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

This may be a cynical view but like college athletics we'll never get money out of politics.

Yes, we will get the big money out of politics. If you want to know how they you need to watch the video in the OP. This method has worked before, it is recognized as ultimately effective, and it will work again. Watch the video.

No, it can't be done with any measure that gets proposed and voted on in the current Congress. This process takes time. It has to begin at the local level and work it's way up. That's how it happens. Watch the video, watch the video, and then watch the video.

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.)

That sounds good. Write a proposal. That could be done concurrently, if you can write something that would really work.
 
Hello 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.

I agree an amendment would do it. But the difficulty lies in getting the amendment. Nearly impossible in today's political climate.

There is a work around to an amendment. It is described in the video. The method has worked in the past, and it can work for this. Watch the video.

The video calls for local commissions, councils and State legislatures passing this measure against corruption. These measures have already begun to pass. What politician or political candidate wants to have Press Coverage stating that he is taking a stand against an anti-corruption measure? Who wants to be be labelled as pro-corruption? That doesn't sound like a good way to get votes. These measure will continue to pass. Politicians supporting them will begin to rise to the national level. Old school politicians on the take will be voted out and replaced with the good guys. The dominoes will fall. We can do this. All we have to do is set up the dominoes.
 
If you seriously want to understand the role of money and corporations controlling American politics today check out the two books below. Mayer and Phillips-Fein give you the facts documented. But instead the right wing conservatives especially, will continue to be led in the wrong direction hurting themselves and working Americans too. Read excerpts for a taste of reality.

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money

'Invisible Hands' Kim Phillips-Fein

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2751831-invisible-hands

And these too:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25437695-the-view-from-flyover-country

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28695425-strangers-in-their-own-land

"[The Great Depression, Pat] Robertson wrote, did "more to shape the existing framework of U.S. government policy than any other single event in recent history." The legacy of the Great Depression included "a powerful central government ... an anti-business bias in the country ... powerful unions," and, most important of all, "the belief in the economic policy of British scholar John Maynard Keynes, to the end that government spending and government 'fine tuning' would guarantee perpetual prosperity." Robertson conceded that such measures might have played a role in ending the Great Depression. But fifty years later they were responsible for the "sickness of the 70s" - the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, the decline in productivity. Robertson called for a "profound moral revival" to combat the economic weaknesses plaguing the United States. "Those who love God must get involved in the election of strong leaders," he insisted, and they should choose men and women who were "pledged to reduce the size of government, eliminate federal deficits, free our productive capacity, ensure sound currency." Kim Phillips-Fein (p225 'Invisible Hands')



"Early issues of the 'Journal-Champion' carried numerous articles calling the faithful to the fight to cleanse America of sexual sin: homosexuality, pornography, and abortion. But interwoven with this campaign were descriptions of the economic and political crisis facing the United States. 'The greatest threat to the average American's liberty does not come From Communistic aggression, crime in the decaying cities or any other external cause," read an article in the June 1978 issue. "It comes from the growing internal encroachments of government bureaucrats as they limit the freedom of Americans through distribution of rules and regulations, many times called guidelines." The newspaper criticized OSHA's "insulting or silly" regulations, and published an open letter to Congress denouncing the "faceless bureaucrats who sit in strategy meetings and formulate federal guidelines," saying that they "pinch our pocket books, restrict our work privileges, govern our spending habits, determine the 'safety' restrictions of our businesses and influence the type of homes we live in."" Kim Phillips-Fein (p229 'Invisible Hands')


"[Richard] Viguerie hoped that Ronald Reagan. the candidate of the economic right, fresh from his third term as governor of California and starting to look toward national polities, could somehow be persuaded to run for the presidency on the American Independent Party ticket with George Wallace, the candidate of the social right. At the time, Reagan was growing eager to pursue a broader role in national politics. As he wrote to Lemuel Boulware, his old friend from GE, "l promise you I'll be trying to stir up the business world, including the exhortation to fight back against government's increasing lust for power over free enterprise." He even told the aging GE executive that an article Boulware had written for Human Events (a conservative magazine) had been the basis for some of his own speeches. Boulware still had great hopes for Reagan. When the politician began a radio program in 1974, Boulware wrote to him, "You are the lone one with the knowledge, facility, zest and credibility needed to make the initially disillusioning facts be both economically understandable and humanly attractive." Kim Phillips-Fein (1979 p219 'Invisible Hands')



"I did create the phrase 'government takeover' of health care. And I believe it," Luntz maintained, noting too that "it gave the Republicans the weapon they needed to defeat Obama in 2010." But most experts found the pitch patently misleading because the Obama administration was proposing that Americans buy private health insurance from for-profit companies, not the government. In fact, progressives were incensed that rather than backing a "public option" for those who preferred a government insurance program, the Obama plan included a government mandate that individuals purchase health-care coverage, a conservative idea hatched by the Heritage Foundation to stave off nationalized health care. Luntz's phrase was so false that it was chosen as "the Lie of the Year" by the nonpartisan fact-checking group PolitiFact. Yet while a rear guard of administration officials tried lamely to correct the record, Luntz's deceptive message stuck, agitating increasingly fearful and angry voters, many of whom flocked to Tea Party protests.

Noble's strategy was carefully targeted. He aimed the attack ads especially at the states of members of the Senate Finance Committee, which was writing the health-care bill and whose support would be needed to vote it out of the committee...."

p 232,233 'Dark Money' by Jane Mayer
 
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.

Yes, you can. You can make it only public financing to be used. The Dems recognized that just using public money would hurt their campaign because the Repubs were using big donors.No outside contributions allowed.
 
PS to my above post on how we got here. The video fails to mention the single key issue MONEY. Money for the so called good guys it hopes to elect. Pass a bill concerning how reps are funded for election and you may get there. Forget the role of money and you go in circles. Do you really think money will shoot itself.

 
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."

Nothing but good feels window dressing. :rolleyes:
 
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.

I disagree that money is necessary.
All money does is flood us with landfill fodder and annoying media content.
All we really need to know is a candidate's platform.
 
Yes, we will get the big money out of politics. If you want to know how they you need to watch the video in the OP. This method has worked before, it is recognized as ultimately effective, and it will work again. Watch the video.

No, it can't be done with any measure that gets proposed and voted on in the current Congress. This process takes time. It has to begin at the local level and work it's way up. That's how it happens. Watch the video, watch the video, and then watch the video.

That sounds good. Write a proposal. That could be done concurrently, if you can write something that would really work.

The corrupt Democratic Party of the Jackass doesn't want to eliminate money from elections. ;)
 
If you seriously want to understand the role of money and corporations controlling American politics today check out the two books below. Mayer and Phillips-Fein give you the facts documented. But instead the right wing conservatives especially..................

giphy.gif
 
PS to my above post on how we got here. The video fails to mention the single key issue MONEY. Money for the so called good guys it hopes to elect. Pass a bill concerning how reps are funded for election and you may get there. Forget the role of money and you go in circles. Do you really think money will shoot itself.

Money isn't the problem; low IQ voters like you and dishonest corrupt professional politicians are the problem. Idiots like feels good bullshit that will do nothing to prevent further corruption of low IQ voters who believe they are entitled to other people's money. :rolleyes:
 
I disagree that money is necessary.

It doesn't matter what you agree with; it is a FACT that campaigns rely on it to get their message out and that constituents also use it to get their message out. Without lobbyists, people have no voice in Congress other than every two or four years at the ballot box.

Lobbying is the only profession protected by the Constitution. ;)
 
Hello Celticguy,



I agree an amendment would do it. But the difficulty lies in getting the amendment. Nearly impossible in today's political climate.

There is a work around to an amendment. It is described in the video. The method has worked in the past, and it can work for this. Watch the video.

The video calls for local commissions, councils and State legislatures passing this measure against corruption. These measures have already begun to pass. What politician or political candidate wants to have Press Coverage stating that he is taking a stand against an anti-corruption measure? Who wants to be be labelled as pro-corruption? That doesn't sound like a good way to get votes. These measure will continue to pass. Politicians supporting them will begin to rise to the national level. Old school politicians on the take will be voted out and replaced with the good guys. The dominoes will fall. We can do this. All we have to do is set up the dominoes.

Your video only seeks to limit undesirable money. All this will do is create a new sort of money laundering.
Money is the problem.
You can use the local up model to get states to submit for the amendment.
Fix the problem, not the symptoms.
 
I disagree that money is necessary.
All money does is flood us with landfill fodder and annoying media content.
All we really need to know is a candidate's platform.

A candidate's platform is obviously important but we vote on more than just a platform. Take a primary for instance where the candidates may agree on 95% of the issues. Personality, disposition, leadership ability etc. all play a role in how we choose a candidate that go beyond a candidate just checking a box for pro-life or pro-choice (as an example).
 
It doesn't matter what you agree with; it is a FACT that campaigns rely on it to get their message out and that constituents also use it to get their message out. Without lobbyists, people have no voice in Congress other than every two or four years at the ballot box.

Lobbying is the only profession protected by the Constitution. ;)


Lobby away. Plead your case, demonstrate the volume of those who agree with you.
Just cant give money to candidates.
 
A candidate's platform is obviously important but we vote on more than just a platform. Take a primary for instance where the candidates may agree on 95% of the issues. Personality, disposition, leadership ability etc. all play a role in how we choose a candidate that go beyond a candidate just checking a box for pro-life or pro-choice (as an example).

You raise an important point.
BECAUSE campaigns have become sound bytes and crafted images we have reduced candidates to charicures.
If their only means of speaking to you is a platform they will have to return to speaking their message as a part of themselves.
And let whoever whoever wants sponsor debates for some face to face.
Everything except the money.
 
Yes, you can. You can make it only public financing to be used. The Dems recognized that just using public money would hurt their campaign because the Repubs were using big donors.No outside contributions allowed.

Obama refused public funding because he could raise a lot more without it and not be limited. Republicans could not use any big donors because McCain accepted public financing and could accept no additional funding.
 
Yes, you can. You can make it only public financing to be used. The Dems recognized that just using public money would hurt their campaign because the Repubs were using big donors.No outside contributions allowed.

All the money just goes to independent spending if they cannot give to candidates. That has happened already since the limit of a contribution to a candidate is only $2700. You no longer give to a candidate but spend money buying billboards, campaign ads, etc. saying "Vote for X." Nobody can limit how much an individual or group can spend on such activities.
 
I disagree that money is necessary.
All money does is flood us with landfill fodder and annoying media content.
All we really need to know is a candidate's platform.

A platform tells us little since we all know much of a platform cannot be enacted no matter how hard they try. We need to see character, ability to think on his feet, honesty, temperament.........A platform is written at the national convention with an aim toward giving all the groups something to get their support.
 
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.

Lies!

President Obama did no such thing.

We can start by getting rid of every republican and those who support their lies.

The problem is those who have been in charge are so corrupt you all think it’s normal because thy have always been white. Now you want to act like the only black president is just as corrupt as you sleazy white mofo.

Fuck outta here
 
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.)


CA pass the measure for college athletes to get paid...
.
So like usual....we need to stop listening to racist white fucks such as yourself.

Your kind knows nothing.
 
Back
Top