How To Fix America's Corrupt Political System: Getting The Big Money Out Of Govt.

[PoliTalker]

Nearly everyone I know agrees that the US government is corrupt and bought off by big money.

The problem is that it is legal.

We need to fix that.

But how?

Most people think there is nothing we can do about it because Congress would never vote to cut off it's own gravy train. It's true that the current Congress would not do that, but we can replace them with people who will. And that's how we fix it. First, we need to make an issue out of it.

Here is how it works:

Here is the actual text of the Act:

The American Anti-Corruption Act

Here's a link to the Anti-Corruption Act Website where you can find out how to be a part of this historical event in our nation's history:

[url]https://anticorruptionact.org/[/URL]

More info:

[url]https://represent.us/[/URL]

Let's DO THIS!

 

[Flash]

Most people think there is nothing we can do about it because Congress would never vote to cut off it's own gravy train. It's true that the current Congress would not do that, but we can replace them with people who will. And that's how we fix it. First, we need to make an issue out of it.

Actually it is incumbents who would benefit the most from such regulations. They all hate having to spend a required amount of time calling people asking for money. Also, incumbents have a natural advantage because of name recognition. Limits on spending would prevent unknown candidates from acquiring that level of recognition.

Can you give any examples of groups that bought the votes of any of the Democratic presidential candidates and the issue/vote that they bought? If not, maybe the claim money has bought all the politicians is a simplistic and cynical view. Members of Congress always tell us wealthy interests buy the votes of members but they will never admit to any issue on which their vote was bought. Maybe it is more of a campaign appeal that a cynical public is willing to believe. "Elect Me. I won't sell out to the special interests like all my fellow members."

 

[PoliTalker]

Hi Flash,

Actually it is incumbents who would benefit the most from such regulations. They all hate having to spend a required amount of time calling people asking for money. Also, incumbents have a natural advantage because of name recognition. Limits on spending would prevent unknown candidates from acquiring that level of recognition.

Can you give any examples of groups that bought the votes of any of the Democratic presidential candidates and the issue/vote that they bought? If not, maybe the claim money has bought all the politicians is a simplistic and cynical view. Members of Congress always tell us wealthy interests buy the votes of members but they will never admit to any issue on which their vote was bought. Maybe it is more of a campaign appeal that a cynical public is willing to believe. "Elect Me. I won't sell out to the special interests like all my fellow members."

Examples abound, my friend.

President Obama took big money from Wall Street.

Nobody was held accountable for The Great Recession.

President Obama took money from Big Insurance and Big Pharma in return for agreeing to drop the Public Option and making sure that Medicare could not negotiate drug prices.

He really had no choice in the matter, because Republicans refused to stand up to the big money interests. Without Republicans allied against the power of big money it was no contest. Big Insurance and Big Pharma dictated terms to Obama with the following ultimatum:

Either do what we want or we will put $150 million into a PR campaign against Health Care Reform.

And they dangled a carrot in front of him. If you agree, we will put the $150 million towards support of the PPACA.

The only way Obama could have faced up to the power of big money would have been if Republicans also stood up to it. But no. They stood side by side with the big money to oppose Obama and health care reform.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hi Flash,

Actually it is incumbents who would benefit the most from such regulations. They all hate having to spend a required amount of time calling people asking for money. Also, incumbents have a natural advantage because of name recognition. Limits on spending would prevent unknown candidates from acquiring that level of recognition.

Can you give any examples of groups that bought the votes of any of the Democratic presidential candidates and the issue/vote that they bought? If not, maybe the claim money has bought all the politicians is a simplistic and cynical view. Members of Congress always tell us wealthy interests buy the votes of members but they will never admit to any issue on which their vote was bought. Maybe it is more of a campaign appeal that a cynical public is willing to believe. "Elect Me. I won't sell out to the special interests like all my fellow members."

It would be fine if incumbents benefit from such legislation as long as they abide by it.

 

[Jack]

Like you said, everybody likes this, except ... the Politicians.

Nearly everyone I know agrees that the US government is corrupt and bought off by big money.

The problem is that it is legal.

We need to fix that.

But how?

Most people think there is nothing we can do about it because Congress would never vote to cut off it's own gravy train. It's true that the current Congress would not do that, but we can replace them with people who will. And that's how we fix it. First, we need to make an issue out of it.

Here is how it works:

Here is the actual text of the Act:

The American Anti-Corruption Act

Here's a link to the Anti-Corruption Act Website where you can find out how to be a part of this historical event in our nation's history:

[url]https://anticorruptionact.org/[/URL]

More info:

[url]https://represent.us/[/URL]

Let's DO THIS!

 

[Gonzomin]

Public financing of elections with no outside money allowed would return the power to the people. McCain/Feingold took a shot at it.
That would return the politicians to working instead of begging for money. Most pols spend half their time fundraising.
The wealthy spend a ton on elections and generally get a huge return.

 

[cawacko]

Actually it is incumbents who would benefit the most from such regulations. They all hate having to spend a required amount of time calling people asking for money. Also, incumbents have a natural advantage because of name recognition. Limits on spending would prevent unknown candidates from acquiring that level of recognition.

Can you give any examples of groups that bought the votes of any of the Democratic presidential candidates and the issue/vote that they bought? If not, maybe the claim money has bought all the politicians is a simplistic and cynical view. Members of Congress always tell us wealthy interests buy the votes of members but they will never admit to any issue on which their vote was bought. Maybe it is more of a campaign appeal that a cynical public is willing to believe. "Elect Me. I won't sell out to the special interests like all my fellow members."

This may be a cynical view but like college athletics we'll never get money out of politics. A different way to address it could be looking at how much power politicians have and finding a way to reduce it which would make less of a need for rent seeking from donors that comes along with it. (This could be written in much more depth but this is just a take from 30K ft.)

 

[Celticguy]

So long as giving away money is considered free speech this cant change.
So, amend the constitution to fix that.
Heres how:
Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two ways to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

 

[Flash]

This may be a cynical view but like college athletics we'll never get money out of politics. A different way to address it could be looking at how much power politicians have and finding a way to reduce it which would make less of a need for rent seeking from donors that comes along with it. (This could be written in much more depth but this is just a take from 30K ft.)

Groups like NCAA, college accrediting agencies, etc. take on a life of their own. Like most agencies, they seek to expand their mission and budget and actions are often based on what produces the most revenue. They are really fighting the attempt to let athletes make money from their jerseys because that is a big money market others don't want to lose.

Attempting to take money out of politics just shifts it to legal avenues as all previous regulations have done. I have an article that makes the point campaign finance laws will never work because they seek to prevent evils that do not exist. For example, groups don't give money to candidates to buy their vote, they give money to candidates who support their cause to reelect them.

 

[Truth Detector]

Nearly everyone I know agrees that the US government is corrupt and bought off by big money.

The problem is that it is legal.

We need to fix that.

But how?

Most people think there is nothing we can do about it because Congress would never vote to cut off it's own gravy train. It's true that the current Congress would not do that, but we can replace them with people who will. And that's how we fix it. First, we need to make an issue out of it.

Here is how it works:

Here is the actual text of the Act:

Here's a link to the Anti-Corruption Act Website where you can find out how to be a part of this historical event in our nation's history:

More info:

Let's DO THIS!

None of this will do a single thing to stop the corrupt rot within the Democratic Party of the Jackass.

The REAL problem is low information voters, the 10,000 plus page abomination called the Tax code and lack of term limits that empowers corrupt politicians who represent morons to promise their moron constituents free stuff on the backs of hard working Americans.

You're welcome.

 

[Truth Detector]

Actually it is incumbents who would benefit the most from such regulations. They all hate having to spend a required amount of time calling people asking for money.

SPOT ON!

 

[Truth Detector]

Hi Flash,



Examples abound, my friend.

President Obama took big money from Wall Street.

Nobody was held accountable for The Great Recession.

President Obama took money from Big Insurance and Big Pharma in return for agreeing to drop the Public Option and making sure that Medicare could not negotiate drug prices.

He really had no choice in the matter, because Republicans refused to stand up to the big money interests. Without Republicans allied against the power of big money it was no contest. Big Insurance and Big Pharma dictated terms to Obama with the following ultimatum:

Either do what we want or we will put $150 million into a PR campaign against Health Care Reform.

And they dangled a carrot in front of him. If you agree, we will put the $150 million towards support of the PPACA.

The only way Obama could have faced up to the power of big money would have been if Republicans also stood up to it. But no. They stood side by side with the big money to oppose Obama and health care reform.

^^Obviously hasn't a single factual clue of what he is bloviating about.

 

[Truth Detector]

It would be fine if incumbents benefit from such legislation as long as they abode by it.

 

[Flash]

So long as giving away money is considered free speech this cant change.
So, amend the constitution to fix that.
Heres how:
Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two ways to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

You are taking away the power of the people to get their cause represented. All those people who like Bernie or Warren give small contributions that result in large campaign chests. A lot of people giving a few dollars is just as powerful as organizations or individuals giving a large amount (although $2700 is the maximum a person can give to a candidate).

That is a way individuals express their views (free speech) through the political process. We should never take that away or limit free speech. It would just lead to money finding other channels like independent spending.

 

[Truth Detector]

Public financing of elections with no outside money allowed would return the power to the people.

WRONG; it would take their power away. But low IQ leftists do love giving up their liberties and freedoms to a Fascistic state. They are THAT Fing stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

A different way to address it could be looking at how much power politicians have and finding a way to reduce it which would make less of a need for rent seeking from donors that comes along with it. (This could be written in much more depth but this is just a take from 30K ft.)

Correct; and these corrupt politicians use the power of the tax code to get re-elected. Eliminate the tax code, supplant it with a much simpler FAIR TAX and term limits and you remove the incentives of the corrupt politicians to use the power of the purse to become professional full time politicians suckling from the teet of the public trough.

 

[Celticguy]

You are taking away the power of the people to get their cause represented. All those people who like Bernie or Warren give small contributions that result in large campaign chests. A lot of people giving a few dollars is just as powerful as organizations or individuals giving a large amount (although $2700 is the maximum a person can give to a candidate).

That is a way individuals express their views (free speech) through the political process. We should never take that away or limit free speech. It would just lead to money finding other channels like independent spending.

I understand the concept but money is the problem and this is how you make it no longer a problem.
People can support fill-in-the-blank lots of ways, money need not be one.

 

[Flash]

Public financing of elections with no outside money allowed would return the power to the people. McCain/Feingold took a shot at it.
That would return the politicians to working instead of begging for money. Most pols spend half their time fundraising.
The wealthy spend a ton on elections and generally get a huge return.

We have had public financing of presidential nominations and elections since 1976 and every Dem and Rep took the federal money for the general election campaign until Obama. They could not spend any outside money and they were limited in their total and per state spending. There was certainly no difference in the perception of the corrupting influence of money.

The percent of the public that checked the $3 for the election fund steadily declined even though they were not paying an additional $3 of taxes. The public must not have thought the public funding was worth it--welfare for politicians.

You can't force a person to take public funding but you can limit their spending if they do accept it. Candidates no longer take the money for the nomination or election because they can raise so much more money privately.

More powerful than money are those organizations that can mobilize voters. The AARP is probably the most powerful lobby in the country and they cannot give campaign contributions. They can mobilize seniors who will turn out to vote against any perceived threats to their Social Security or Medicare.

The value of money is to help get elected or reelected, but votes still determine the winner. A good illustration are those wealthy candidates who spend $100 million on their own campaign but can't get enough votes to win.

 

[Flash]

I understand the concept but money is the problem and this is how you make it no longer a problem.
People can support fill-in-the-blank lots of ways, money need not be one.

Money is necessary but not sufficient to win elections. Candidates who cannot spend enough money to establish name recognition, make the voters aware of their image and message, have no chance and the voters remain less informed. Candidates don't win because they have the most money, they have the most money because they have the most supporters.

I bet you know the names of many of the current Democratic presidential candidates but probably cannot name most of the judges who represent you. The more money is spent the more voters are aware of the issues and candidates even when based on sleazy, misleading information.

We know something about several of those Democratic candidates because the networks spent money on the debates making the public more knowledgeable about those people. But we cannot make networks give free coverage to candidates and we don't want the government providing the funding and making the rules by which the debates will be conducted.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Gonzomin,

Public financing of elections with no outside money allowed would return the power to the people. McCain/Feingold took a shot at it.
That would return the politicians to working instead of begging for money. Most pols spend half their time fundraising.
The wealthy spend a ton on elections and generally get a huge return.

Yes, that is a part of it. This act also goes further.

"2. END SECRET MONEY WITH FULL TRANSPARENCYPROVISION 5: REQUIRE FULL TRANSPARENCY OF SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL FUNDRAISING AND SPENDING

●Require automatic electronic disclosure of political fundraising and expenditures over$200.

●Enact the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections(DISCLOSE) Act of 2015, S. 229, H.R. 430, 114th Cong, to end dark and grey money.

●Require disclosure of bundlers of contributions. Require incumbent federal officials and candidates for federal office to disclose the identity of any individual who is authorized byor known to the official or candidate to collect and transmit contributions to their campaign committee or leadership PAC, regardless of whether or not the individual is a lobbyist."