Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: TX state rep proposes resolution to override CU

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 9, 2013, 12:52 p.m. EST by NVPHIL (664)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0wvPZh4c-w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.legiscan.com/TX/drafts/HCR25

I saw this on TYT today and wanted to share it. If we could get the right focused on this issue with us we can get the 38 states needed to override CU and give us a much better chance of fixing our country. This is the single most important issue on the table and the one issue that left and right can agree on. I would like to thank everyone who is working on this.

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Cenk Yugur is conflating an amendment & a convention
Don't get suckered into this alec plot -
this is NOT about CU
it is about buying a new constitution
a convention can put ANYHING in it


IT CAN DISCARD OUR CONSTITUTION AND
CREATE ONE FROM SCRATCH


ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.


simply stated REQUIRED TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
( 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate ) OR ( 2/3 of State Legislatures )
RATIFICATION OF WHAT THE CONVENTION PASSES:
( ¾ of State Conventions ) OR ( ¾ of State Legislatures )


This language clearly states that only the Convention itself is authorized to determine the what is to be proposed and what subjects will be addressed in those amendments.
Nothing in Article V specifies how delegates are selected or elected.

During the first 100 years of the Republic, applications for a convention did not try to tell the convention which amendments to propose, that is, they were, as stated in Article V, general applications for a convention.

Early applications, since 1788, properly left the determination of the content of the amendments to the convention. As time passed, the state legislatures ignored the clear language and intent of the U.S. Constitution and they attempted to dictate to a convention what amendments it could propose. They did this by ( unconstitutionally ) stating in their applications that they sought only a limited convention with authority to propose an amendment on a single subject. By issuing single-issue convention applications, legislatures sought to turn the convention into a rubber stamp for their own purposes. These unenforceable, unconstitutional limitations defy the intended purpose of the convention, which was to deliberate and decide what amendments to propose. Most recent calls for a con-con has been dressed up as a movement to require Congress to call a convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment requiring a balanced budget; to ban flag burning; to ban abortion…. Topics to which a convention is to be limited are designed to be appealing, but the Amendment clearly shows no authority to dictate or limit what subjects to address in a convention. That is why courts have ruled have ruled these applications illegitimate.

The Article V ratification process was not sufficient to stop the runaway convention which met in 1787. The delegates were specifically called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves powers they were not given. In fact, they completely discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new Constitution – defining the first “runaway convention” - discarding the original document and starting from scratch

The primary argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to propose whatever it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” - exactly like the 1787 Convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened.
U.S. Supreme Court justices and the nation's leading legal scholars have stated that these single-subject limitations cannot be enforced; that if a convention is called, it will be free to propose any kind and number of amendments to the same effect, as if the limitations in the applications did not exist. In other words, although applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored.

A warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. Madison wrote that he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans ... [and] would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the [nation’s] very foundations.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention wrote on June 22, 1988: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The 1787 Convention ignored the limit stated by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose”. Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”

Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg: "One of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from passing wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups, whose self interest may be contrary to our nations well being"

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe stated that a “Con-Con could not be limited to a single issue. The stakes in this institution are much greater because you are putting the whole Constitution up for grabs. In 1787, there was at least agreement on the direction we should move ... today, we don't even agree what direction we should move. In 1787, America had a treasure of enlightened leaders such as Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. I don't know how you feel about the current cast of characters." Tribe also noted that a runaway convention could even change the rules of ratification, as the 1787 convention did, and make them ratifiable by national vote or some other method. (The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification by all 13 state legislatures, but delegates at the 1787 convention recognized this might not be accomplished, so they changed the ratification rules to three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.)

Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School wrote "The fear that a constitutional convention could become a 'runaway' convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. A convention, once called, would be in the same position as the only other convention of this kind that we have had in our history - the 1787 Philadelphia Convention - the first runaway convention."

However, if we use precedent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that includes one vote per state, just 14 states – a majority of a quorum [ 26 of 50 states ] is 14 states - representing less than 16,000,000 Americans could write & propose a completely new Constitution!

Some possible Amendments to come from an article V convention :
Evolution cannot be taught.
No corporate tax.
No inheritance tax.
The gold standard.
Labor unions are illegal.
The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished.
Abortion is illegal.
Birth control is illegal.

There is NO specified method by which delegates are to be elected or appointed or purchased. There is NO provision for citizens to vote for anything created in this process.

Some people believe that the ratification process is a check on the insanity.
What if the Democrats, as they are so co-operative [ like they gave up on single-payer ],
agree to cut defense spending by 50%, in exchange for eliminating the inheritance tax & capital gains tax –
how many billionaires would turn this down? They spent over a billion dollars to try to buy the White House. How much would they spend to buy a constitution? There could be as few as 50 delegates, and with the math above only, 14 delegates would need to be bribed. At $100,000,000 each, that would be a bargain for koch & alec.

American Legislative Exchange Council & the Koch brothers
Everything, absolutely every fact and opinion stated above –
warning against the inherent dangers of a con-con -
carries the weight of a flea compared to one single item:
ALEC & the Kochs are doing everything in their power to initiate a Constitutional Convention.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection
http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/whos-behind-nras-stand-your-ground.html
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120411/OPINION03/204110317/1008/opinion01/Public-right-skeptical-ALEC


ALEC Corporate member list may not be up to date
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations
2000 ALEC politicians by state they have lost a few! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Considering the amendment needs to pass 3/4 of the states the onlt issues you listed which is able to pass are the tax issues. Plus a strong enough grassroots movement would have more leverage over state gov't as opposed to federal. Yes it's a risk but with the corruption in congress it is also our best chance of getting money out of politics.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Regarding ratification- Which is less corrupt
535 pols in DC
or
7200+ pols throughout the 50 states?


2000+ state pols are members of alec
Is that good news?


The 1787 convention did what the delegates wanted, NOT what the citizens wanted.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

To see the dozen amendments already in US congress & to watch Sanders, Stevens, Hightower & 70 videos on citizens united - from OWS:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

CU= Citizens United

a misnomer allowing corporations to spend unlimited money to sway the public opinion.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress HR29
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) Feb 11, 2013


Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Is this the actual text introduced?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
Ensuring Rights for People, Not Corporations
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) Feb 11, 2013


Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights] The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech] Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Their path to override CU is NOT
2/3 of 535 Federal legislators
it is 2/3 of 7328 State legislators
which is actually not legal


If you read the details in Article V, STATES CANNOT PROPOSE AMENDMENTS - they can only call for a convention.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Damn, we actually agree on something... But you really ought learn to read case law. Still citing all those elite establishment judges to support your paranoia and keep people from doing what is necessary? Just another Dem...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

yes - I have read some of the case law - as you have.
I could not find the case law that states congress is breaking any law it this matter.


This Texas bill calls for an AMENDMENT - not a convention. Yuger is mis-stating this.


In any case, how do YOU propose forcing congress to hold a convention that YOU SAY IT ILLEGALLY IS AVOIDING?


Over 100 senators & congressmen ALREADY support an AMENDMENT.
How many bills have been introduced in the US congress in the last two years to call a convention & how many supporters did it have?

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Withdrawal of our consent to be governed by our government, under the Constitution, in a general election. Immediately followed by an Article V convention...

Perhaps you'd care to debate this on its merits, both political and Constitutional, rather than simply copying and pasting the same old slogans and paragraphs?

Walker v. Members of Congress (2004)

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Article V – The Walker Lawsuits
The necessary number of States have petitioned the Congress for a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the Constitution and have been ignored.
When taken to court, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the case using the “political question doctrine” as their reason. This is the doctrine from Wikipedia: The doctrine has its roots in the federal judiciary’s desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision. Justice Felix Frankfurter was an active and eloquent exponent of maintaining and expanding the political question doctrine. Critics of the doctrine[who?] argue that it has little or no basis in the text of the Constitution and is used by courts to shirk responsibility for deciding difficult questions. Political questions are important in U.S. history. It is back in Congress’s hands and they will just ignore the Constitution. Where is our protection that should be emanating from the Supreme Court?

The story of the two lawsuits, Walker v. United States, filed in December, 2000 and Walker v. Members of Congress, filed in September, 2004. Walker v. United States remained a federal district court case. Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Walker v. United States was the first lawsuit in history to directly address the question of whether Congress was required to obey the text of the Constitution and call a convention when the states applied which the evidence in the suit clearly showed they had, or whether, despite the language of the Constitution which the Founders termed “peremptory” Congress could ignore, or veto, the direct text of the Constitution and refuse to call such a convention even though the states had applied. In Walker v. United States, an over-length brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court’s political question doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.

Following the court decision, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.). The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v. United States were in fact true. This last point was accomplished simply by reversing the position that had been held in Walker v United States and agreeing with the political question doctrine set forth in the ruling in that lawsuit. Because of the Supreme Court Rules, the amicus was not allowed to be presented to the court because no attorney licensed to practice before the court would agree to be associated with the presentation made in the amicus. All attorneys indicated they could not accept the conclusions as true. The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter. Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that no attorney could accept it. Thus, if the conclusions of the amicus were false, then the opposite, that which had been asserted in Walker v. United States, must be true. It was time for a new lawsuit.

Based on new grounds of standing, Walker v Members of Congress was filed in 2004. The suit was significant in several ways. First, whereas Walker v. United States had sued Congress as a group, Walker v. Members of Congress sued the members as individuals. This meant that each member, was required under federal law, to individually determine their opposition to the lawsuit and request the United States represent them opposing the lawsuit. All members of Congress opposed the lawsuit by requesting the government represent them. Despite the language of the complaint which removed any member of Congress from the suit if he supported obeying the Constitution, no member of Congress chose to obey the Constitution. Thus, all members of Congress have publicly advocated they oppose obeying the direct text of the Constitution and support they having a veto of its text.

Secondly, it brought to the attention of the courts that such refusal was a violation of several criminal laws among them, 18 U.S.C. 1918, violation of oath of office by federal officials. The penalty for such violation is one year in prison and removal from office.


Finally, Walker v. Members of Congress was significant as it was the first lawsuit in history directly dealing with a convention call of Article V to be presented to the Supreme Court.
In October, 2006 the court denied a writ of certiorari and thus refused to consider the case. However, the United States, under Supreme Court Rules, had already conceded as fact and law that it held that Congress could veto the text of the Constitution.


So – bottom line – SCOTUS sided with Congressional decision NOT to call a convention.


You may not like the SCOTUS decision - but they did NOT decide to "force" a convention

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No the Supreme Court simply failed in its duty to enforce the Constitution...

"Despite the language of the complaint [Walker v. Members of Congress] which removed any member of Congress from the suit if he supported obeying the Constitution, no member of Congress chose to obey the Constitution. Thus, all members of Congress have publicly advocated they oppose obeying the direct text of the Constitution and support they [sic] having a veto of its text."

If Congress is not required to obey the text of the Constitution, then the Constitution is meaningless. On the other hand, if this is indeed simply a political question, should we not be voting on it?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You want me to debate on merits?
It would be meritorious to outlaw greed - and IMPOSSIBLE to do.
Ignoring the realities of the real world is mental masturbation.
If I wanted to waste my time trying to do the impossible, outlawing greed is much more important than doing what alec & koch wants.


There is no legal way to do this: "Withdrawal of our consent to be governed by our government, under the Constitution, in a general election.


And how many people polled, agree with this voting idea?
I know that the above Texas resolution is one of hundreds at the state and local level in the last 2-3 years. 80% of Americans polled agree with it. Millions have signed a pro-Amendment petition.


How many people have polled in favor of a CONVENTION?
[ besideds david koch & charlie koch ]

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

If we cannot withdraw our consent to be governed, then government of the people, by the people and for the people does not now exist, nor has it ever. You have no rights (inalienable or otherwise) and the Constitution is essentially meaningless. Period. You are a slave to the state and always will be regardless of whether you amend with the MTA amendment proposal or not.

Why? Simply stated, because you have no choice in the matter. The essence of liberty is freedom of political choice, and the stated goal of the Constitution is to form a government to protect our liberty.

Read John Locke (our founders based the Constitution on his philosophy of self-governance) and then look at the Declaration of Independence: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Believe it or not I am not opposed to the route you and MTA have chosen. In fact, I hope it is a roaring success, altho I have serious doubts for good reasons. Question is, what do you plan to do if you fail?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I have no doubt a majority of pro-99% reps in the house will push this thru - even if you take the cynical view t hat this is the best way to ruin the Rs
The R side of this coin has been in the works since 1971. Gerrymandering & voter suppression are just two of the most recent.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Repubs support CU! Did you know that? Do you know of any on the right that is against CU?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/mitch-mcconnell-praises-citizens-united/

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

You're confusing bought out politicians with real americans. Of course the politicians support it when they benefit. That's why the campaign against CU has been more successful at the local level. I saw this article about a conservative area voting to support CU.

https://movetoamend.org/press-release/voters-west-allis-wisconsin-move-amend

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yes, this should happen. I'm in Texas and will email my state represenative to support this. I think this is important.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Thanks. I we can get the amendment through despite the opposition that will prove to the country that the people still have power.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There is going to have to be a radical shake up in the makeup of Congress before something like this would get traction.

[-] -2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Not at all. If they don't pass it we can go through the states to pass the amendment no matter what they say. Plus it can't be overturned by the supreme court.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Could you explain the process?

[-] -2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

This explains it but basically 2/3 of the state assembally call for a constitutional convention to propose the amendment and the final amendment needs to be approved by 3/4 of the states. The founders realized congress could be corrupted and gave us other ways to fight.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thirty-four state legislatures (2/3s) must "apply" to Congress for an Article V convention. Congress calls an Article V convention to propose amendments. Thirty-eight states (3/4s) must ratify any proposed amendment.

There is no provision in Article V for the method you describe, altho this is not the first time I've heard of this proposal and I understand its basis and reasoning...

There may be another means of democratically compelling Congress to call an Article V convention, insofar as there are more than sufficient state applications in the Congressional Record and thus Congress is derelict in its Constitutional duty.

Are you from Nevada?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

How do you "go through the states to pass an amendment?"

[-] 0 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

I think 2/3 of states must approve a constitutional Amendment.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thirty-four state legislatures (2/3s) must "apply" to Congress for an Article V convention. Congress calls an Article V convention to propose amendments. Thirty-eight states (3/4s) must ratify any proposed amendment.

There is no provision in Article V for the method you describe, altho this is not the first time I've heard of this proposal and I understand its basis and reasoning...

There may be another means of democratically compelling Congress to call an Article V convention, insofar as there are more than sufficient state applications in the Congressional Record and thus Congress is derelict in its Constitutional duty.

Are you from Nevada?

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Born and raised. As for the convention I'm not sure if the applications have to be submitted in a specific time frame or what to do if congress does not call the convention. Since we have never called an article5 convention everything is up for debate.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

According to Article V, there is no time limitation, nor any subject matter restriction; all that matters is the application itself. Have not seen any case law on the matter, and think there is none in this regard since the plain language is clear: "The Congress ... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."

In Walker v. Congress, the Supreme Court held that Congress' continuing refusal to call an Article V convention was a political question and refused to rule, even though plaintiffs proved sufficient state applications requesting an Article V convention had been tendered and that Article V's plain language, "shall call", left no doubt that Congress refuses to fulfill its Constitutional duty.

If indeed this is a political question, I suggest we vote on it in the mid-term elections...

Does Nevada still have a "None of the Above" option on its ballots?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Yes it does. I was suprised to learn NV was the only state with the option.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Would certainly be beneficial to have it on all state ballots. The proposal for direct action I am currently working on grew out of, more or less, an effort to make a None of the Above choice available in all federal elections...

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I tried the order link but unfortunately my cell can't view the file and I don't own a computer. I'm glad that helps and I'm with you on making none of the above as a nationwide option.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I couldn't find the case but here is an article about it.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39602

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thanks. I'll read the order (the article has a link)...

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

If it helps an appeal court overturned a ruling saying it is unconstitutional.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Do you have a case cite for it? Would like to read the decision...

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I believe that in the beginning of OWS that the city council in LA signed a pledge to remove money from politics.

I would love to see some pressure on the local and state politicians to sign some sort of a plege.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

It might not be a pledge but here is a list of cities that have passed resolutions supporting getting unlimited money out of politics. It's quite a large list.

https://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map