Comments for Coffee Party Austin

Comment on Taking Back Our Republic by http://greencoffeebeanburn.com

http://greencoffeebeanburn.com — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 03:45:01 +0000

Aw, this was an incredibly good post. Taking a few minutes
and actual effort to create a good article… but what can I say… I hesitate a lot and never manage
to get nearly anything done.

Comment on Vision & Mission Statement: Money in Politics by Ham Richards

Ham Richards — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:17:18 +0000

Try WGG’s listserv: wggs@googlegroups.com.

Comment on Taking Back Our Republic by Jeff Quidam

Jeff Quidam — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:05:24 +0000

Massively over-sized congressional districts are the root cause of the politicians' need to solicit huge sums from the corrupting Special Interests. This is explained in the pamphlet "Taking Back Our Republic".

Comment on Vision & Mission Statement: Money in Politics by CG Stocker

CG Stocker — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:15:58 +0000

I recently received a mailing from Women for Good Government, but cannot find their address to respond. I find them mentioned on your web page; can you help?

Comment on Money in Politics Petition by Bryan Forbes

Bryan Forbes — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:25:25 +0000

Negating the influence of money on politics could bring generations, new and old, of
responsible citizens to the voting boots with legitimately reasoned expectations that aspire to exactly what the populace request.

Comment on Outreach to other organizations by Joanne Richards

Joanne Richards — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:58:26 +0000

Hi Ronnie-
I am assuming that you live in Austin. I would love to answer your question but I think I need more information. Can you tell me more about what you are referring to when you ask if we are working on an Austin Coalition Project? Coalitions are typically issue oriented. Coffee Party Austin focuses its energies around two issues – the corrupting influence of money in politics and comprehensive immigration reform. We are building coalitions or have joined other groups that have initiated a coalition around each of these issues. Does this answer your question?

Comment on Outreach to other organizations by ronnie

ronnie — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:57:34 +0000

Hey are ya’ll working on an Austin Coalition project? We would like to work on this with you.

Comment on Austin City Council Resolution: Money ≠ Speech by Diane Owens

Diane Owens — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:29:39 +0000

Tentative date for Austin City Council to take up this resolution is June 14th. If you are a resident of Austin, you can help by contacting the Mayor and Council members to urge them to pass this resolution:
Lee Leffingwell, Mayor, lee.leffingwell@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2250
Sheryl Cole, Mayor Pro Tem, sheryl.cole@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2266

City Council Members:
Bill Spelman, bill.spelman@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2256
Mike Martinez, mike.martinez@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2264
Chris Riley, chris.riley@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2260
Laura Morrison, laura.morrison@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2258
Kathie Tovo, kathie.tovo@austintexas.gov, 512-974-2255

This effort is part of a national campaign to garner support for a constitutional amendment to reverse U. S. Supreme Court decisions that have equated money with speech and given corporations free reign to spend corporate money to influence elections. Please call or email your support for this resolution today!

Comment on Mock Constitutional Convention nixes 6,000-seat House by Dave

Dave — Sat, 26 May 2012 09:34:15 +0000

Well, it was originally the very first article proposed to the states as amendments to the Constitution. The version that made it to the state legislatures was defective, though. The original would’ve proposed this number as a minimum at this point in time. The maximum is around 10,000

Comment on Ending Corporate Rule with 9 Strategies by Ham Richards

Ham Richards — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:40:38 +0000

Parts of the Yes! article turn out to be regrettably simple-minded. For example, Strategy #1 says

The Supreme Court says corporations have at least as many rights under the Constitution as you and I. We need an amendment that says rights are for flesh and blood people.

“At least as many rights”? One right that corporations don’t have is the right to vote. “Rights are for flesh and blood people”? Should corporations be deprived of all rights, even the right to due process? In the uproar over Citizens United, it’s often overlooked that the First Amendment does not “give” anyone—or any corporation—the right to “free speech.” What it does is to prohibit the government from suppressing speech, whether it’s spoken by a person, a corporation, or a squirrel. The Court’s decision “held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions”. More generally, characterizing corporations as bogeymen is getting tiresome. Some corporations behave well, others behave badly. Without corporations we would not have the cell phones and Internet that are “key components” in Strategy #5. Corporations’ undue influence is certainly real, and “ending corporate rule” is a worthy goal. The key to their rule is their near monopoly on funding of legislators’ election campaigns. Ending that monopoly would be the quickest route to the end of corporate rule.