I’ve spent the last several months architecting a comprehensive legislative and constitutional package (127 points total) designed to address what I see as the terminal decline of American state capacity and moral coherence.
I am posting this here because I want a "stress test." Most political discussions are about vibes; I want to talk about mechanics.
The Core Pillars:
Institutional Security: Moving oversight to randomly selected Citizen Juries to break the back of the lobbyist/bureaucrat feedback loop.
Economic Anti-Fragility: Forcing a 20% market share cap on corporations to prevent them from becoming "Too Big to Fail" or "Too Big to Regulate."
Axiomatic Anchoring: Grounding the legal system in a Western/Christian moral framework (Life is Sacred) to act as a stable coordination point against value drift.
I used an LLM to help me cross-reference the data and polish the 500+ pages of text, but the architecture and the trade-offs are mine. I’m looking for the "smartest people in the room" to tell me where this breaks.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As you worded your proposal:
Compare to the Federal bribery statute:
I'm not sure how what you're proposing is meaningfully different. Hell, what I excerpted is broader than your proposed law, and that's only a small, representative part of the statute. Offering payment in exchange for governmental action is the definition of a quid pro quo. Your book deal example doesn't even violate ethics rules because the deal wasn't in place at the time of the governmental action. We have these rules to begin with to prevent the corruption of the legislative process, not the corruption of the publishing industry. If the deal wasn't in place when the official cast his vote, then it couldn't have possibly influenced his decision.
What are you basing this on? Are you a litigator? Because I am, and I can guarantee you that the last thing I want to do is confuse a jury, or a client for that matter. How do you think this works, that juries are so stupid that Lawyer A will make a reasoned argument and Lawyer B will use a bunch of fancy five-dollar words that they don't understand and will do whatever he asks anyway because they think he's smarter? No, they're going to wonder what the hell he's talking about and go with A because he actually gave them a reason. To the extent that lawyers overuse technical jargon it's because for semantic reasons we have to be very careful with language in some contexts where words have very specific meanings. But we're told from the very beginning of law school to avoid using legalese any time you're dealing with the public, or the court, or really anyone, unless it's absolutely necessary.
What protections are those? What do you actually know about common law beyond it being a buzzword some conservatives like to use to contrast legal concepts they like with those they don't like? Our own constitutional protections are rooted in the idea that the common law did not contain adequate protection for the citizens; every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights addressed some deficiency in that respect. The Reconstruction Amendments took the idea further, and more recent legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act took the idea further still.
I understand your argument, but you need to consider the full ramifications. The only example I can think of of an unamendable amendment in American history was the Corwin Amendment from 1860, which would have prohibited any amendment banning slavery. Five years later, slavery would be constitutionally prohibited. The only prohibitions on amendment in the actual constitution are the prohibition on an amendment banning the slave trade prior to 1808, and the provision that there will always be equal Senate representation. The first of these is moot and the second uncontroversial, but all three examples of proposed or actual unamendability were the result of temporary political considerations that are no longer relevant. The foreclosing of the possibility of constitutional change poses two dangers: It increases the risk of violent revolution, and it leads to the very disrespect of institutions you're trying to stem. Is it consistent with democratic theory to prohibit future generations from making fundamental political choices?
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.
You are literally banning a public official from ever having a job again. That’s sort of what a book is a bribe for service. But you could basically call any work a politician does when out of office a bribe. Which isn’t good either. Some things are just tough to legislate.
Does Citadel and Goldman pay every ex-fed board member a speaking fee? Yes. Do they probably get something more than just a good speech? Probably yes. Is the a way to actual ban this without banning any later private sector work? No
The only thing we could do is pay every out of office politician $500k a year for life. And then ban any other compensation.
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.
The thing is, you cannot nowadays become a leading politician in idle moments between managing your farms and businesses. Not unless you are a wealthy landowner who doesn't need to spend the first 35 years of their life building those things or working their way up the corporate ladder.
More options
Context Copy link
No politician is going to go teach high school math. It’s beneath them. That’s a IQ 105 job which most should be well above.
You can ban book fees sure. Then JD Vance returns to Ohio and becomes a raspberry farmer. Peter Thiel buys a lot of raspberries (basically identical to doing book deals). A lot of the book deals actually make money because a Democrat aligned PAC or non-profit buys a lot of Hillary Clinton books and distributes them. Thiel can just donate raspberries to poor white kids. Any legitimate business you can think of can be designed to give a kickback. And they will. So you need to end up banning all forms of compensation to thousands of top politicos/policy people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link