How lobbying with money destroys democracy at it's roots.

[JohnSSM]

Money has no right to influence the decisions made in a fair and equal democracy based on free market capitalism.

Imagine what might happen to something like pro-football if the rules allowed for outsiders to bribe referees for favor in observing and calling penalties, instead of the referees following and judging events in the game against rules in the book to the best of their abilities, without a bias, to lean in favor of a bribe.

What does the same effect do to our legislative body? The reps are no longer making decisions based on ethics and responsibilties to the attitudes of their constituents equally...the consider those who give them money and adopt more of their attitudes...

The first thing that would happen to pro football after allowing referees to take bribes and informing the mass public is, most people would lose interest in watching...who cares to watch a game where someone is buying influence? The game aspect is now fake....like professional wrestling, which is more about antics and personalities than games...

If the folks who allow the system to run on bribes, know that bribes will create a loss of interest in the general public to follow legislative processes and vote (What happens when the people realize that no matter who they vote in, money will always have the same influence on them, in effect rendering their vote of "who". to be useless).

The bribes are allowed right now because politicians will not do the right thing and make them illegal. And not only do they get to feed off the money and power that money in the system offers them, they also know, it will make us care about what they do, less.

Bribing legislators and even adjudicators is now considered free speech and is protected by our constitution as it renders it invalid...and people did pay to get these laws made....

No change in american politics can change the heart of our ills as long as money runs the vote...to be honest, why dont we demand they get rid of legislators and just put the bills and initiiatives on EBAY...whichever one collects the most money, passes...that is what we have now, with people skimming off the top...

Edited January 10, 2015 by JohnSSM

[Tim the plumber]

Democracy is not at all any sort of perfect system.

 

If you have a better one please tell us what that is because the other systems out there are vastly worse than this one.

[John Cuthber]

Democracy is not at all any sort of perfect system.

 

If you have a better one please tell us what that is because the other systems out there are vastly worse than this one.

If rich politicians can unduly influence the vote (and they do) then you don't have a democracy, you have a plutocracy.

Imposing, and enforcing, a cap on campaign spending would be a good start.

How would you propose to improve the system?

[Phi for All]

Democracy is not at all any sort of perfect system.

 

If you have a better one please tell us what that is because the other systems out there are vastly worse than this one.

 

Excuse me, but it seems you're arguing that democracies should allow bribes because we can't ever make the situation better, and other forms of government are worse so that makes it even more OK. Is this what you meant?

[Ten oz]

1- Constitution needs to be amended to fix the Citizens United ruling. Corporations are not people and money isn't speech.

 

2 - Gerrymandering must be stopped. An algarythme should be made that divides states up into districts based on population density. Politicians should not be able to pick and choose which neighborhoods do or don't get to vote in their districts based on personal preferences.

 

3 - Election day should be a national holiday. Voting is a lot more difficult for some than others and it should not be that way.

 

4 - There should be 4 parties on the ballot. The two major parties can run their primaries however they choose but there should be two other openings that go to which ever other 2 parties (Green party, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc) get the most support. Those other two parties should be included in all televised debates.

 

5 - Politicians and organizations who make false claims during an election cycle (like saying a candidate isnt a natural born citizen when they provably are) should be prosecuted for manipulation of the electorate system. The offense should be akin to bribery.

[iNow]

In addition to contribution limits, campaigns should have spending limits. The idea is similar to putting restrictor plates on nascar engines to ensure no unfair advantage between cars (and allows you to instead focus more squarely on the skill of each individual driver).

Edited January 10, 2015 by iNow

[jajrussel]

1- Constitution needs to be amended to fix the Citizens United ruling. Corporations are not people and money isn't speech.

2 - Gerrymandering must be stopped. An algarythme should be made that divides states up into districts based on population density. Politicians should not be able to pick and choose which neighborhoods do or don't get to vote in their districts based on personal preferences.

3 - Election day should be a national holiday. Voting is a lot more difficult for some than others and it should not be that way.

4 - There should be 4 parties on the ballot. The two major parties can run their primaries however they choose but there should be two other openings that go to which ever other 2 parties (Green party, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc) get the most support. Those other two parties should be included in all televised debates.

5 - Politicians and organizations who make false claims during an election cycle (like saying a candidate isnt a natural born citizen when they provably are) should be prosecuted for manipulation of the electorate system. The offense should be akin to bribery.

Spending limits seem to make sense, but they will not effect who is actually running for an office, or who gets elected, all you are doing is creating a lot more i's to dot, and a lot more t's to cross while improving the chance that someone who is a poor bookkeeper, or who is actually just doing what they are told to do will go to jail after a lot of money is also spent on the investigation.

 

Algorithms, can be manipulated, and it would seem far easier and more fair to stop creating population pockets within a state and go with a majority rule.

 

Election day should be a national holiday with punitive protections.

 

Four parties might be better than three, but multiple parties have always been used as a tool to manipulate the strength of one of the two strongest parties with the best party candidate losing votes within their own party to a third party that has no chance of winning. The result being that a candidate that would have best represented the interest of one of the two strongest parties is no longer a candidate. Their party is guaranteed to lose.

 

Point 5 is my favorite, everyone goes to jail.

[Ten oz]

Spending limits seem to make sense, but they will not effect who is actually running for an office, or who gets elected, all you are doing is creating a lot more i's to dot, and a lot more t's to cross while improving the chance that someone who is a poor bookkeeper, or who is actually just doing what they are told to do will go to jail after a lot of money is also spent on the investigation.

I disagree. Money in politics allows certian candidates to stay in various races longer because they have the support or a special interest or two. The longer a candidate can stay the more influence they have on what's being discussed. This just played out in the 2012 primary process. No hopers backed by billionaires stayed in the race state after state and influenced debate. Ultimately pushing the lead canidate in a more extreme direction.

 

Algorithms, can be manipulated, and it would seem far easier and more fair to stop creating population pockets within a state and go with a majority rule.

I just meant that states should be divided up geometrically with consideration given to population. Sure that could be tinkered with some but have you seen the way districts current look? Congress has the lowest approval rating in all of government yet maintains the highest re-election rate. Nothing is ever perfect but between an improvement and nothing I will take an improvement every time.

Major rule doesn't work because many states are large and regionally very different. Large bodies should be able to elect to representation they want.

 

Four parties might be better than three, but multiple parties have always been used as a tool to manipulate the strength of one of the two strongest parties with the best party candidate losing votes within their own party to a third party that has no chance of winning. The result being that a candidate that would have best represented the interest of one of the two strongest parties is no longer a candidate. Their party is guaranteed to lose.

Which is why you need 4 parties. A third party typically just plays spoiler. Four parties allows for the scale to get weighted from both ends.

 

Point 5 is my favorite, everyone goes to jail.

Some things are a matter of opinion. Calling someone immoral, lazy, naive, inexperienced, dishonest, and etc will allows be part of the political system. However there should be a penalty for outright lying. Claiming things that are more than matters of opinion. Using superpac money to organize efforts to popularize lies.

[swansont]

In addition to contribution limits, campaigns should have spending limits. The idea is similar to putting restrictor plates on nascar engines to ensure no unfair advantage between cars (and allows you to instead focus more squarely on the skill of each individual driver).

 

I don't see how one could actually enforce this. The same problem exists with these super PACs — they are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns (but everyone thinks they do anyway), so the money gets spent anyway. If you tried to crack down by counting those ads as part of the candidate's spending cap, what's to keep a clever girl from putting out a bad, expensive ad allegedly in support of the person they don't want to get elected, in order to restrict that person's remaining campaign limit?

[jajrussel]

Extreme directions are not binding. They are what they are, extreme. No politician is bound by their campaign promises, or even their statements. It does make for a good debate but its not binding.

 

The money spent campaigning is insane, but all caps really do is increase infighting within the parties. The no hope candidate remains just that, and if they are actually backed by billionaires they stand a better chance of staying in the race if there are no caps, so if caps are in place all a party has to do is decide where their energies are best spent. Fighting each other, or fighting the opposing parties? The republican party is the best example the power shifting within the party at a time when solidarity was needed crippled them as a party.

I don't see how one could actually enforce this. The same problem exists with these super PACs — they are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns (but everyone thinks they do anyway), so the money gets spent anyway. If you tried to crack down by counting those ads as part of the candidate's spending cap, what's to keep a clever girl from putting out a bad, expensive ad allegedly in support of the person they don't want to get elected, in order to restrict that person's remaining campaign limit?

There is always a way to manipulate the system. Economic Caps of any kind always have disruptive results which are hardly ever the intended result. Increasing the number of buyers results in higer prices giving more power to the sellers. They already want to tell us who to vote for, and when to go to war, and when not to go to war, and when we should be mad at someone, and when we should not be mad at someone. Insult them, then you can spend all your campaign money on an add, and you will look like a fool when they are done with you. No one really expects them to tell the truth, any more than a politician is expected to tell the truth. The real winners are the ones presenting the campaign. The caps are just news makers. Actually, anymore the news makers are the new makers. The rest of us are just along for the ride.

 

It is the money given after the campaign is won that causes the most damage. The money spent by lobbyist to gain controls that fit their investors interest.

[iNow]

I don't see how one could actually enforce this.

I agree, it would be difficult and likely isn't feasible. I'm not ready to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, though, and suspect some better regulations and reporting requirements would at least help.

 

Right now, elections are bought, not won. That's something that we badly need to address IMO. Part of the problem with congress today seems to be that we've displaced the required skillset away from an ability to govern and add to the long-term public good and toward the ability to campaign and perpetually raise money. While not mutually exclusive, these aims do often tend to violently oppose and conflict with one another.

[jajrussel]

I agree, it would be difficult and likely isn't feasible. I'm not ready to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, though, and suspect some better regulations and reporting requirements would at least help.Right now, elections are bought, not won. That's something that we badly need to address IMO. Part of the problem with congress today seems to be that we've displaced the required skillset away from an ability to govern and add to the long-term public good and toward the ability to campaign and perpetually raise money. While not mutually exclusive, these aims do often tend to violently oppose and conflict with one another.

When were elections not bought? It seems to me that the difference between then, and now is that then those who won no matter how they got there governed. The leaders who steam rolled over all resistance are the ones remembered as having actually gotten something done. It is not that congress can not govern it is their opinion that it is safer for their careers to feed the perpetual money machine than it is to do something that might immediately make a difference in the quality of life for the majority of Americans. They have become professional filibusters for the status quo.

[swansont]

I agree, it would be difficult and likely isn't feasible. I'm not ready to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, though, and suspect some better regulations and reporting requirements would at least help.

 

Right now, elections are bought, not won. That's something that we badly need to address IMO. Part of the problem with congress today seems to be that we've displaced the required skillset away from an ability to govern and add to the long-term public good and toward the ability to campaign and perpetually raise money. While not mutually exclusive, these aims do often tend to violently oppose and conflict with one another.

 

I agree it's a problem, but as long as "money is speech" is in effect, I don't see a solution. Even if you went to government funding of candidates and putting them on equal footing, you have the problem of these "independent" groups and what speech they are allowed to make.

[iNow]

When were elections not bought?

It's not a binary state. Amount of money matters, as does whether or not the money comes from the campaign or from independent groups.

 

 

 

as long as "money is speech" is in effect, I don't see a solution.

Exactly. Won't know until it happens, but it appears Obama may take aim at this in a few hours during his SOTU address:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/20/sotu-sneak-peek-obama-to-hit-citizens-united.html

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, and reformers have been told that the president may announce executive action in his SOTU speech that would require businesses contracting with the government to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded. This would ensure that the contracting process is blind, but also give the public (and the media) the information needed to connect the dots to look for backroom deals or conflicts of interest.

 

This should be a no-brainer for anyone wondering how the wheels get greased for government contracts, and it will be a significant breakthrough in exposing the influence of campaign contributions whether or not Obama announces executive action in the SOTU itself, or in the days following.

 

<snip>

 

There are other steps Obama could take without congressional approval. He could urge the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action on corporate disclosure so that investors know how profits are being spent on politics. More than a million Americans have registered comments at the SEC urging corporate disclosure. Unions are already required to disclose their contributions. He could also urge the IRS to hurry up the rules it is writing to establish bright lines around what “social welfare groups” can and can’t do before they should be seen as political entities. And he could make the nominations necessary to replace holdover commissioners at the Federal Elections Commission who are stuck in a partisan standoff.

[jajrussel]

I am trying to understand exactly what the chart says and my understanding may be wrong, but it seems to say that Super PACs have taken the art of buying elections to a super level. Can I assume that their original intent was to create a state of fairness where the little guy who could never hope to run for office for lack of financing might benifit if he or she could attract the attention of those who control the Super PAC, and that now those who thought the Super PACs were a good idea at the time are having second thoughts because there is no control over who actually gets the money? Well actually it seems to mean that there is no control over who the money is spent on rather than who gets the money.

 

If my understanding is correct they could virtually take control of both parties through selective distribution.

 

There is the making of a really good book here! It will not make a difference how many parties there are. You can wear whatever political hat you want. Their right to freedom of speech guarantees that they retain control.

 

I was wrong congress hasn't been filibustering for status quo, they have been stalling until all the right pieces are in place, and it is likely already too late.

 

Not only would it make a good book, it is ingenious so far as conspiracy theories go. Who would believe it?

 

I'm trying to decide if I am being serious.

 

I'm really not sure?

Edited January 20, 2015 by jajrussel

[iNow]

We've made it work before. Now we just need enough people to wake up, stand up, speak up, and demand it.

 

[MigL]

That's a pretty dismal situation.

You either have outside groups ( self interest ) making campaign contributions and influencing policy, or you have the filthy rich ( Mitt Romney ) running for the office of the president.

Whatever happened to America, land of opportunity, where even a poor man can become president ?

( sure if he sells his morals to the highest bidder and is a puppet, president in name only )

[iNow]

Anyone with kids might appreciate this parody of Goodnight Moon.

 

Goodnight Democracy: http://billmoyers.com/content/web-extra-goodnight-democracy/