Getting Big Business out of politics

[Phi for All]

Imo, capitalism works best with lots of competition, and the bigger businesses get, the less competiton there is. One of their biggest threats is their influence in politics. Any thoughts on how we can curb this unfair influence?

[LuTze]

Ban donations over a certain size to political parties/members of congress, problem solved.

[Phi for All]

A good start, but remember that some of these mega-corps have hundreds of subsidiaries. Can they each donate as well?

[budullewraagh]

more than that. look at haliburton. i strongly oppose handing out contracts for rediculous sums of money without competition. by the way, this allows the president and his friends to obtain stocks from these corporations and reap the benefits of having awarded the contracts (we taxpayers pay for their own personal benefit in the stock market)

[Pangloss]

I can't think of any reason why companies should be allowed to make political contributions in the first place. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

 

Regarding Haliburton, I won't defend that situation, but in general it ought to be possible for the government to do some level of business that doesn't involve contracting with the lowest bidder. Some things are just not well-suited for that approach, due to speed and quality concerns.

[Phi for All]

The "lowest bidder" system is flawed, similar to the budget system that encourages departments into the use-it-or-lose-it spending mentality. No one wants less next year so they spend all they are allotted and clamor for more.

[john5746]

You have to admit that Haliburton with the current VP smacks of conflict of interest. I've heard they are the best, etc, but I would go out of my way to get someone else.

[budullewraagh]

but in general it ought to be possible for the government to do some level of business that doesn't involve contracting with the lowest bidder.

i agree that it makes sense that one would consider quality. however, as john said, when the vp is making $60 million/year and claiming it's not from his former office, that's complete bs. when the president is giving 5 times the amount required to do the work without even considering other business, that's horrible. when the president purchases stock in these companies and has his friends purchase stock in these companies and give him kickbacks, you have another tammany hall

[Phi for All]

So far, LuTze has suggested that a cap be put on donations and Pangloss has suggested that companies should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns at all. It seems to me that this would open the playing field a bit, allowing people to run for office who can't pony up the mega-millions it takes now. How will candidates reach the public without that funding?

[Pangloss]

you have another tammany hall

 

Hah! Well put.

 

And guess who cleaned up Tammany Hall? One of my favorite role-model Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt! Well, not so much for the imperialist-like events in places like the Philippines, Cuba and Panama, but for the progressiveness towards limits on big business.

[budullewraagh]

you liked tdr? he was bloody insane! spanish-american war says it enough. then he had his son fight in the first world war and he died, and tdr sunk into depression for the rest of his life. sheesh.

 

also, you must realize that after the second world war, both parties changed significantly

[drz]

How will candidates reach the public without that funding?

 

I think we need to start using this "internet thing" a lil more contructively.

 

Something like a forum, just like this, but with enough resources to host millions. Potential candidates could suggest new legislation, plans, problems etc and then we could actually talk to them. With the internet we actually have the potential to have a true democracy, where each of our opinions can be heard, and I'd like to see us take steps towards this.

 

Pipe dream, but that would be cool. Hmm, how would GW and Kerry reach us without big business dollars. How about free websites, public access tv, or maybe, SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY!

 

It is a shame it requires multiple millions to run for president. Just because you can access large funds should not give you the right. Honestly, I think tv networks should give airtime to each candidate, an equal amount of course.

[budullewraagh]

if candidates spent their own money only, bill gates would run and win

[Pangloss]

Yah I like TDR. I understand your point, but he's a complex person worthy of further study. My dog-earred copy of Morris's "Theodore Rex" sits on a handy shelf alongside my dog-earred copy of Sandburg's Lincoln biographies. People focus too much on the imperialism, IMO. They forget that "walk softly and carry a big stick" begins with "walk softly"!

 

But I didn't mean to change the subject. Regarding funding, I think we should pay particular attention to the fact that while the amounts of money pouring into campaigns has skyrocketted, public perception of issues and candidates, particularly in local races but even in House races (!), continues to be poor. So what has all that money gotten us?

 

Thus I don't have a problem with killing the money. But I agree that there's still a problem here in terms of how to involve people. The Internet is certainly helping, and I expect us to go from 50% to maybe as high as 60-75% turnout in November, which would be revolutionary. But it's not enough, especially when you consider that not every eligible voter is registered.

 

Good thread, keep it going.

[drz]

What would be so bad about Bill being president? He'd have no need to tax people for his own gain, nor start wars to get richer.

 

However, I can see Bill making linux use a terrorist act. NM

[Phi for All]

Good thread, keep it going.

It was really your idea, Pangloss, and I know everyone appreciates you input.

 

With cable TV so widespread, I'm betting someone could come up with a great format for "the Politics channel" or something. With paid advertisements, they could get out candidate info as well as debates on the issues.

[Pangloss]

Just to flesh out my above post a little, I think public perception of the central issues of the presidential race, and other races with national focus, is pretty good. It could be better, but it's gotten a LOT better since 9/11, and shows signs of improving even more.

 

Before I get to the "but" implied in the above paragraph, I just want to add that a friend of mine said something to me the other day that stuck in my mind. He said that it might actually be a GOOD thing that the country is so divided right now regarding the presidential election. It means people are *involved*. They're motivated, charged-up, interested, invested, etc etc etc. I like to see that, especially as a centrist it's really important, because I know that today's Bush/Kerry-basher is tomorrow's deep-thinker, reaping the benefits of prior experience in watching the system at work.

 

Getting to the "but" now, even though attention is way up on the national front, it's TERRIBLE on local races. Even IMPORTANT local races like senators and congresscritters. The House races are particularly important -- EVERYONE has one, it's LOCAL in the sense that only a relatively small number of your fellow neighbors in a small geographic area will decide on who that person is, and the person you put out there will have the ability to represent you on a national scale. That's incredibly important, and yet *NOBODY* pays any attention to it.

 

Every single American who reads this post and votes will vote on a House member in November. It's actually pretty easy to find out who your current representative is -- they all have web pages on the House web site, and there's a handy tool there where you can type in your address and find out who it is.

 

But try and find out who the OTHER candidates are, and you immediately run into a HUGE problem. Now your task becomes Googling articles, searching Wikipedia, and checking the local television news web sites for Get Out the Vote pages. Holy Toledo, what a pain! It's ridiculous!

 

Something REALLY needs to be done about this. Local election web sites sponsored by the government, perhaps? I have no idea, but I do know this: When 69% of Americans want the Assault Weapons Ban renewed, and the Senate passes a bill to continue is by an *overwhelming* majority, and the president promises to sign it, and you STILL can't get it passed, you really have to wonder what the hell is going on.

 

(The answer, of course, is that special interest groups control the House.)

[Pangloss]

With cable TV so widespread, I'm betting someone could come up with a great format for "the Politics channel" or something. With paid advertisements, they could get out candidate info as well as debates on the issues.

 

They keep trying, but of course nobody wants to watch. We need to seek ways to generate public interest in participating in stuff like that.

 

I converse about once a week in email with a reporter who runs a program here in South Florida that follows George Stephanopolis on Sunday mornings. Just the fact that he's come to expect my email, and always sends a reply, tells you how (un)popular the show is. But he tries.

[Sayonara]

They keep trying, but of course nobody wants to watch. We need to seek ways to generate public interest in participating in stuff like that.

We have a couple of politics channels in the UK, including the much-funnier-than-it-sounds "Parliament Channel".

 

I'm not sure they are that useful to people who aren't already inclined to watch, and the sort of person who does watch them is generally already better informed than most. But at least it's there.

[Phi for All]

They keep trying, but of course nobody wants to watch. We need to seek ways to generate public interest in participating in stuff like that.

Take away their funding to run splashy ad campaigns and I think you'll see C-SPAN being revamped in a hurry, maybe even with cheerleaders and prizes.

 

What about the negative campaigns? Can we curb their right to sling mud?

[drz]

Thats true, campaign commercials should be limited to focusing on the facts, not talking about how much worse someone else is then the other.

 

Its crazy here in NC right now, we've got like 3 people running for senate, all whom claim to be conservative. A common commercial I've been seeing is talking about how Virginia Foxx isn't really a conservative, votes for gay marriage, supports radical enviromentalists (you know, people like me who say "Hey, we got to wake up and smell the global warming) and accuses her of being liberal. Then she turns around with an almost identical commercial to counteract it.

 

Most of the political commercials focus on how horrible a person is, not the issues they stand for. When they do bring up issues, they focus on sensitive, and rather pointless topics such as gay marriage or abortion, which I believe are merely used to gather the support of the christian majority.

 

I still say we need to put a homeless person in the presidential office. He's been at the bottom, and probably would have a much better idea of how to help, as opposed to someone who's been pampered all their life (most politicians).

[Pangloss]

Interesting stuff about the NC senate race. Who are the other candidates?

[drz]

uhh, I have to admit I haven't been paying it as much attention as I should. I'm getting married oct 30, moving and quitting my job that following week. Things have been quite hectic in my lil world.

 

I think its Virginia Foxx, uhh, Erskin Bowles, dude named Ballantine is running for governor against the current Mike Easley. There are several people running with Virgina, I can't remember them all right now.

 

Basically, here in NC it comes down to who has the bigger bible, or atleast, who claims such

[Pangloss]

Heh! So NC is still pretty much a die-hard Bible-belt state, then?

 

I grew up in North Georgia so I know a bit about how that works. (grin)

[Phi for All]

So is it a violation of the 1st Ammendment to make the candidates focus on their own good traits and stop focusing on the bad traits of their opponents in campaign advertisements?