A Proposal for a Working Document

I've been working on what I think should be the working document for The 99% Declaration. It weeds out a lot of what I see as being adjunct issues that can be fixed later. I think that it really cuts to the heart of the issue, and if taken seriously could be a very simple reform.

WHEREAS the pursuit of national service through elected office is ever more prohibitive to the average citizen;
and WHEREAS the presence of money in politics causes undue influence -- real or imagined -- over those elected to represent and serve the people;
and WHEREAS every citizen has a right to free political speech, and the ability of the wealthy to dominate the national conversation through unlimited expenditures infringes on the right of ordinary Americans to make their voices heard, and indeed can alter the speech of the citizenry through the propagation of misinformation;
and WHEREAS corporations as legal entities do enjoy certain rights, those rights are separate from the people who comprise the corporation, and do not include free political speech;
and WHEREAS Congress has become dysfunctional through polarization, lack of civil discourse, and representation of moneyed special interests, thereby neglecting its duty to represent the American people;
and WHEREAS America no longer has a clear direction or goal, resulting in an insular society where the rich seek to get richer and the poor struggle to survive;
This delegation of citizens, formed from the communities of these United States and its territories, convened as their fore-fathers did before, in this city of Philadelphia, do hereby declare:
PROPOSED 1. That the ability of a citizen to seek national office must not be prohibited by the size of his coffers;
PROPOSED 2. That elections must not be bought and sold by the highest bidder;
PROPOSED 3. That those elected must be kept in office due solely to their merit to the people -- not due to the deep pockets of their few supporters;
PROPOSED 4. That all citizens must be able to exercise their right to free political speech without fear of being drowned out by the loudest voices;
PROPOSED 5. That the right to free political speech belongs solely to the people, and not to any other entities;
PROPOSED 6. That corporations must not be allowed to exercise a right that they inherently do not possess;
PROPOSED 7. That there must be a return to civility in our national discourse;
PROPOSED 8. That a clear goal for our country must be developed;
PROPOSED 9. That Congress be bound to furthering our progress toward that goal.
We, the undersigned, on this, the fourth day of July, two thousand and twelve, do hereby petition the three branches of the government of the United States of America to address the grievances above.

Each of the numbered points labelled PROPOSED would be up for discussion by the delegates, and if they were voted to stay, they would change to RESOLVED. I have modeled this loosely on the document created by the First Continental Congress in 1774, the full text of which is here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_and_Resolves_of_the_First_Continental_Congress

I welcome suggestions on further points to add, either in the top section or the bottom. I think that by looking at this thing as a full document, and leaving off all of these arguments about the specifics of changing these things (which we shouldn't be dealing with), we will get a better idea of what we are all working toward.

4. Term Limits

From http://www.the99declaration.org/term_limits

"Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime.

Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime. 

The two-term limit for President shall remain unchanged. Serving as a member of Congress or as the President of the United States is one of the highest honors and privileges our culture can bestow.

These positions of power and prominence in our society should be sought to serve one’s country and not provide a lifetime career designed to increase personal wealth and power."

The first thing that I notice here is how specific this is. The Senate limit seems to be modeled after the Presidential term limit, but the House one seems arbitrary. Is it designed to mirror the eight years that a President may serve? Why not make it six two-year terms, so that all legislators max out at 12?
Regardless, on its face, this provision seems reasonable enough. Upon further reading, it turns out that there's a giant debate about the concept.
The pro- argument seems to boil down to the idea that implementing term limits increases turnover, and turnover is necessary to ensure fairness, minimize corruption, and to bring fresh ideas to the legislature. The con- argument seems to be that there are good men and women in the legislature, and they should not be penalized because some legislators can't act ethically. If there is meaningful ethics reform, the argument goes, term limits are unnecessary.
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. I'm tending to lean toward the pro- side. I think that yes, there are good congressmen, but they aren't the only good people out there. Especially in the two-party system that we have now, if the incumbent tends to agree with my views, I'm not going to run against him. I might be just as ethical as he is, and hold generally the same views, but I'll let him continue his ride, while I might have something new to bring to the table that he doesn't. If he were at the end of the limit of his term, I might consider running for his position, and he would be replaced with someone ethical, who generally agrees with his positions, but has a different slant on things. That's a good thing, I think.

There is something else to consider here, though. In order to impose term limits on Congress, we would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The main way to do this is to have an amendment proposed in both the House and the Senate, have it pass by a 2/3 majority in both houses, then each 3/4 of the states' legislatures need to support the amendment by a simple majority. This process usually have a time limit set on it, but it doesn't have to.
Meanwhile, there will be a major national debate. The people probably won't have any direct say (unless the amendment is to be ratified by convention, which has only been done once -- and even then each state has its own rules on how to hold a convention). Individual state legislative campaigns may be dominated by the issue.
Are we ready for all of that? Is this important enough to get the process going? Do we have any hope of getting a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress? Maybe the answer to all of these is yes.
We need to consider: is now the time to try to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on Congress?

3. Eliminate Private Benefits to Public Servants

When I first read the header for this, I had no idea what it was about. Are public employees receiving health care from WalMart? Are their pensions paid by Goldman Sachs? After reading, I discovered what was actually meant.

From http://www.the99declaration.org/eliminate_private_benefits_to_public_servances

The 99% of the American People demand the immediate prohibition of private benefits to all federal elected officials, staffers, public employees, officers, public servants, officials or their immediate family members. This prohibition includes an end to the corrupt “revolving door” in and out of our government. Elected and unelected public officials and their immediate families shall be banned from ever being employed by any corporation, lobbying firm, individual or business that the public official specifically regulated while in office.  No public employee, officer, official or their immediate family members shall own or hold any stock or shares in any corporation or other entity that the elected or unelected public official specifically regulated while in office until a full 5 years after their term or employment is completed. There shall be a complete lifetime ban on the acceptance of all gifts, services, money or thing of value, directly or indirectly, by any elected or appointed public official or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or any other entity that the public official was charged tospecifically regulate while he or she was in office.

What this seems to be saying is that I can't regulate the oil industry, then take a job with Exxon-Mobile. I can't oversee the banking regulations, then go work on Wall Street. I can't write a comprehensive law overwhelmingly benefiting the retail industry, then go be CFO of Macy's.
It also seems to be saying that I can't work in government, make all kinds of contacts and friends, and then come back as a lobbyist, using those contacts and friends to benefit my new company (and consequently, myself).
In general, I can get behind that.
The thing is, there is already a department in place to deal with these sorts of problems. The Office of Government Ethics (http://www.oge.gov/) oversees all ethics rules in the executive branch. They don't actually investigate allegations of violations, though you can report potential violations to them. They also don't cover the legislative or judicial branches. The Senate has the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House has the House Committee on Ethics. For some reason, complaints against Justices seem to be reported to the Clerk of whichever Circuit the judge belongs to.
So, we have an entire office that deals with the executive branch. Each branch has ethics laws already in place. Why don't we just strengthen and broaden the Office of Government Ethics? Make it all-inclusive. It seems a little strange to me that we're leaving ethics enforcement up to the individual branches. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, why aren't we letting it in this case?
I would support strengthening the OGE, reviewing current ethics law and guidelines to make sure that they make a good faith effort to eliminate the type of cronyism and "revolving door" politics that are alluded to above, and start holding government officials more accountable for ethics violations.