If money is speech, how is it that bribery is a crime? The person supposedly being "bribed" is just being "asked" for a favor, in the nicest way possible.
1
It's hard for me to understand why liberals are still talking about this issue. For 35 years we had public funding of presidential elections, and every primary and general election candidate of all parties accepted it. Barack Obama killed this with a single decision, without a whisper of protest then or ever since by fellow Democrats and liberals. He went on to outspend McCain 3-1 in the general election.
No liberal has a tiny scintilla of credit on this issue. Are you surprised that nobody cares?
No liberal has a tiny scintilla of credit on this issue. Are you surprised that nobody cares?
1
Mr. Willis writes "As an election issue, money in politics is rarely a top concern of voters." Later, he writes of "CounterPAC . . . about eliminating the presence of undisclosed money in elections." Perhaps money in elections isn't important because the typical voters simply can't afford to make their voices heard and "CounterPAC", whatever its purpose, comes right back to the same thing: more money.
Changing campaign finance laws is a pipedream. SCOTUS has built a wall around election financing that is destroying our country. Act Blue is pesky, like a mosquito, $5 dollars here, $5 dollars there, the small scale political dun is just as unattractive as the large.
God help us all.
Changing campaign finance laws is a pipedream. SCOTUS has built a wall around election financing that is destroying our country. Act Blue is pesky, like a mosquito, $5 dollars here, $5 dollars there, the small scale political dun is just as unattractive as the large.
God help us all.
1
Thank you. This is one of America's most important issues. Keep up the coverage please. We have to free America from the corruption of money in politics.
2
What can be done without legislation is to attack the ability of stations (the airwaves are public property) to be monolithic. Remember the Fairness Doctrine? When one party bought time the other had the option to get time also. Remember how worried the media was that Obama would bring it back? He didn't, of course, too bad, because it would have made stations air at least 2 views and ads would be more careful knowing they would be followed by rebuttal. Now viewers/listeners live in an ideological bubble. Combine the Fairness doctrine with some serious trust busting.
7
I'm afraid this is an issue that will require pitchforks and flaming brands to get any traction. Why would the people in Washington voluntarily give up their slush funds and private jet trips to bend to the will of the people.
And make no mistake, this is the very most important issue on the table as the 1% funnel everything back to themselves. Look at the Houses budget. It's rob from the poor and give the rich.
I ask why when belt tightening is on the table does no one ever ask the Masters of the Universe to tighten their belts? Why is always the working people who have to give up and roll back and sacrifice?
And make no mistake, this is the very most important issue on the table as the 1% funnel everything back to themselves. Look at the Houses budget. It's rob from the poor and give the rich.
I ask why when belt tightening is on the table does no one ever ask the Masters of the Universe to tighten their belts? Why is always the working people who have to give up and roll back and sacrifice?
5
Our democracy is broken and it is frustrating that average Americans do not realize how important it is to get big money out of political election cycles. There will be no progress in the USA until we fix the system. We will never get integrity and what's best for the nation but only more quid pro quo $$$ payola puppet corruption. It should be the #1 priority of every citizen to demand overturning the Citizen's United and McCutcheon decisions and tightening up the gerrymandering laws etc. Because all other issues is putting the cart before the horse.
7
This will not get fixed without a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately there is probably as yet not enough of a groundswell of public support to see it through.
5
We need to vote out of office every incumbent until they start to listen to the will of the people, and not the special interests.
3
I am puzzled just how a concept of campaign donations and politicians that subsequently owe favors to wealthy donors can be considered legitimate in a country that is supposedly democratic.
3
Separating money from politics sounds nice, but isn't it like trying to remove the wet from water?
The solution for America's ills today is a general public that is better informed, more critically thinking, more engaged and more selfless. In short a successful democracy requires better citizens, - how to we get that?
The solution for America's ills today is a general public that is better informed, more critically thinking, more engaged and more selfless. In short a successful democracy requires better citizens, - how to we get that?
8
Recent "decisions" by the Supreme 5 are scandals! I'd be willing to contribute to any effort to find today's Watergate and White Water stories. I'll bet there are a bunch of them, on both sides of the aisle. The neat, but scary, thing about the internet--nothing is secret for long.
5
Today's Watergate? How about the Clinton Family Slush Fund (oops... aka: Clinton Foundation)? Money form all sortsd of questionable sources, going in, and out, and somewhat untraceable except for the work of the Clintons.
Considering all who are running, or considering running, what we are in greater need of is moral reform, not campaign reform. We are in dire need of taking our country and our Congress back from the ownership of the Ultra-rich people and corporations. THAT would be a good place to start any kind of "reform"........
5
The root of removing the ultra-rich and corporations from owning Congress is through campaign finance reform. Without changing campaign finance we cannot begin to tackle the hundreds of other issues our country is facing. Just yesterday Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment to a new budget proposal that would fund new infrastructure projects, which America desperately needs, and this would be funded by closing a corporate tax loophole. Needless to say, this motion was unsuccessful.
6
When campaign financing is outlawed, only outlaws will have campaign financing.
2
sound and fury, signifying?
when campaign financing is legal, outlaws will be law abiding.
when campaign financing is legal, outlaws will be law abiding.
Asking Congress, or any legislative body, to legislate campaign reform is like asking business to self regulate. They will not do it; particularly since it would mean surrendering a competitive advantage. You might as well ask drug dealers to self regulate.
Would there be any possible way for independent, grass roots candidates, unfunded by the usual suspects and therefore beholding only to local constituents, to win out over the current incumbents at the polls? If so, would it be possible to reform the system from the bottom up rather than top down? Can a candidacy be successful on a local level with only limited resources?
Would there be any possible way for independent, grass roots candidates, unfunded by the usual suspects and therefore beholding only to local constituents, to win out over the current incumbents at the polls? If so, would it be possible to reform the system from the bottom up rather than top down? Can a candidacy be successful on a local level with only limited resources?
6
On the incentive side why not offer access to public radio and TV to candidates who accept public financing? These stations have the time and expertise to have in depth programs where candidates get to explain their views beyond these 30 attack ads. In fact we should experiment with local elections where all candidates get free access to various public radio and TV programming. These stations serve the public anyway and this would be a wonderful extension of their very valuable role.
6
Providing a free but limited platform to candidates to explain their positions rationally and in detail is a nice idea. But I assume that's what you can find on their Web sites.
Unfortunately this ignores a critical fact in how most of us vote. Even if you are intelligent, well-educated, and willing to explore the details, the fact that you have heard a catchy ten-second sound bite a zillion times over is going to have a significant effect on your vote. That's just the way our brains work.
The majority of the Supreme Court claims that all speech is equally powerful, so the more speech, of any kind, is better. Until a majority of us understand that this is not true, things will continue to worsen.
All speech is not equal. Like bad money displacing good money, bad speech displaces good speech. Repeated endlessly, bald-faced lies, appeals to bigotry, oversimplifications, emotional arguments, and catchy slogans undermine our ability to think, and vote, reasonably.
Unfortunately this ignores a critical fact in how most of us vote. Even if you are intelligent, well-educated, and willing to explore the details, the fact that you have heard a catchy ten-second sound bite a zillion times over is going to have a significant effect on your vote. That's just the way our brains work.
The majority of the Supreme Court claims that all speech is equally powerful, so the more speech, of any kind, is better. Until a majority of us understand that this is not true, things will continue to worsen.
All speech is not equal. Like bad money displacing good money, bad speech displaces good speech. Repeated endlessly, bald-faced lies, appeals to bigotry, oversimplifications, emotional arguments, and catchy slogans undermine our ability to think, and vote, reasonably.
6
Ideas like Mayday PAC, CounterPAC and if.then.fund are great but they don't truly empower donors or voters.
ShiftSpark.com is a new platform which enables people to push politicians to take action on issues using donations. Users can pool pledges to politicians if they support the cause and take them back if there's no meaningful action.
Campaign finance reform is not just about the amount wealthy donors give, but the dichotomy between the access afforded to them and the voiceless activities of small donors. ShiftSpark is the only tool which enables signaling. While on the surface they appear similar, ShiftSpark is a radical change of the current system while if.then.fund perpetuates it.
Unlike if.then.fund, ShiftSpark lets politicians know where people stand before they take a vote or even write legislation. It allows average citizens to push for change by competing with lobbyists and special interests instead of waiting in the wings until election day. While if.then.fund makes tracking votes and allocating your money easier, it's not fundamentally different from what people are doing already.
With ShiftSpark, we've thought deeply about how the political system works. Right now, there's a completely unaddressed problem of unequal access and a dearth of meaningful online actions. Our model is a true response to this. ShiftSpark is not another fundraising site, it was built from the perspective of organizers as a tool for issue-based advocacy and citizen engagement.
ShiftSpark.com is a new platform which enables people to push politicians to take action on issues using donations. Users can pool pledges to politicians if they support the cause and take them back if there's no meaningful action.
Campaign finance reform is not just about the amount wealthy donors give, but the dichotomy between the access afforded to them and the voiceless activities of small donors. ShiftSpark is the only tool which enables signaling. While on the surface they appear similar, ShiftSpark is a radical change of the current system while if.then.fund perpetuates it.
Unlike if.then.fund, ShiftSpark lets politicians know where people stand before they take a vote or even write legislation. It allows average citizens to push for change by competing with lobbyists and special interests instead of waiting in the wings until election day. While if.then.fund makes tracking votes and allocating your money easier, it's not fundamentally different from what people are doing already.
With ShiftSpark, we've thought deeply about how the political system works. Right now, there's a completely unaddressed problem of unequal access and a dearth of meaningful online actions. Our model is a true response to this. ShiftSpark is not another fundraising site, it was built from the perspective of organizers as a tool for issue-based advocacy and citizen engagement.
1
There is a solution that doesn't go against the SCOTUS rulings re: money is the same thin as speech. We can require that any and all elected officials that receive campaign funds greater than $100 from any group, groups, or individuals to abstain from voting on issues those contributors have a vested interest in. There would be no limit on campaign contributions, as per SCOTUS, we the people would simply not allow our elected officials to make or influence decisions in which they have a financial interest as evidenced by campaign contributions including "issue" ads run during election cycles.
15
This is the best suggestion ever!
1
I like this suggestion. By automatically recusing all legislators who have a conflict of interest, one cancels out the primary reason for the big donors. But what about PACs? All they would do is avoid the appearance of coordination. Also, wouldn't the legislators balk at cutting their funding stream? Perhaps if there were a strong enough display of public outrage, they might be backed into a corner.
The problem is more fundamental, severely so.
The reference frame here is far too small, tired, and equates with the cliche: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Let's go bigger picture, like this:
"We need scarcely add that the contemplation in natural science of a wider domain than the actual leads to a far better understanding of the actual." Sir Arthur Eddington
In the larger physics-evolution-over-time context: code is fundamental infrastructure for complex network relationships, physics efficacious relationship scaffolding: genetic, religious, legal, monetary, software codes.
A crippling structural flaw of our current cultural genome is its lack of reach due to exponentially accelerating complexity. That is, our culture codes can't provide adequate infrastructure for the exploding number of relationships we have to navigate to survive.
This includes monetary code.
We ask humans to calibrate complex Relationship Value in/across geo, eco, bio, cultural & tech networks, & across Time! Use (primarily) monetary code. Impossible, & significantly contributes to network dysfunction: political corruption, climate change, mass extinction, etc.
Regarding coding reach & complexity:
Software code is to monetary code as alphabet code was to pictograph code.
Greater information processing reach, greater speed, accuracy, and power = better shot at passing our natural selection test, which now includes culture codes in addition to genetic codes.
The reference frame here is far too small, tired, and equates with the cliche: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Let's go bigger picture, like this:
"We need scarcely add that the contemplation in natural science of a wider domain than the actual leads to a far better understanding of the actual." Sir Arthur Eddington
In the larger physics-evolution-over-time context: code is fundamental infrastructure for complex network relationships, physics efficacious relationship scaffolding: genetic, religious, legal, monetary, software codes.
A crippling structural flaw of our current cultural genome is its lack of reach due to exponentially accelerating complexity. That is, our culture codes can't provide adequate infrastructure for the exploding number of relationships we have to navigate to survive.
This includes monetary code.
We ask humans to calibrate complex Relationship Value in/across geo, eco, bio, cultural & tech networks, & across Time! Use (primarily) monetary code. Impossible, & significantly contributes to network dysfunction: political corruption, climate change, mass extinction, etc.
Regarding coding reach & complexity:
Software code is to monetary code as alphabet code was to pictograph code.
Greater information processing reach, greater speed, accuracy, and power = better shot at passing our natural selection test, which now includes culture codes in addition to genetic codes.
2
Yes! Cultural codes, in the wider context that includes efficacious relationship scaffolding, cannot survive this natural selection test. I agree that Sir Eddington was on something.
Nice try . . . Sorry you're unable to hook up the dots; perhaps more dot collection is order? Here's a few new? dots for your files:
“The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival.” Yaneer Bar-Yam --"Making Things Work"
Complexity: “There were 5 exabytes of information created by the entire world between the dawn of civilization and 2003; now that same amount is created every two days.” Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO
In a world comprised of information, code is distilled infrastructure technology for complex relationships.
Because of accelerating complexity, our culture code-to-complexity ratio is increasingly dysfunctional, not meeting the rule of thumb. Like this:
"A technology can only be pressed so far it runs into some limitation." Brian Arthur -- “The Nature of Technology”
And like this:
In the transition from simple hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of city-states, we added writing, legal, etiquette, and monetary coding structures to our cultural genome.
We need to add to our cultural genome, again, so our relationships work better, you know, with the sky, the oceans, other species, forests, politics, etc.
Look up: Exaptation.
And please, watch for my invoice, for knowledge services rendered. Appreciate it.
“The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival.” Yaneer Bar-Yam --"Making Things Work"
Complexity: “There were 5 exabytes of information created by the entire world between the dawn of civilization and 2003; now that same amount is created every two days.” Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO
In a world comprised of information, code is distilled infrastructure technology for complex relationships.
Because of accelerating complexity, our culture code-to-complexity ratio is increasingly dysfunctional, not meeting the rule of thumb. Like this:
"A technology can only be pressed so far it runs into some limitation." Brian Arthur -- “The Nature of Technology”
And like this:
In the transition from simple hunter-gatherer social structures to the exponentially more complex information architecture of city-states, we added writing, legal, etiquette, and monetary coding structures to our cultural genome.
We need to add to our cultural genome, again, so our relationships work better, you know, with the sky, the oceans, other species, forests, politics, etc.
Look up: Exaptation.
And please, watch for my invoice, for knowledge services rendered. Appreciate it.
BIG MONEY will not go quietly, they are always one step ahead. Reform can be nothing short of a total overhaul. We need to make it like Great Britain, so much air time/press for each candidate, that's it, then a vote. Do you honestly think BIG MONEY will ever let that happen? As you read the comments, there is a ton pontification on the subject. 1st amendment lawyers and scholars galore who will weigh in on the subject, debate the pros and cons, make it about them rather than the end goal. It's really quite simple, stop finance altogether. Let the Government regulate, most wretched words for GOP members, the system to British Standards.
Where is the politician running on this campaign: "Reform Campaign Finance to British standards?"
Where is the politician running on this campaign: "Reform Campaign Finance to British standards?"
6
Yeah let's have a system where you choose which graduate of one private school and one of two elite universities gets to occupy the seat of power. Let's have a system where you directly elect a voiceless functionary who has about as much clout as a dogcatcher, who has to defer to the Party Whip on anything more significant than the brand of tissue in the men's room.
Well, the British vote on their local member of Parliment, who could become their party leader and therefore become Prime Minister if the party has a majority of seats - they don't really have a high stakes vote for Prime Minister.
1
Revelations from the 1972 Nixon presidential campaign legitimately sickened people, and many were sufficiently outraged to demand reform. That reform served us well for twenty-five years or so, but now it has become increasingly obvious that the whole system is a joke (and that we can't afford to wait for a SCOTUS change to reduce the worst of the excesses from the Roberts-Kennedy court). We've effectively taken the money the two major parties used to collect and sent it underground; no one really knows how much hard-right money is out there because those contributors frequently favor 501 (c) 4s over Super PACs. We can't be sufficiently outraged if we don't know which people are buying what from whom.
9
The money poured into campaigns by big donors is not free speech, it's simply volume control. This con job started in 1961 with Richard Viguerie. Read The Long Con by Rick Perlstein in The Baffler.
The Con is indeed Long and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
The Con is indeed Long and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
12
Finance reform ought to begin with eliminating the cash for both parties from the military industrial complex:
Lockheed Martin - 2.95 mil
Northrop Grumman - 2.64 mil
Boeing - 2.59 mil
Raytheon - 2.37 mil
United technologies - 1.70 mil
General Dynamics - 1.44 mil
BAE Systems - 1.02 mil
Or from foreign donors…like those who have helped fund the Clinton Foundation:
Ukraine - 10 mil
England - 8.4 mil
Saudia Arabia - 7.3 mil
Germany - 6.7 mil
Ireland - 6.5 mil
India - 5.0 mil
Canada - 4.5 mil
Or those career-enhancing donors and groups who have helped fund the likes of Rep. Engel:
Pro-Israel - 746 thou
Health Prof's -678 thou
Real Estate - 672 thou
Lawyers - 520 thou
Unions - 461 thou
This is just for starters…
Reform funding, eliminate quid pro quo-ism, and put the decisions of elections back into the voting hands of the American public where it belongs.
Lockheed Martin - 2.95 mil
Northrop Grumman - 2.64 mil
Boeing - 2.59 mil
Raytheon - 2.37 mil
United technologies - 1.70 mil
General Dynamics - 1.44 mil
BAE Systems - 1.02 mil
Or from foreign donors…like those who have helped fund the Clinton Foundation:
Ukraine - 10 mil
England - 8.4 mil
Saudia Arabia - 7.3 mil
Germany - 6.7 mil
Ireland - 6.5 mil
India - 5.0 mil
Canada - 4.5 mil
Or those career-enhancing donors and groups who have helped fund the likes of Rep. Engel:
Pro-Israel - 746 thou
Health Prof's -678 thou
Real Estate - 672 thou
Lawyers - 520 thou
Unions - 461 thou
This is just for starters…
Reform funding, eliminate quid pro quo-ism, and put the decisions of elections back into the voting hands of the American public where it belongs.
3
No more dark money would be a start. There goes Scott Walker's campaign.
14
Absolutely. Every donation, every ad, every in-kind service accounted for by the candidate personally. At least then we would know to whom they owe allegiance.
2
There is a straightforward solution
Only voters within a particular voting district should be allowed to contribute (either financially and non-financially) to an election campaign for officials to represent that voting district in a representative body of lawmakers (local, state or federal).
And since any of the following:
1)unions
2) PACs
3) business entities
4) foreign citizens
5) U.S. citizens from outside the district
6) aliens from outer space
would not be voters within that district, the consequence is that it preserves free speech for people (even without contradicting Supreme Court perspective of money=free speech) and allows only people from that legislative region (district Congress, state for Senate and entire USA for President) to control the election there.
Moreover, the list of all contributors should be available to public at any time
Only voters within a particular voting district should be allowed to contribute (either financially and non-financially) to an election campaign for officials to represent that voting district in a representative body of lawmakers (local, state or federal).
And since any of the following:
1)unions
2) PACs
3) business entities
4) foreign citizens
5) U.S. citizens from outside the district
6) aliens from outer space
would not be voters within that district, the consequence is that it preserves free speech for people (even without contradicting Supreme Court perspective of money=free speech) and allows only people from that legislative region (district Congress, state for Senate and entire USA for President) to control the election there.
Moreover, the list of all contributors should be available to public at any time
18
I have been saying this for years! I am outraged that entities from outside my district can attempt to influence elections in which they cannot vote.
For that reason, I, myself, never contribute to any campaign outside my own voting district.
For that reason, I, myself, never contribute to any campaign outside my own voting district.
1
THIS is what happened to your post-Watergate campaign finance reform...
NYTimes headine, June 20, 2008: "Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing"
The NYT article continues: "...His [Obama's] decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money will quite likely transform the landscape of presidential campaigns, injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races. In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits..."
=====
For emphasis: "...injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races..."
NYTimes headine, June 20, 2008: "Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing"
The NYT article continues: "...His [Obama's] decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money will quite likely transform the landscape of presidential campaigns, injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races. In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits..."
=====
For emphasis: "...injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races..."
1
We know we humans will bend if swayed. There has to be a limitation not just on campaign dollars, but on the ads aired by "outside groups."
It's all moot given recent Supreme Court decisions on the issue. Spending won't be limited until free speech is curtailed by new law, or until we obtain Supreme Court justices who have a less absurdly expansionist view of the same.
3
I applaud Lawrence Lessig and the rest of the "Don Quixote's" who engage and lead this noble journey BUT at the end of the day the decision will fall into the hands of the same people it would restrict. 'Ain't gonna happen'.
1
Our excessively empowered judicial system, a part of our democratic package designed by the wealthy founding fathers, have been changing the course of our democracy, the majority rule of our country. Everybody sane sees this conundrum but can't do anything meaningful. Everybody knows those conservatives judges at the supreme court have made political decisions rather than legal decisions however they emphasize the sophisticated legal argument. That is the only reason why Reagan and other Republican Presidents selected those judges. In order to change our country for the majority of the people, not only for the wealthy people that have ruled our country for such a long time, we really need to understand, first of all, the difference between 'social democracy' of the western Europe and our 'liberal democracy or capitalist democracy'.
9
Barack Obama has the power in his hands to right the wrong of the Supreme Court. All he has to do is enact it.
We voters are perfectly within our rights to require candidates for public offices to comply with a formal process of public education prior to elections or be denied a position on the ballot.
5
Stop fighting money with money. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the big money side is always wrong. Mayday, the group founded by Harvard Law Professor, Lawrence Lessag has that assumption. Not too long ago the Koch brothers were reportedly lobbying against crony capitalism and backroom horse trading to eliminate some business tax expenditures that distort and make the tax code less fair (suggesting that the big money side can sometimes be right). The link in the article to the If Then Fund also suggests that contributions may be hard to marshal for or against most bills.
Perhaps President Obama is right that the best way to fight big money is with voter turnout. Half the U.S. population now has only a 1% share of family wealth and they should be at least 50% of the vote. Turnout might improve if elected officials in one or both parties were more responsive to their needs. More importantly, the middle class had a 29% share of wealth in 1995 and now has just 24% (and is trending toward the global middle class average share of 12%). The collapsing middle class and loss of the American Dream on top of the economic devastation to the poorer half of the population leads to a large voter majority which should have an interest in reversing the slow wealth redistribution to the upper class.
Optional online voting would greatly increase voter turnout and decrease administrative costs. What are we really afraid of?
Perhaps President Obama is right that the best way to fight big money is with voter turnout. Half the U.S. population now has only a 1% share of family wealth and they should be at least 50% of the vote. Turnout might improve if elected officials in one or both parties were more responsive to their needs. More importantly, the middle class had a 29% share of wealth in 1995 and now has just 24% (and is trending toward the global middle class average share of 12%). The collapsing middle class and loss of the American Dream on top of the economic devastation to the poorer half of the population leads to a large voter majority which should have an interest in reversing the slow wealth redistribution to the upper class.
Optional online voting would greatly increase voter turnout and decrease administrative costs. What are we really afraid of?
3
Online voting is worth pursuing, but it would seem the only way to safeguard it would be complete transparency to generate public, verifiable voting logs and let individuals track their own votes.
The biggest donors, of course, are corporations and the wealthy, who expect laws that favor them in return--and they get it. The solution is simple. In the Judiciary judges must recuse themselves if they have any connection with any party in the case. The same should be true of Congress--legislators who receive substantial campaign contributions from entities who would benefit from a law must recuse themselves from voting on it. Would current representatives vote for such a law? Of course not, but then their opponents and the Press in the next election will ask, Why not?
If they don't get what they pay for the money from big donors would dry up.
If they don't get what they pay for the money from big donors would dry up.
2
The present collection of governig fools don't even know what conflict of interest is.
2
Most educated Americans cherish the First Amendment. Even when the protected speech is distasteful, we want it protected. When the government wants to limit political speech, many of it cringe. The First Amendment has always been based on the idea that the more speech we have, the better off we are, as individuals and as a people. The Citizens United case eloquently reaffirms and reinforces that core constitutional principle.
2
The First Amendment does not equate money with speech and nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the more money you have, the more speech you are entitled to. The First Amendment protects those with the courage to speak their convictions, even if it is not popular or contrary to government policy. Nowhere does it endorse the cowardice associated with secret piles of cash. If people want to argue that the legalized bribery that is our campaign finance system is protected by the First Amendment, they should at least have the courage to make it part of the public record. Transparency is an equally important component of democracy.
24
The first amendment consists of instructions to Congress that it defies with an endless stream of garbage faith based legislation.
1
The interlocked directirship speaks through a megaphone so loud that no human beings can be heard at all.
1
Face it. Not until the public seriously backs public financing of campaigns (and there is a Supreme Court that does not do everything possible to undermine public financing) will there ever be substantial reform. Looking at it from another perspective, the country remains under the control of those the Founding Fathers intended: wealthy white men.
21
It might be he more helpful to call 'campaign finance' what it actually is - 'campaign bribery'- in order to eliminate it.
'Campaign finance' suggests an aura of legitimacy and acceptability.
But something that erodes democracy and mutes 99.9% of Americans and makes a farce of representation is not 'campaign finance' (although it is for the 0.1%), it is privatized public policy that creates a new luxury good for the uber-wealthy - shiny new Congressmen and governors for sale.
Let's reform legalized campaign bribery.
'Campaign finance' suggests an aura of legitimacy and acceptability.
But something that erodes democracy and mutes 99.9% of Americans and makes a farce of representation is not 'campaign finance' (although it is for the 0.1%), it is privatized public policy that creates a new luxury good for the uber-wealthy - shiny new Congressmen and governors for sale.
Let's reform legalized campaign bribery.
51
I believe you have to ask for a politician to run on specifics. Ask for British Standards in the way we run our elections. It's been proven so all the naysayers will be thwarted, the template is there so there will be no loopholes, and if there are we can fix them.
If there is a slot for an aspiring politician to make a splash, it will be filled. Then we will hear the rhetoric for the first time in a long time again. But this time it will have some British "teeth."
The very wealthy will find a way to stop this, if it ever happens, odds are. But maybe we can scare them for the first time since a Black Man was elected President. That didn't turn out so well, they were one step ahead of him. Or they managed to turn him to the dark side. Sorry Pres Obama, no pun intended.
If there is a slot for an aspiring politician to make a splash, it will be filled. Then we will hear the rhetoric for the first time in a long time again. But this time it will have some British "teeth."
The very wealthy will find a way to stop this, if it ever happens, odds are. But maybe we can scare them for the first time since a Black Man was elected President. That didn't turn out so well, they were one step ahead of him. Or they managed to turn him to the dark side. Sorry Pres Obama, no pun intended.
1
What we have now is public policy for sale to the highest bidder.
3