The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

The problem today is one party has become Leftist. Things worked when both parties weren't Leftist. They could be Liberal, Conservative, middle-of-the-road, and it wasn't a problem. The political spectrum outside of the Left could work together and come to compromises. That isn't how the Left rolls. For them it's What's ours is ours, what's yours is negotable. It's My way or the highway. There is no compromising with the Left.

I've seen it repeatedly over my lifetime. The Left wants something politically. They make a public show of wanting a 'democratic vote' on it. They'll tell you they will honor the results of that vote. Then, when the vote smacks down their proposal, votes it out, won't let it happen, their tune changes to one of The public doesn't know what the hell's good for them! We're not going to stop pushing for this until we get it! Fuck that vote! The voters were morons! This is when the Left now tries to use the legal system to get their way, or they seek alternate means to get around having to have their proposal voted into law. They stack the courts, shop judges, use bureaucratic subterfuge, and refuse to compromise in any way.

Look at gay marriage for example. They did the above EXACTLY. In 35 states they put gay marriage on the ballot. In 35 states voters voted it down. Hell, in California a state constitutional amendment was passed by nearly 60% of the vote to make gay marriage illegal.
What'd the Left do in response? They went to court, shopped judges, and sued to get gay marriage bans overturned. The entirety of this now in law was made up by a relative handful of judges across the US through the courts.
Didn't matter one iota to the Left that their proposal was publicly unpopular. They wanted what they wanted and nobody was going to stop them. No compromise. No respecting the will of the people. They rammed what they and they alone wanted down everybody's throat.
Try and have a discussion about this topic now with a Leftist. Hell, I'm betting in short order here on this thread I'll get massive pushback from the Lefties on the board about what I just posted. There will be no rational discussion. Instead, it'll be The courts decided and that's that! STFU you troll! No civil discourse with the Left. Either you are with them or you go to the gulag.

The will of the people strongly supports gay marriage.

A Record Number Of Americans, Including Republicans, Now Support Same-Sex Marriage

If you want civil discourse from 'the left' or 'the right' you will probably be disappointed. It is not possible to conduct a conversation with 150 million people. If you want civil discourse, you'll have to be very selective in who you talk to.

I'm all about civil discourse. That's why I come here. But I have to be very selective in finding it. There is not one single extremist on either side that I can talk to here. Extremists do not seem to be very respectful of others. I always end up conversing with people who are somewhere in between the extreme left or right. Simply because I wish to be respectful and be respected in return.

I don't mind having my ideas attacked. And I'll freely admit it when I've gotten something wrong and been set right. You've done that for me yourself, and I appreciate it. I would rather admit a mistake and then get something right than to stand up for something which is not true. But when people are simply attacking me? I take it as a sign that that is what they will continue to do. Since I don't want that I cut them off. After all, they have already indicated they think it's OK to do that.

Now, you've chosen a very poor example to support your dubious contention about 'the left' all behaving a certain way. Gay marriage is widely popular. And not just with the left.

And I doubt you'll be able to find anything to support your contention. I believe it is incorrect. I actually find many on the right AND on the left who act like that. Anyone who wants to cherry-pick the worst behavior of the opposite side and falsely apply it to everyone on that side has all the material they need to work with.

But that doesn't make it reasonable to do that.

The extremes have diverged, no doubt of it.

It is totally not true that has only happened on one side.

McConnell bent the Senate rules over backward to stack the SCOTUS. He doesn't mind being a total hypocrite to get what he wants.

The real problem is the two sides cannot agree on the facts because they don't get their information from the same place.

We have people like Alex Jones carrying on like he's furnishing facts, like he is presenting news, but then when he gets hauled into court his lawyer argues that he cannot be held responsible for what he says, that he is an actor creating entertainment.

Alex Jones is really more dangerous to the public than Orson Welles infamous radio broadcast of HG Wells' "War Of The Worlds" in 1938, which caused widespread panic. The main difference being that Orson Welles simply wanted to create entertainment and never expected that people would take the broadcast seriously since he had announced a disclaimer in the beginning and at the end of his presentation. Alex Jones does the same thing, on purpose, because he capitalizes on it and gets incredibly rich pushing totally fake news.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

I'm not familiar with any public funding laws ruled unconstitutional (could you provide information)?

As a matter of fact, we have had public funding of presidential nominations and elections since 1976. All candidates accepted public funding for the general election until Obama. Now, candidates do not use it because it limits spending too much and candidates can raise and spend much more if they do not accept the funding.

I agree most of these measures would accomplish little. The most powerful group in the U. S. (AARP) lobbies Congress but is a non-profit and cannot give campaign contributions.

Some states have term limits for legislators and the result has been power shifting to lobbyists, staff, and the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

Fiddling with mechanics does not change human nature.

What do the American people want that politicians are not giving them? The public seems very split about what they want.

Most laws regulating campaign finance, etc. do not work because they are based on false assumptions.

Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?

And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

That too seemed hopeless to many.

And change did not come from the powerful.

It came from the people, and it took many many years.

It happened from the bottom up.

Just like this proposal.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Corruption is what goody-two-shoes Pollyannas talk about.

It's not good, we agree. We can do what we can---NEVER including term limits. That's what elections are for.
We can better regulate the lobbyists.

But compared to bad policy, it's barely a paper cut. Less than that.

Corruption costs us millions.

Bad policy costs us billions.

A sticky-fingered politician who votes correctly on the floor of congress
is worth ten times more than an honest idiot who votes incorrectly in terms of policy.

It should be obvious, but few people see it.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?

Yes, but I don't think that controls American politics. If campaign contributions determine how members of Congress vote they should all be voting the same way based on who gives them the most money. If you assume their primary motivation is getting reelected, then votes and not campaign contributions is their goal. Unless campaign contributions buy our vote then it doesn't matter how much they spend.

I think you are going to vote (almost) straight Democratic regardless of how much the Republicans spend--so, the contributions are not buying your vote or anyone else who will admit it. So, I don't agree that the problem is that contributions buy votes in most cases. Can you tell me which member of Congress took money to vote a certain way? If not, it is just an oft-repeated cynical view based on those who think money is the main motivation for most people.

And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

That too seemed hopeless to many.

And change did not come from the powerful.

It came from the people, and it took many many years.

It happened from the bottom up.

Just like this proposal.

I don't think nothing can be done--I just don't think tweaking the system is the answer. I think we already have the means to accomplish our goals if we just choose to use them.

Take your example of the 19th Amendment. It took a movement of the people, a little drama, and persistence (much like civil rights). But, it was the powerful that made the change happen because public actions generated enough support in Congress and the states to propose the amendment.

In your interpretation the 19th only passed Congress because lobbyists gave members money to vote for its passage. Or, is it only corruption when you don't like the legislation? The solution is there--get people to write their members to support the legislation they want. If the members vote against their wishes vote against them at election time (term limits). Most people cannot name their U. S. Representative much less identify how he voted on any legislation. Structural changes cannot substitute for public action.

To some extent, we can see that action today with an increased voter turnout (20 million) in 2020 and polarized electorate. Voters are very intense in their beliefs. However, we can obviously see the problems with intense voter interest.

 

[Nordberg]

Step one: public funding of political campaigns with zero outside money. no PACs. Politicians access that same money and get the same campaign time on TV.
After a while, we would have more than 2 parties. It is like when Reagan killed the "equal time provisions". It was not that Dems got answer time when a Red got time, but so did Libertarians, Greens, and other parties. I remember hearing other opinions and sometimes they made a lot of sense. You saw what the other candidates looked like and what they sounded like.
End gerrymandering. It distorts and cheats. It should not be allowed. There is no state that does not have a college with a math department that can do fair districting.
The president is the person who got the most votes. The EC is an anachronism that is harmful.
Lobbyists do more than give money. They write the bills and the politicians slip them into a big bill where it will not be noticed.
We have strict term limits, If you do not like your rep, vote him out. We all want someone else's rep to leave, but we keep voting ours back in.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Yes, but I don't think that controls American politics. If campaign contributions determine how members of Congress vote they should all be voting the same way based on who gives them the most money. If you assume their primary motivation is getting reelected, then votes and not campaign contributions is their goal. Unless campaign contributions buy our vote then it doesn't matter how much they spend.

I think you are going to vote (almost) straight Democratic regardless of how much the Republicans spend--so, the contributions are not buying your vote or anyone else who will admit it. So, I don't agree that the problem is that contributions buy votes in most cases. Can you tell me which member of Congress took money to vote a certain way? If not, it is just an oft-repeated cynical view based on those who think money is the main motivation for most people.



I don't think nothing can be done--I just don't think tweaking the system is the answer. I think we already have the means to accomplish our goals if we just choose to use them.

Take your example of the 19th Amendment. It took a movement of the people, a little drama, and persistence (much like civil rights). But, it was the powerful that made the change happen because public actions generated enough support in Congress and the states to propose the amendment.

In your interpretation the 19th only passed Congress because lobbyists gave members money to vote for its passage. Or, is it only corruption when you don't like the legislation? The solution is there--get people to write their members to support the legislation they want. If the members vote against their wishes vote against them at election time (term limits). Most people cannot name their U. S. Representative much less identify how he voted on any legislation. Structural changes cannot substitute for public action.

To some extent, we can see that action today with an increased voter turnout (20 million) in 2020 and polarized electorate. Voters are very intense in their beliefs. However, we can obviously see the problems with intense voter interest.

The 19th took way more than 'a little drama' to bring about. And it was not the powerful who did it. It was grass roots.

Writing to your rep would work if enough people were well informed and actively engaged. But that's not the case. People are too busy living their lives to be well informed. Consequently, writing your rep does essentially nothing at all. The rep won't even read it. The staff will, and a form letter reply may be sent. That's it. There is virtually no communication between the representatives and the represented. You can't have a conversation with your representative unless you have big money. Go ahead. Try to call them up. You can't talk to them. Staff answers or you leave a message.

You can write a letter. Ask all the questions you want. They will not be answered. Make all the suggestions you wish. They will be ignored.

But if you have big money you can have lunch with your rep. Then you get their ear. You get a two-way conversation.

Representatives spend most of their time not doing the work of their job. Their primary function is to raise money. It's insane.

The American Anti-Corruption Act puts an end to that.

Politicians are counting on your antipathy.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

The 19th took way more than 'a little drama' to bring about. And it was not the powerful who did it. It was grass roots.

Writing to your rep would work if enough people were well informed and actively engaged. But that's not the case. People are too busy living their lives to be well informed. Consequently, writing your rep does essentially nothing at all. The rep won't even read it. The staff will, and a form letter reply may be sent. That's it. There is virtually no communication between the representatives and the represented. You can't have a conversation with your representative unless you have big money. Go ahead. Try to call them up. You can't talk to them. Staff answers or you leave a message.

You can write a letter. Ask all the questions you want. They will not be answered. Make all the suggestions you wish. They will be ignored.

But if you have big money you can have lunch with your rep. Then you get their ear. You get a two-way conversation.

Representatives spend most of their time not doing the work of their job. Their primary function is to raise money. It's insane.

If the public does not have time to be well informed or active, how is the

The American Anti-Corruption Act puts an end to that.

Politicians are counting on your antipathy.

The 19th amendment was somewhat grassroots (mostly elite women) but it took the powerful (Congress and the states) to propose and ratify the Amendment. People were no more informed or engaged when that happened, but public support was largely responsible for it happening (including media attention shaming officials for the hunger strike).

Go to the House or Senate. Tourists pass through there every day and have meetings with their elected officials. They don't have to have given them contributions or even have voted for them (they don't ask). You are right in that members aren't going to read all the letters from constituents urging their vote for or against something, but their staff keeps track and lets the member know if opinion is strongly favoring one view. They do get form letters but they look "real" if you have ever seen the signature machine that signs the member's name with ink.

What the staff spends most of their time doing is casework helping constituents with problems involving the bureaucracy--VA benefits, Social Security, disability...These don't anger anybody (unlike congressional votes) and make lifetime supporters of the member.

If the public does not have time to be well-informed or active, how is the Anti-Corruption Act going to change that? Why are members going to vote more in the interests of their constituents if their constituents don't even know how they vote? Except for spending their time raising money, nothing in the act changes any of the things you are complaining about.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

The 19th amendment was somewhat grassroots (mostly elite women) but it took the powerful (Congress and the states) to propose and ratify the Amendment. People were no more informed or engaged when that happened, but public support was largely responsible for it happening (including media attention shaming officials for the hunger strike).

Go to the House or Senate. Tourists pass through there every day and have meetings with their elected officials. They don't have to have given them contributions or even have voted for them (they don't ask). You are right in that members aren't going to read all the letters from constituents urging their vote for or against something, but their staff keeps track and lets the member know if opinion is strongly favoring one view. They do get form letters but they look "real" if you have ever seen the signature machine that signs the member's name with ink.

What the staff spends most of their time doing is casework helping constituents with problems involving the bureaucracy--VA benefits, Social Security, disability...These don't anger anybody (unlike congressional votes) and make lifetime supporters of the member.

If the public does not have time to be well-informed or active, how is the Anti-Corruption Act going to change that? Why are members going to vote more in the interests of their constituents if their constituents don't even know how they vote? Except for spending their time raising money, nothing in the act changes any of the things you are complaining about.

You raise some valid points. I wish I had all the answers. I believe the AACA will begin to address these issues, but more importantly it will transform Congress for the better. As you know from reading the proposed Act, the strategy is to pass the American Anti Corruption Act at the local level first, which is already happening. (How can it NOT pass? What candidate in their right mind would take a public position in favor of corruption?) The next step is to get it passed at the State level. Then it picks up momentum and popularity when the public realizes it is a non partisan issue for the good of the nation. Then you have pro AACA candidates running in both parties at the national level. Once enough of them are elected it sets the stage for passage at the national level.

Along the way Congress is transformed into a more responsive body that does nor spend the majority of their efforts raising money.

Oh, and btw. If you think the staff is spending most of their time helping constituents navigate the bureaucracy, think again. Their primary function is fund raising. The AACA puts an end to that. How that is enforced is unclear. This Act will not totally fix Congress. It is a welcome step in the right direction. More to be taken as time allows.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

Oh, and btw. If you think the staff is spending most of their time helping constituents navigate the bureaucracy, think again. Their primary function is fund raising. The AACA puts an end to that. How that is enforced is unclear. This Act will not totally fix Congress. It is a welcome step in the right direction. More to be taken as time allows.

Members, not staff, do most of the fundraising. None say they spend most of their time raising money. Staff do spend time on campaign work.

Based on studies done on Congress: (Members of Congress)
[h=2]Key Findings:[/h] [h=4]Members focus most of their time on legislative/policy work and on constituent services—not political activities.[/h]

• When in Washington, D.C., Members reported spending their time as follows:
  • 35% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
  • 17% on “Constituent Services Work”
  • 17% on “Political/Campaign Work”
  • 9% on “Press/Media Relations”
  • 9% with “Family/Friends”
  • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”
  • 6% on “Personal Time”
• When in their congressional districts, Members reported spending their time as follows:
  • 32% on “Constituent Services Work”
  • 18% on “Political/Campaign Work”
  • 14% on “Press/Media Relations”
  • 12% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
  • 9% with “Family/Friends”
  • 8% on “Personal Time”
  • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”

https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/life-in-congress/the-member-perspective

https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/campaign-work-house-employees

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Members, not staff, do most of the fundraising. None say they spend most of their time raising money. Staff do spend time on campaign work.

Based on studies done on Congress: (Members of Congress)
[h=2]Key Findings:[/h] [h=4]Members focus most of their time on legislative/policy work and on constituent services—not political activities.[/h]

• When in Washington, D.C., Members reported spending their time as follows:
  • 35% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
  • 17% on “Constituent Services Work”
  • 17% on “Political/Campaign Work”
  • 9% on “Press/Media Relations”
  • 9% with “Family/Friends”
  • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”
  • 6% on “Personal Time”
• When in their congressional districts, Members reported spending their time as follows:
  • 32% on “Constituent Services Work”
  • 18% on “Political/Campaign Work”
  • 14% on “Press/Media Relations”
  • 12% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
  • 9% with “Family/Friends”
  • 8% on “Personal Time”
  • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”

https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/life-in-congress/the-member-perspective

https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/campaign-work-house-employees

That's what they reported they spent their time on?

I don't believe them.

That's what they said about themselves. Humans are known to fool themselves.

About the time spent by staff. If staff can be said to be working on proposed bill with a lobbyist for a huge campaign donor who is dangling further donations, is the staffer really fund-raising?

 

[Nordberg]

Politicians that I know say they spend most of their time on the phone raising money. Once you get inside, you have a huge advantage in connections and money contacts. A company asked for a donation is talking to someone who has real power. They can do something. A person who is challenging may just be a waste of donations.
Incumbency has lots of advantages.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Politicians are supposed to represent us. But most Americans have a near-zero impact on public policy.

America's corrupt political system is a complex problem. The American Anti-Corruption Act is a comprehensive solution.

The American Anti-Corruption Act sets a standard for city, state, and federal laws that break big money's grip on politics. It will:

Stop political bribery by making it illegal for lobbyists to lobby a politician and donate to their campaign. You can lobby, or you can donate, but you can't do both.
End secret money so Americans know who is buying political power.
Fix our broken elections so the people, not the political establishment, are the ones in control.

Bring conservatives and progressives together to pass Anti-Corruption laws in cities and states across America.

In communities across America, RepresentUs members – conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between – are working together to pass local Anti-Corruption Acts. Member-led RepresentUs chapters are leading the fight to protect our communities from the corruption that plagues Congress. Every town, city, state, and county has a unique political makeup, so every Anti-Corruption Act is uniquely tailored to the needs of each community.

In 2018, RepresentUs members helped to pass 23 anti-corruption reforms across the nation—that's more than at any other time in history.

By 2022, we'll pass dozens more, in pursuit of a tipping point where 'a rush of state activity leads to a change in federal law.'

STUDY: Passing state laws leads to federal reform.

The biggest changes in America almost always start in the states. From Women's Suffrage to Interracial Marriage, states led the way to federal reform. And it still works today.

Every municipal and state Anti-Corruption Act creates common-sense ethics, conflict-of-interest, transparency, and campaign finance laws. State Acts create the opportunity for federal candidates from that state to campaign on the anti-corruption platform – accountable to their constituents, not special interests.

Candidates who win election on this platform have a built-in incentive to champion Anti-Corruption laws in Washington, D.C. (because that's what got them elected). Every state we win gets us one crucial step closer to passing the American Anti-Corruption Act in the federal government.

The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress

how about we reverse citizens united?

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

What was Citizens United about?
A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

What was the rationale for the ruling?
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.

How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?
The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.

In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

State capture is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests significantly influence a state's decision-making processes to their own advantage.

The term was first used by the World Bank, around the year 2000, to describe the situation in certain central Asian countries making the transition from Soviet communism. Specifically, it was applied to situations where small corrupt groups used their influence over government officials to appropriate government decision-making in order to strengthen their own economic positions; these groups' members would later become known as oligarchs.[1]

Allegations of state capture have led to protests against the government in Bulgaria in 2013–2014 and in 2020-2021 and Romania in 2017,[2] and have caused an ongoing controversy in South Africa beginning in 2016.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capture

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

state capture and fascism are not meaningfully different.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

corporations arent people.

money isn't speech.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

what you think about undoing citizens united, politalker?

I suspect you're an insincere reformer aka a lying cum guzzler.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nordberg,

Politicians that I know say they spend most of their time on the phone raising money. Once you get inside, you have a huge advantage in connections and money contacts. A company asked for a donation is talking to someone who has real power. They can do something. A person who is challenging may just be a waste of donations.
Incumbency has lots of advantages.

If they are not fund-raising directly, they are networking with those who can make donations. They call that 'working on legislation.'