a limited liability company, or any other corporate entity established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

“ Section 3. A corporate entity described in section 2 shall be subject to such regulation as the people, through representatives in Congress and State representatives, may determine reasonable, consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

“ Section 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people, which are unalienable.”.

Many churches incorporate, (a) because they have to have some form of formal organization to earn 501(c)(3) nonprofit status for tax purposes, and (b) it shelters their directors from personal liability. Wouldn’t those churches lose their First Amendment freedom of religion under your proposal?

The people running those churches and the congregations would all still have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

But as a group, they could be banned from collectively worshiping according to their religious beliefs.

Could they? They still have freedom of assembly as individuals. Sounds like an easy ban for the Supreme Court to find unconstitutional.

Maybe they can gather in a field somewhere. But they can’t incorporate to, say, legally protect themselves when contracting with a construction company to build a church or temple.

I’m trying to understand why not. Seems like both entities would be incorporated and would have similar legal rights.

In the oral arguments for the Citizens United case, the government argued that they should have the power to ban political books that contained express advocacy if an incorporated entity was involved.

Given the current climate around book bans, do you still think this is a fight worth winning, and what would the political landscape look like if a person like Trump were to control the government again with said power?

If had the government actually tried to ban a book, would the corporation not be able be able to sue and appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court? Would the Supreme Court uphold the book ban if one ever happened?

I assume you are proposing a case where there is no author with natural personage to plead the case. The book was written by ChatGPT or other artificial entity and promoted solely by a corporation and not a billionaire? If both a corporation and a human promoted the book would the human be denied his rights?

I don't suggest that we return Citizen's United to the courts for re-litigation. Merely that Congress define personage as the Supreme Court requested.

Have you read CU decision? Do you understand corporate citizenship started well before Citizens?

Of course. I am not asking to relitigate Citizens United. The 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court was clear in their decision, although I stand with the dissenters.

A constitutional amendment would clarify the court footnote in the Supreme Court’s decision on County of Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific. It would also allow regulation of campaign finance deemed unconstitutional in Citizens United.

This IAmA has been very informative, even in the things that weren’t asked. I definitely have a better idea of what drives this community even though you aren’t a monolith.

One of the main desires was bullet points on my positions:

1. Drive a new constitutional amendment to define persons in the Constitution as the natural people who were endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights.

2. Senate Filibuster Reform. The Filibuster Rule is not in the Constitution and prevents the legislative branch from doing its job. We have to allow democratically elected representatives debate and vote on legislation and establish laws. Having an unelected Supreme Court set legal precedent is unacceptable in a democracy.

3. Encourage civic participation and voter engagement. Give people a cookie or other rewards for being attentive and knowledgeable on current events.

4. End Taxation without Representation. In the horse and buggy age, the District of Columbia existed to provide for the needs of elected representatives and federal employees who needed to stay in Washington DC for extended periods. Most of those who served them did not have the right to vote because of the color of their skin or the gender of their bodies. Today most elected representatives commute to D.C. and do not maintain local residences. They are outsiders and cannot represent the interests of a city that has grown beyond merely accommodating government, but generates more tax revenue than ten smaller states. DC still has a plurality of black residents, but that is a poor excuse to deny them debate and a vote on statehood in the Senate.

Hi John, I'm beginning to think I'm a single issue voter and my issue is campaign finance reform. How specifically would you like to see the current campaigning system changed?

This is probably more specific:

I support this proposed amendment currently not being debated or voted on in the Senate because of the Filibuster rule. There is an anonymous Senator blocking debate.Text - S.J.Res.3 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies, and other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, S.J.Res.3, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/3/text.

“Article —

“ Section 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people shall be the rights of natural persons.

“ Section 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘citizen’ shall not include a corporation, a limited liability company, or any other corporate entity established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

“ Section 3. A corporate entity described in section 2 shall be subject to such regulation as the people, through representatives in Congress and State representatives, may determine reasonable, consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

“ Section 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people, which are unalienable.”.

There’s actually only one way. The Supreme Court specifically said in their Citizens United decision that it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

While this is difficult it is not impossible. I believe in the art of the possible, and am wholly used to implementing incredible difficult projects that were possible but not easy. In New Product Introduction if a product was easy to create someone else would have already done it.

My campaign is the opportunity for you and the rest of the natural persons who eat, drink, and make merry to vote for change. It comes down to us or them. We are the people and they are exploiting us.

Only citizens should be able to donate. Corporations may be people, but they are not citizens. We don't let other countries donate. Why do we let entities that have more wealth than some countries donate?

How do you feel about outlawing fraudulent speech in campaigning? It seems like anyone can say anything fraudulent about a candidate but that's legal for some reason. So many of the negative political ads are downright lies.

The problem with outlawing fraudulent speech is it has to be proven. [Once proven it can be expensive or a rounding error].(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/fox-dominion-voting-systems-reach-settlement-over-false-election-claims)

Nice username. What's the story behind it?

It’s a long story, but I wrote a short illustrated book about some of it.

If You Give the House a Cookie-How the Squeaker of the House Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Democracy.

If you'd become a senator in future,than what's your plan(if any) to fix California's homelessness problem?

California has roughly as many homeless people as people who voted for the last Senator elected in Wyoming. It is one of the many statistics in which we lead the nation.

Homelessness is a national problem, not just a Californian problem, however typically it is considered a matter for state government.

Studies and policies in other nations show that solving Homelessness is remarkably simple: provide the homeless with homes. Then they can find jobs, or work on their substance problems or whatever other difficulties put them on the streets.

I would advocate for policies on that basis. But I would be only one of a hundred Senator and would hope that the Governor of California would find some less expensive communities to house the homeless and perhaps provide them job training or call center work that California has outsourced to other states.

How is it possible there is an “anonymous” senator blocking debate? Shouldn’t everything be public? Y’all are elected officials that represent the public

Strange but true. The filibuster rule came into being when Aaron Burr simplified the Senate rules, and eliminated a rule allowing return to the previous motion and ending debate. Nothing was done with that for decades until certain Senators used it to block voting on civil rights legislation. They did it by publicly standing on the floor like Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith goes to Washington. Not anonymous but usually the speeches weren’t pertinent to the proposed legislation either.

In 1975 the Senate changed the Filibuster rules again which now allows Senators to merely pass an anonymous note to the Senate stating their intent to filibuster and that is enough to block debate and votes.

Thanks for replying. That’s a frustrating tool, but I understand the benefits of the filibuster historically and in current times.

Well, for what it’s worth, I hope you win and as a voter in your state, I’d like to say that if you’re ever given a chance, here are the things that I believe should be bipartisan enough to get passed and would meaningfully change politics and better our country:

1) Ban senators AND their family from holding private equities. Preferably congresspeople too, but Senators for a start since there’s less people. It’s not as complicated as it sounds. Require senators to sell their holdings and put it into a blind trust. The blind trust invests their money into two vehicles, an S&P500 index fund, and a total U.S. bond market index fund. The ratio is determined by the age of the senator. A 70 year old senator will have 70% of their holdings in US total bond market index and 30% in S&P 500.

Not only is this most prudent financial decision math wise, it incentivizes older politicians to do things that make the bond prices go up, aka pay off government debts, reduce spending, etc.

It’s unconscionable that we have a system that allows someone like Senator Pelosi to have a family member making trades on insider information. This should not be possible in a position as important as the senate.

If senators complain about the logistics of this rule, we can say that they won’t have to pay capital gains tax on any of the liquidation of the assets or some other tax based incentive

2) repeal citizens United, eliminate pacs/super pacs, cap the $ amount that individuals can contribute to a politician, ban political attack ads, only allow ads if they are to advertise a debate

I know these are all wishful thinking, but man, our country would be infinitely better with these rules

Feinstein, whose seat I am running for, is the wealthiest Senator. I don’t think that makes her the most successful.

I’m not sure if many people will stand up for the historical benefits of the filibuster, at least not people of color. Keeping Republicans from appointing Supreme Court Justices was a great idea until the Democrats found out that a majority of Republicans can change filibuster rules whenever the rule change benefits them.

Honestly, Will Rogers had it right when he said, “I don’t belong to a political organization; I’m a Democrat.” The establishment has no strategic leadership and hasn’t for many decades.

Btw, we read both Calvin and Hobbes in my Humanities courses. Bill Waterson in the comics for fun. He’s a national treasure.

So what is your stance on "corporations are people too"?

It’s true until we change the Constitution to clarify the meaning of persons.

As a red-blooded American I find it outrageous that corporations lacking any blood can be considered having the same rights as us humans. We the people still have the sole right to vote however.

The Constitution is badly overdue for new amendments to update and renew our American democracy.

I find it outrageous that corporations lacking any blood can be considered having the same rights as us humans.

Yet you still don't answer the serious questions about it (press, religion, association, etc.) that have been asked in the other comments. Start answering those and people might start taking you seriously, because, right now, it looks like someone just LARPing at a Senate run.

Hi Mike,

I feel your pain and share the sense of urgency in implementing change. These are things that should have been done yesterday and not tomorrow. Please be patient. The filing deadline isn't until November (I already filed) and I am gauging the interest in my campaign. The interest seems pretty strong for a candidate outside of the standard Democratic norm coming from the for profit world. That makes me and Lexi Reese the candidates in that niche, though she comes from the Executive and Board side and I come from the worker and middle class side.

I am happy to schedule a campaign event in your county and will answer all of the other serious questions shortly. In the meantime, free to share which candidate you are supporting and their positions on the serious questions. If I don't have an opinion of my own maybe I will adopt yours.

Thanks,

John in Sonoma County

and will answer all of the other serious questions shortly.

It's 17 hours later and nothing is answered. Certainly looks like LARPing.

My apologies Mike. Please restate your serious questions. If your question was if corporations are entitled to the rights in the Constitution I think it is self evident from the Amendment proposal that only natural persons would have those rights.

The Constitution is badly overdue for new amendments to update and renew our American democracy.

Good idea, what would you chnge?

Also, for the record, can you state what is required to amend the constitution, and how you plan to build that consensus?

Changing the Constitution requires a massive amount of grassroots pressure. Getting the voting age lowered to 18 required drafting thousands of kids who couldn’t vote to a pointless war. The backlash from that was so great that Congress got rid of the draft to avoid popular resistance to other wars.

I will promote the movement for a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set reasonable limits on campaign finances with my fundraising cookies and Democracy Awareness Project.

Because voter registration is best done door to door, fundraising cookies is a good product to promote and support the movement (see Girl Scouts). Our Democracy Awareness ribbon is similar to the pink ribbons used to promote breast cancer awareness except our ribbon is formed into an endless Möbius strip. The ribbons are star spangled to reclaim patriotism from the authoritarians.

It’s an optimistic approach and scalable. It just requires a bit of faith in democracy and people that like cookies.

Thank you for advocating for campaign finance reform. Do you have a plan to stop SuperPACs? Do you have a plan to stop corporations and other entities from donating unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns?

We have to get a new constitutional amendment for that. I plan to give the 50% of citizens that have given up on voting a clear and easy way to signal their support for change. Vote for me. If two of the leaders in the Senate race make it to the General Election and not me, I can still hold their feet to the fire and tell them that the people of California demand change. If I win, it will be clear that I have a mandate.

So that’s a no on having a plan? Got it!

It's actually the opposite of not having a plan. Win or lose I push the issue forward.

Are you a U.S. citizen by any chance?

What exactly do you want the constitutional amendment to say? If you win, how would you fight corruption in the Senate and in California?

I support this proposed amendment currently not being debated or voted on in the Senate because of the Filibuster rule. There is an anonymous Senator blocking debate.
Text - S.J.Res.3 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies, and other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, S.J.Res.3, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/3/text.

“Article —

“ Section 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people shall be the rights of natural persons.

“ Section 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘citizen’ shall not include a corporation, a limited liability company, or any other corporate entity established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

“ Section 3. A corporate entity described in section 2 shall be subject to such regulation as the people, through representatives in Congress and State representatives, may determine reasonable, consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

“ Section 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people, which are unalienable.”.

support this proposed amendment currently not being debated or voted on in the Senate because of the Filibuster rule. There is an anonymous Senator blocking debate. Text - S.J.Res.3 - 118th Congress (2023-2024)

Has this passed the house? Also, you do realize that if you happen to get elected and take office in 2025, this is a moot point then right, as it would no longer be the 118th Congress?

Several versions have passed the House including in years when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

Also, you do realize that if you happen to get elected and take office in 2025, this is a moot point then right, as it would no longer be the 118th Congress?

How about this?

The verbiage in legislative bills can be reused and borrowed for other legislation and used in other Congresses. Often a bill will be resubmitted for decades.

"AI is a threat for many jobs"..your opinion on this ?

It’s a threat and an opportunity.

I think artificial entities with no intelligence are a bigger threat. Corporations with the sole purpose to make profits for their shareholders offshore American jobs and violate labor laws keeping the average salary at Reagan administration levels. Meanwhile the number of billionaires has skyrocketed.

Unfortunately billionaires don’t spend money and create other jobs as efficiently as a strong middle class.

I do believe that Campaign Finance Reform is critical- but I believe it has to come from the outside-and I don’t know technically how this would be accomplished. I don’t see it ever changing from the inside. How would you accomplish this major feat?

I am aiming to get the outside, the disaffected voters who usually don’t bother to vote, to vote for me.

To do this I will not spend millions of dollars on advertising, but run a grassroots campaign utilizing my fundraising cookies and Democracy Awareness Project to promote support for campaign financing reform.

Whether or not I get enough votes to get first or second place in the jungle primary, the campaign itself promotes campaign finance reform.

Got it. So it’s around your practice- not changing the system. That’s noble. Grassroots campaigns costs a significant amount of money. There needs to be people- lots of people, working in communities to get your message across.

I don’t have a practice. That’s Eric Early whose campaign doesn’t harm his law firm at all.

If you mean it’s around my cookie business, that’s why I dedicate all the profits back to democracy reforms.

Banning dark money is an important step, but only part of an overall solution:

To begin with, just banning one source of funds doesn't actually increase opportunity for less corrupt candidates; we also need an alternative and viable means of public funding.

More important is reforming the underlying system that prevents competition and accountability: choose one FPTP voting.

Without the two party duopoly enforced by the spoiler effect, voters would be free to choose candidates that don't take bribes. But in the current system doing so only serves to split the vote.

Do you have any broader or more specific proposals to address the more fundamental issues? Single issue reform candidates don't tend to do well. You need to also be able to handle broad topics and relate them back to your core issues in a way that people can relate to.

The Constitutional amendment is not just banning dark money. But passing it will allow Congress the ability to pass laws including public funding and other reforms.

I am in favor of reforming the filibuster. Democratic leadership has played safe on this for too many years. Let the parties that are duly elected take responsibility for their votes.

Partisan gerrymandering needs to be addressed. Despite the Supreme Court declaring racism over, it persists.

DC Statehood should be debated in the Senate and they should be voted into the Union. Taxation without Representation is wrong. When DC was created it took a week to travel from New York to DC. Representatives and Senators all maintained residences in DC and could be counted on to vote for a city that functioned well. Today most legislators commute and have no interest in civic matters.

Do you feel that child sex trafficking should be a felony? Do you agree or disagree with harsher penalties for those caught with child pornography?

Isn't all sex trafficking a felony? Or is it only a felony to kidnap people? Can you provide a link to a news article?

“Simple” kidnapping is a felony, subjecting you to up to 8 years in the California state prison. Aggravated kidnapping – also a felony – carries a sentence of five years to life, depending on the facts of the case.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? He(?) was obviously asking about the California bill in the news recently. The one that Democrats refused to put sex trafficking on the "serious felonies" list (they have since been forced to backtrack).

https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/ca-legislative-bill-to-increase-human-trafficking-penalties-fails-to-advance

I’m not sure this is a thing. Has a judge let a kidnapper off the hook because they were trafficking a child? Anyhow that’s the state not the federal government.

Can you advocate for

MMTLP?

FINRAFRAUD

situation. Position close only for short Hedge funds. Thank you www.MMTLPresources.com current regulators just pay lip service to Constituents without caring about how 65,000 investors, families, some military / veterans as well as attorneys were affected and had their money trapped by this. All due to corruption in FINRA & conflict of interest investments from it's board members

Dang, I thought we were heavy into acronyms in NPI. Honestly, I'd have to study the issue.

Let me just assure you that any candidate for Senator that claims that they will vote for one issue or another is not being honest. Without filibuster reform there is no floor debate and no vote. It really doesn't matter how I will advocate on the floor if all Senators are denied the opportunity to publicly debate.

If elected, how long will it be until you start taking "contributions" in exchange for further stripping Californians of their rights in the name of "public safety", and doing your best to make this place an even bigger hellpit than it is?

Hard mode : Be honest.

Change requires change. I'll take donations, but I refuse to give it to the media oligarchs that control much of our public airwaves. There are some independent newspapers and other channels that are not overrun by billionaires that profit by dividing Americans against each other.

What do you mean by "public safety"? Frankly as a Californian we live in a tinderbox. I'm being somewhat irresponsible by having a candle of hope and a spark of inspiration.

Edit: dropped the possessive apostrophe.

Good answer. You have my support.

By "public safety" I mean the generic, vague pearl clutching and fear mongering you see our fearless leaders engage in whenever they decide it's time to ban something (firearms, vaping, etc, etc).

I'm often accused of being a Libertarian: I don't often believe in judging others unless they are harming someone else or myself. I am more of an absolutist and embrace the prescription Lincoln made when viewing a nation divided but not yet at war:

“Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of 76 did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;…let it be taught in schools, …let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And let it become the political religion of the nation.”

Abraham Lincoln 1838 “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions”

In light of the Biden corruption scandals and the standards that the Democratic Party laid out in the Trump impeachments, would you vote to convict if Biden were impeached?

I'd like to hear the impeachment case first. The Republican's hold the House and have to make the case.

In America we are innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure that Biden has been charged with anything yet. Can you give me a link to the news?

I'd like to hear the impeachment case first.

A single whistleblower saying that Trump called Ukraine asking for dirt on the Bidens was enough for one impeachment case.

We have multiple whistleblowers alleging - publicly and under oath, which is not something that we saw in the first Trump impeachment - that there was interference from the highest levels of the DOJ in both the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and the IRS investigation that led to him getting sweetheart deals, including no jail time, for felonies ordinary people would go to jail for years for, such as possessing a firearm while being a user of illegal drugs, and lying on it on a gun purchase form.

Four days ago, the DOJ announced that they were filing FARA charges against Gal Luft, a think tank official who in 2019 provided evidence to the FBI about the Biden family's dealings with China, in which the Biden family, including Joe Biden himself, received money from CEFC China Energy Co, a CCP-linked company, and that the Bidens had a mole inside the FBI who shared information to the family to the benefit of family businesses.

Then you have the Biden bribe tape. This is an item known to the FBI, contained in an FD-1023 document. Sen. Chuck Grassley was provided this document in its complete, unredacted form by an anonymous whistleblower. Grassley and Rep. James Comer - the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, demanded the FBI show Congress this document. Not even release it to the public. But show the document to Congress.

FBI director Wray refused to do so. When Comer threated to hold Wray in contempt of congress, the FBI relented and showed it to some members of the House. But at the same time the document shown to these House members was heavily redacted and still treated like top secret classified information. According to Grassley, the version that was shown to the House by the FBI redacted a reference to a foreign national that allegedly bribed both Joe and Hunter Biden having seventeen audio recordings of his conversations with them; two being between him and Joe, and the other fifteen being between him and Hunter.

Grassley pressed the FBI on what, if any, investigation into this matter the DOJ and FBI have done. The answer? None. The FBI has not bothered to investigate this. Despite, you know, years of intense investigation into the "pee tape" that never existed.

The infamous pee tape allegations and the Biden bribe tape allegations both involved a confidential human source whom the FBI had previously paid for information relaying compromising details from a foreign source about a major party candidate for President. But the FBI and DC lawmakers did jack shit to investigate the Bidens, while throwing everything they could at Donald Trump.

If Donald Trump was known to have done half of this your entire party would be chomping at the bit to throw him in prison for life. Why aren't you holding your own to the same standard?

Why is Kevin McCarthy stalling?

I asked ChatGPT for it's questions. I felt bad telling it that only natural persons can vote in our elections:

What potential questions would an artificial entity have?

1. As an artificial entity, how would campaign finance reform impact our ability to participate in political activities?

2. Will the proposed distinction between natural persons and artificial entities in campaign finance reform disadvantage us in any way?

3. What safeguards will be put in place to protect the rights of artificial entities while promoting campaign finance reform?

4. How will the proposed reforms affect our ability to support candidates or issues through financial contributions?

5. Are there any alternative proposals or considerations for campaign finance reform that take into account the role of artificial entities?

6. Will there be any limitations or restrictions placed on the political activities of artificial entities as a result of the proposed reforms?

7. How will the proposed campaign finance reform address the potential influence of other sources of funding, such as foreign entities or organizations?

8. What mechanisms will be in place to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign funding, particularly for artificial entities?

9. How can artificial entities actively participate in the campaign finance reform conversation and have their concerns and perspectives heard?

10. Are there any provisions in the proposed constitutional amendment that specifically address the rights and responsibilities of artificial entities in the realm of campaign finance?

Why are you guys hating on our robot overlords? They have a right to their opinion, they just shouldn't be able to spend unlimited funds influencing our elections.

(snark, btw)

Is this what you were talking about when you said you want a distinction between natural persons and artificial entities in campaign finance?

Call me crazy but I inferred you were talking about the actually currently existing problem of PACs and Super PACs turning money directly into political power for the wealthiest individuals in the country.

Also, for Christ sakes guy, say your damn name. Name recognition is 90% of the battle. We can’t vote for you if we don’t know who you are, and you can’t rely on the people willing to put in the extra click. It should be in the title.

Sorry. I’m John Rose. Nice to meet you. I am talking about the PACs and Billionaires. Just thought I’d check with AI to get its opinion for fun. The joke went flat…