Createdabill
1d ago
I appreciate the litigator’s perspective, but there is a fundamental disconnect between the 'broader' language of current statutes and the reality of American governance.
-
On 'Meaningful Difference': You argue the federal bribery statute is broader. If that were true in practice, the 'revolving door' between K-Street and Capitol Hill wouldn't be the standard career path for retired officials. The current law fails because it requires proving corrupt intent. My Act removes the guesswork. It moves the standard from 'Did you intend to be bribed?' to 'Did you take the money?' This isn't a legal nuance; it’s a structural firewall.
-
The 71% Mandate: You mention that we have these rules to prevent corruption. Yet, despite these rules, 71% of both Democrats and Republicans now support a total lobbying ban. When 7 out of 10 citizens across the partisan divide agree that the current statutes are insufficient, it is a signal that the system has failed to regulate itself. The American Renewal Act isn't 'reinventing' bribery law; it is finally enforcing the public's will where current statutes have left 'book-deal-sized' loopholes.
-
On the 'Jargon Wall': You say lawyers avoid legalese. But a 2,000-page omnibus bill is, by its very existence, an act of obfuscation. My Neutral Translator Office isn't about insulting the intelligence of a jury; it’s about leveling the playing field so that a Citizen Jury can't be 'out-resourced' by a team of litigators using complexity as a shield.
-
On Unamendability: You fear the risk of 'violent revolution' from unchangeable laws. I would argue that the current trajectory—110% debt-to-GDP and systemic distrust—is the actual catalyst for revolution. I am proposing to 'bind the sail to the mast.' If we don't protect the core of the Republic from the short-term incentives of career politicians, there won't be a 'future generation' left to make political choices.
Createdabill
1d ago
My bill mandates that if the national debt exceeds 110% of GDP, the sitting Congress is automatically barred from re-election for life. Additionally, running a deficit outside of war results in automatic dissolution of Congress and a permanent ban from office for those who voted for it. The Question: Is 'career-ending' personal risk the only way to solve the incentive problem of deficit spending? If we remove the 'safety net' for politicians' careers, do we get better leaders, or do we just get more desperate and corrupt ones?
Createdabill
1d ago
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to look at my post and read my bill. I am so happy to have reached 400 views.
Createdabill
1d ago
The American Renewal Act agrees with your point Gillitrut. By mandating that the military is composed of the very citizens it serves, and by placing the ultimate power of judgment and purse-strings in the hands of Citizen Juries and lottery-selected delegates, the Act ensures that the "shield" of the Republic never becomes the hand that rules it.
Createdabill
1d ago
Is it always obvious and objective how to define a given market and therefore market share?
I’m thinking of like Amazon which has a huge share of “e-commerce” but not a huge share of “retail.”
Your point about Amazon perfectly illustrates why my bill requires 'Plain Language' and 'Sanctions for Intentional Confusion. 'Right now, market definition isn't 'objective science'—it’s a $multi-million$ shell game. Lawyers define markets narrowly to create monopolies out of thin air, or broadly to hide them in plain sight. My bill moves this away from the 'Expert Class' and their 'Cross-Elasticity' models. We put it in front of a Citizen Jury and ask: 'Does this company have the power to dictate terms to the average American family?' If the answer is 'Yes,' the technical definition of the 'market' shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the legal team. I'm prioritizing Actual Power over Linguistic Sleight-of-Hand.
Createdabill
1d ago
Think of the book not as a product, but as a financial clearinghouse. Here is how it works in practice:
- The "Advance" as an Unsecured Loan Unlike a normal author who has to prove their book will sell, a high-ranking politician is often given a multi-million dollar "advance" before a single word is written.
The Loophole: Ethics rules often limit "gifts" or "speaking fees," but "earned income" from book royalties is frequently exempt or has much higher caps.
The Action: A publisher (often owned by a massive media conglomerate with deep legislative interests) pays an $8 million advance to a Senator. Even if the book "flops" and only sells 50,000 copies, the politician keeps the $8 million. It’s effectively a transfer of wealth that bypasses campaign finance limits.
- The "Bulk Buy" Laundering This is the most common "intermediary" method. Corporate interests or Super PACs who want to signal their "appreciation" to a politician don't send a check to the politician's house—they buy 100,000 copies of the politician's book.
The "Bestseller" Scam: These bulk purchases guarantee the book hits the New York Times Bestseller list, which triggers "performance bonuses" in the politician's contract.
The Result: The corporation gets a tax-deductible "business expense" (the books), the politician gets millions in "royalties," and the publisher takes a cut for facilitating the transaction.
- Real-World Examples & Controversies: Newt Gingrich (1994): He famously accepted a $4.5 million advance from a publisher owned by Rupert Murdoch while Murdoch had significant business before Congress. The outcry was so loud that Gingrich eventually gave the advance back and took a $1 royalty instead, and the House changed its rules to ban such advances.
Hillary Clinton (2000): She received an $8 million advance just as she entered the Senate. While cleared by the Ethics Committee, critics pointed out that the publisher’s parent company (Viacom at the time) had massive stakes in federal telecommunications policy.
The "Squad" & Modern Populists: From Bernie Sanders to Sarah Palin, nearly every major political figure uses book deals to become a millionaire. The "advance" model allows them to receive "exit payments" or "signing bonuses" from the corporate world while maintaining a "populist" image.
The publisher is just the escrow agent. The real 'buyers' are the corporate entities that engage in Bulk Buy Campaigns to trigger royalty bonuses, and the media conglomerates that use the 'Advance' as a way to build a financial relationship with a regulator. If we want to end corruption, we have to end the 'Legal Loopholes' that allow a politician to walk into office a public servant and walk out a multimillionaire through 'fortuitous' literary success.
Createdabill
1d ago
I appreciate the deep dive. This is the exact kind of friction the document was meant to generate. To address your points:
-
On Bribery vs. Systemic Capture: You’re right that 'quid pro quo' bribery is illegal. My Amendment targets 'Legalized Corruption'—the revolving door and the 'book deal' ecosystem. A book deal from a major publisher with a massive advance for a politician who just sat on a committee regulating that publisher's industry is rarely prosecuted under current law, but it is a clear conflict of interest. The goal isn't to restate bribery law; it’s to close the 'legal' loopholes that current bribery law ignores.
-
The Special Court vs. The Judiciary: The 'Plain Language' requirement exists because the legal system has become a 'Priest-Class' where complexity is used as a barrier to entry. You say no attorney wants to confuse a jury—I disagree. Obfuscation through 'legalese' is a standard tactic to hide the lack of a moral or logical core in a policy. The Special Court replaces the 'Administrative State's' self-policing with actual Citizen oversight.
-
The 'Legislative Immunity' Contradiction: This is your strongest point. You’re right: Legislative Immunity is a Common Law staple. However, the document proposes a Paradigm Shift. In this system, the 'Common Law' being preserved is the spirit of the tradition, but the 'Immunity' of the official is stripped when they act outside the 'Constitutional Contract.'
We have had 250 years of 'modifying the common law' to the point where the original protections for the citizen are unrecognizable. If 'Legislative Immunity' means a politician can pass a law that violates the core rights of the people with zero personal risk, then that immunity has become a tool of tyranny. This bill posits that the Individual Responsibility of the lawmaker must supersede their Institutional Immunity.
Createdabill
1d ago
Since the view count is climbing, I want to address the 'Incentive Structure' of Part II (The 20% Market Cap).
Most anti-trust law is reactive—it waits for a monopoly to hurt consumers, then sues. My 127-point plan makes it Structural. If a firm hits 20% market share, they are legally barred from further M&A and must divest non-core assets.
I'm curious if the 'Economic Rationalists' here think this would lead to a 'Stagnation Floor' where companies stop innovating once they hit the cap, or if it would trigger a 'Golden Age' of mid-cap competition. Thoughts?
Createdabill
1d ago
Appreciate the 200+ eyes on this.
Since the conversation started with cultural signaling (veteran boarding), I’ll pivot to the Executive Branch mechanics. Part XVII includes a 'Hard Sunset' on all administrative agencies every 10 years unless they are re-authorized by a 60% majority in a Citizen Jury. No more 'forever' bureaucracies. It forces the state to justify its existence to the people once a decade.
Too chaotic for a modern economy, or is 'Creative Destruction' for the government the only way to stop the rot?
Createdabill
1d ago
You want a constitutional amendment to guarantee veterans priority for boarding and deplaning commercial flights?
I recognize how that looks on the surface, but the intent is Cultural Engineering. > We currently have a 'Soft Priority' system based on corporate whim and 'Thank you for your service' platitudes that carry no weight. By codifying it, you transform a polite suggestion into a Legal Fact of Status. > In the broader 127-point framework, this is a 'low-cost, high-signal' move. It costs the taxpayer $0, but it forces a daily, public acknowledgment of the military-civilian contract in the most 'normie' space possible (an airport). If we want to restore state capacity and martial spirit, the Constitution needs to reflect who the state actually values in its hierarchy of 'Citizenship.'
It’s a 'small' gear in a very large machine designed to fix the prestige-gap. If you think a Constitutional Amendment is too high a price for cultural signaling, what mechanism would you use to force a permanent shift in public deference?
Createdabill
1d ago
Beyond a desire for challenge, acceptance of a dare, or obsessive interest in the topic, why should we devote the considerable time to this from an account that has only this post?
Fair question. In a high-decoupling community, the 'who' should matter less than the 'what,' but I understand the hesitation to invest hours into a 127-point system-design from a 'blank' account.
The reason is simple: This wasn't written for 'clout' or as a social media exercise. It’s a specialized project that required a degree of anonymity to draft without institutional friction. I’m not here to build a following; I’m here because this community is one of the few places capable of a low-vibe, high-mechanics critique.
If you don't want to read the whole thing yet, don't. Just pick one section that matches your expertise—like the 20% Market Cap rule (Part II) or the Citizen Jury selection math (Part I). If the logic there is sound, the rest of the document earns your time. If it’s 'hallucinated garbage,' you’ve only lost five minutes.
Createdabill
1d ago
Here is the link because the original is kid of weird: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zby0X0tWfWTpv7ZhJg3eWEzKROq4170e8jyS34GPJ88/edit?tab=t.0
Createdabill
1d ago
Guilty on both counts. I used an LLM as a 'Legal IDE' to debug the cross-references between 127 points—because doing that manually is a recipe for internal contradictions. As for the 'Weaponized Autism,' I consider it a prerequisite for redesigning an entire state's architecture from the ground up.
I appreciate the honesty in admitting that these fees are 'probably' more than just speeches. That 'probably' is exactly why 71% of the country wants a ban.
We are told that complex problems are 'tough to legislate' only when the solution threatens the status quo of the ruling class. We manage to legislate incredibly complex tax codes and environmental regulations for the average citizen—we can certainly legislate a 'Clean Hands' exit for public servants.
You suggest paying them $500k for life to stop the bribery. I suggest that public service should not be a gateway to extreme wealth. If an ex-official wants to work as a teacher, a carpenter, or an independent consultant for a firm that does not lobby the government, they are free to do so. What they cannot do under the American Renewal Act is monetize their former influence.
The Founders envisioned 'Citizen Legislators' who returned to their farms and businesses. They did not envision a 'Permanent Political Class' that views the private sector as a 'payday' for services rendered while in office. If the choice is between 'banning later private sector work' from certain predatory entities or allowing the slow-motion auctioning of our Republic to the highest bidder, the 71% have already made their choice.
More options
Context Copy link