I agreeto Idea Finance Elections Publicly, End the Electoral College, and Outlaw Lobbyists/PACs
Voting is Disabled

54 votes

I disagree

Rank952

Idea#666

This idea is active.
Making Government Operations More Open »

Finance Elections Publicly, End the Electoral College, and Outlaw Lobbyists/PACs

Why Is This Idea Important?: This is imperative if we are to have a legitimate government that is not influenced or ruled by corporate and other special interests. Until we take the money out of politics, be sure that we are not being represented, and our desires are not heeded, including this most likely futile effort of my own.

Fight for publicly financed, popular vote elections, and demand that your representatives get rid of lobbyists and PACs with their big money and influence, and begin representing your interests, not the interests of corporations. Our country has become an oligarchy thanks to the unbridled and unchecked power of corporate America.

Tags:

Submitted by anne_haggerty 3 years ago

Vote Activity Show

Similar Ideas Show

Comments (44)

  1. Robert David STEELE Vivas

    Voted for this, the absence of clustering is really beginning to kill this website. Your three ideas were brought up by others and all like ideas need to be clustered and refined, one of the reasons I prefer wiki ofrmat where ANYONE can create but only moderators can destroy (the difference between collective intelligence online and Wikipedia trolls).

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  2. Robert David STEELE Vivas

    Voted for this, the absence of clustering is really beginning to kill this website. Your three ideas were brought up by others and all like ideas need to be clustered and refined, one of the reasons I prefer wiki ofrmat where ANYONE can create but only moderators can destroy (the difference between collective intelligence online and Wikipedia trolls).

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  3. luvwith

    We must have public financing of campaigns...period!

    I know you think you don't want to pay for it...but you already ARE!

    Every no bid contract, every unpaid royalty on an oil lease, every blocked piece of legislation that is supported by the majority because some committee head is paid off or intimidated into inaction, every blocked investigation...YOU PAY AND PAY AND PAY!

    You pay hundreds of times what you would to finance campaigns in A CORRUPTION SURCHARGE!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  4. azaleahs

    I suspect that the big population states would get everything and small population states wouldn't get anything.

    The electoral vote provides representation for the minority as well as the majority. And it makes states with small populations more equal in comparison to large population states than they would be otherwise.

    As far as Financing of elections how about media financed. Provide media companies with incentives to provide electoral coverage for free.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  5. zauberer44

    I agree that campaigns should only be funded publicly. A way to implement this would be for private individuals to fund a campaign through a public intermediary, thus removing the personal attachment associated with making direct donations or courting high-profile contributors. The intermediary would know where the money came from but the candidates would not.

    Lobbying and PACS are a necessary evil. However their influence and role is drastically over-stated. There are many special-interest PACS that genuinely lobby on behalf of legitimate concerns and protect your interests when you cannot, but the sad truth is that they are often muted by the behemoth interests of industry lobby.

    I do NOT agree in dismantling the electoral college for a variety of reasons. The most fundamental is that it is outlined in our constitution by our fore-fathers and abandoning this concept is the same as abandoning their vision of representative government. We have nothing to gain by removing strong stop-gap measures that protect us from manipulation of the system.

    That said, you have to take the good with the bad. While what happened in 2000 was very inconvenient (heh), we fail to recognize the significance of this institution if the opposite were to occur - where the constituency votes for a tyrannical leader, only to be reversed by the electoral college.

    We have no one to blame except ourselves for 2000. It is not the fault of this institution or the structure of the system; but the fault of the American people and the rightful champion for not standing up to DEMAND that our voices be heard. We have to take responsibility for our own interest.

    Breaking the two-party system would go much further in protecting voters from manipulation than dismantling the Electoral College.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  6. jeanette.wallace

    This is a compound question, so it's hard to vote one way or another if you don't support all of them.

    I think that federal financing of elections is key because our election financing system is responsible for the undue influence of lobbyists/pacs/industries/etc.

    I have nothing against lobbying per se; what bothers me is that there are so many of them making sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much money from their clients. This is an indication of the extraordinarily high value that those who employ lobbyists place on their services. I think that outlawing them altogether is not wise.

    I'd also be for abolishing the electoral college.

    But I can't vote for this because of the way it is phrased.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  7. wkimbal2

    I add a max of 3 months of campaining. In the last election the top three were not there to do the jobs they were elected & payed to do.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  8. jeanette.wallace

    Yay, W Kimball! I agree. Why don't you submit this as a separate item? I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. It makes me angry that they're not there doing what we pay them to do.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  9. luvwith

    Wait, clarify why exactly you think that lobbying is a "neccesary" evil? If "the taxpayers" finance campaigns then then issues would neccesarily be decided in favor of "the taxpayers". Any lobbying would only serve to undermine that.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  10. tolynette

    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  11. zauberer44

    Luvwith, I find lobbying to be somewhat necessary because every individual cannot find the time nor should they be required to petition government on every individual issue of importance to them. Beccause we have a specialized economy and society we should be able to focus on our tasks at hand, but individuals should still take a very proactive stance in government. It is very inefficient and cumbersome to require everyone to do everything on every issue. Lobbying and political action committees CAN (though do not often) serve the better interest of the American people.

    Most larger nonprofits have a lobbying arm. I work for a nonprofit and our lobbying efforts have been instrumental in protecting the rights of specific subsets of the population in my state. Without this specialized effort, we would have to dedicated substantial agency time and resources to a function where we have no experience.

    So in this sense, through specialized efficiency it can give a voice to those who have none. The primary issue here is that those lobby firms that are articulate, well-funded, and effective often only represent corporate or industry interests and not the interests of the general taxpayer. Also, what is discussed, how it is presented, and who is petitioned - all items of public interest - are not shared openly for scrutiny by all interested citizens.

    By removing this layer, and relying only on taxpayer financing, we remove a layer of debate and also rely solely on the individual opinions of our representatives, which can often be confused uninformed or otherwise obscured - despite their best intentions. Open debate needs to be facilitated at national and local levels and not only in committee or behind the closed doors of Washington lunch meetings.

    Perhaps a better solution would be to limit lobby/PAC group representation to individual groups, 501c3 etc. and remove representation from groups which should not have shared individual rights (corporations); since they cannot be held accountable to capital or criminal punishment. A way to achieve that would be to provide a public forum of communication where lobby interests must report their actions and who they speak with but also accept input from anyone who wishes to voice opinion.

    I'm of firm belief that we, as citizens would take a more proactive role in managing this process if given to tools and ability to do so.

    Hope that answers your question.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  12. luvwith

    "Luvwith, I find lobbying to be somewhat necessary because every individual cannot find the time nor should they be required to petition government on every individual issue of importance to them."

    If the people pay for elections with tax money instead of greedy corporations and big money interests they won't have to petition the government because it will already have THEIR interests in mind. You're telling me you think the little guy who works so hard he doesn't have time to write a letter is gonna have time to hire a lobbyist? Who are you kidding?

    "Most larger nonprofits have a lobbying arm."

    If the government was not bought and paid for by big money the non-profits would need to spend their (taxpayer subsidized) money lobbying!

    "Hope that answers your question?"

    NO! That is seriously misguided. Any money involved in paying politicians to act a certain way is by definition corruption, yet we blindly accept it as though it were mana from on high. It isn't. It is the way it is done, but it certainly is not the way it needs to be done and unquestioningly it is not the best way for it to be done.

    I reject your argument that somehow if backroom deals weren't being made and suitcases full of cash changing hands that somehow debate would be limited. It's just not reality. Lobbying extinguishes debate it does not broaden it. It shelves bills and waters them down, not improves them.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  13. zauberer44

    Luvwith, that's a very good point but I believe I may have misrepresented what I was trying to convey.

    Of course controlling the flow of capital will immensely help to protect the interests of citizens in government. I wholeheartedly agree on the issue of publicly funding elections.

    The issue I'm trying to raise is that not all politicians are well-versed on the intricacies of every specific political topic. They must be educated on the specific stances of their constituencies by individuals (via direct communication) and groups who represent them (to reinforce those ideas). Otherwise, they are inclined to take the word of industry at face value. A politician cannot be faulted for siding with an industry interest when the case is presented - if and only if the opposing case is not made by invested constituent or taxpayer interest.

    I'm not implying that every individual must hire a lobbyist. Rather we do already - directly or indirectly. Through donations to political and nonpolitical 501c3's and other organizations, they are represented on one's behalf. By making donations to these organizations, we give our support to their causes or efforts. But the distinction here is their agendas do not always represent ours.

    My point is, that everyone should take an interested and proactive stance - but writing your congressman (even weekly) is not enough. In order to effectively manage an argumentative position in legislature - there must be a persistent and constant reinforcement. Otherwise, the position will be over-taken by interests which are more competitive and well-funded than ours. Writing them will only go so far to express our opinions because when they are walking into a session, they don't hear our letters. They hear the words of lobbyists standing right next to them.

    The most prime example is the opposition of TARP. I and many hundreds of thousands of others wrote in utter disgust to our representatives on several occasions. In fact the media reported a 200:1 influx against that legislation. All of a sudden, industry got involved, some favors were pulled, and pork was added to choke down the bill. Reps reported that the inflow of opposition had slowed and there was more of a balanced opinion. I find this a fabrication as the large majority wrote once expressing their distaste and felt that was enough. How could the game have changed if taxpayers had a true lobby to compete with those of private industry and obscured political agendas?

    One can obviously expect a prudent individual to act in his or her own self-interest. Our political representatives are no different. They can often justify easily inappropriate action in regards to constituencies because of the immediate perceived benefit of siding with the opinion that is most judiciously presented. Ideas such as , "this bad vote will get me corporate support in reelection so I'm a shoe in. I'll do better next time." Problem is, next time never comes. The strongest opinion has to be the opinion of the constituency and the only way to achieve that is to compete on a level playing field. Corporate interests don't have to write to congressmen.

    Again, regarding nonprofit lobbying, the issue comes down to educating politicians. Since our country's inception there has been a forum to petition governmnet. It is a constitutionally vested right, and while the current state of lobbying actions is drastically misappropriated to private corporate interests - it is still a necessary method of communication with constituencies and non-political interests. Without it, we would have no way of communicating our desires, needs, or intentions other than via individualized communication and the ballot box. We've all seen in California how well the ballot box can express it's opinion and make decisions.

    Remember, paying lobbyists a (REASONABLE) for the time spent making our cases is not the same as paying a politician. I see your point, that often lobbyists act as the intermediate catalyst to politicians securing the financing of corporate backers in exchange for political favors and that there is a huge incentive to cheat. but my argument is by no means that personal gifts and dubious and incendiary agreements foster debate. It is quite the opposite. I argue that rampant corruption aside, our government is in drastic need of personal representation and education on the part of constituents, for constituents and by constituents. But it is impossible to expect every individual to make a trek to Washington to lobby our government.

    Perhaps a more effective means to take the best components of petitioning face-to-face and to leave the worst incentives to buy votes would be to require all lobbyists to be paid by taxpayer funds - one way or another and use only small-denomination donations to cover agency operating expenses. Maybe that would mitigate the effects of large denominations influencing particular incentives - but that in no way would guarantee side-deals are not made. Furthermore, lobbyists would then be indebted to government and not taxpayers for their livelihood. The conundrum we have here is holding government accountable to our needs, while protecting our rights. We have little if no true representation in our own government. In my opinion the most effective way is to open the entire process to scrutiny and allow interested and prudent citizens to decide and take action.

    This is an archaic and bureaucratic institution. While our long-term goal may be to remove he necessity and effect of political action committees; this arduous process must start with a first step - most appropriately opening the system to accountability and debate. We won't get rid of lobbying overnight - and to articulate that as our primary agenda will undermine that effort as the political and private interests we oppose will find other (perhaps more effective) avenues to protecting control as the system changes.

    You are absolutely right that the corrupt system we have now shelves or dilutes extremely effective and pertinent resolutions. We must take steps to correct the cause of the disease, mitigate the symptoms, and allow the appropriate long-term solutions to formulate organically in the minds of American Citizens.

    Perhaps there is a place for the current lobbying implementation in the open forum of government, perhaps not - but the citizen's right to petition one's own government must be protected and further enabled to ensure we are represented in a just and practical manner.

    My goal is to return competent representation to the people and remove the invested corporate interests from our government. By your argument, I can tell you are in complete agreement with that agenda and I look forward to your continued contributions in the future!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  14. Robert Gabrielsky

    I find it really odd that anti-corporate progressives (and I'm one of them) would trust a government (which they acknowledge is dominated by big corporations) to fairly fund elections. This is yet another short cut or get rich scheme or back door to real democracy which avoids the essential and necessary issue that it is up to us to organize. We can't expect a corporate dominated government to do it for us or any fairness from it.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  15. zauberer44

    gabegabrielsky, I'm in agreement. Looking at history, the basis of government funding was "direct and apportioned" implying taxes were only levied for the most necessary of services. They would be avoided at all costs in favor of soliciting private voluntary funding for projects on behalf of the actors or dedicated parties. The distinction here, is that funds were typically raised voluntarily by government or other appointed officials with the specific purpose of passing those funds onto contractors, who bid openly.

    In these instances, each project iteration had to justify it's case to every individual in order to raise appropriate funding. In many instances it wasn't enough. I vaguely remember a specific instance from Ben Franklyn's autobiography in which they attempted to secure funds for cannon and other armaments to protect the Philadelphia settlement. Enough funds were not raised to purchase outright the number of new armaments they needed - so the actors in government were forced to be creative by purchasing used items from another colony, utilizing donated labor to build the fortifications, and exceptional human ingenuity to stretch the money that was raises as far as possible.

    The lesson here is not that under-funding will provide inadequate provision of good or services, as some would argue; but rather that we must all live within our appropriate means and make the best of the situation with the resources at hand.

    It could not be more true in your observation. Relying on others to provide for us will only serve to weaken our position.

    I stand behind public funding as an ideology for campaigning because it is as close a guarantee as we may have that a candidates legislative or executive interests are not dominated by financial contributors. I, as I've mentioned before, do not believe this should come from a mandatory tax - but rather a system similar to that we have now with voluntary donations but obscures the personalities associated with donations from the candidate. Perhaps through a third or fourth party, which is accountable to the people and not government.

    Not exactly sure how to accomplish that. Any ideas?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  16. Robert Gabrielsky

    Well, the old IWW organizer Big Bill Haywood said that the treasury of the revolution was in the pockets of the working class.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  17. jeanette.wallace

    I think we should spread the various government institutions around the country. Our capital was designated as Washington DC at least partly because it was halfway between the northernmost and southernmost states at that time, all of which were on the eastern seaboard. That's obviously not the case any longer.

    Let's leave the president in Washington, move the Senate to the midwest and the House to the west. Then we wouldn't have this insularity, this "inside the beltway" stuff, where congresspersons are sitting ducks for lobbyists on K Street.

    The Washington area is also one of the wealthiest in the country, what with everyone associated with government either needing or wanting to be there.

    Let's let some air in!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  18. zauberer44

    Jeanett Wallace, that is a very interesting idea. It would help to spur economic growth in those areas was well as the interests associated with those individual lobbying efforts moved to each area. It would also require corporate lobby groups to maintain more than just one centralized office and to coordinate and specialize. They would be expending more resources to achieve the same effect we have today.

    Expounding on that idea, we could move the chambers from city to city every two or more years, allowing each state the opportunity to enjoy the comforts of tertiary government industry (such as increased hotel occupancies, restaurants, air travels, investments in infrastructure, etc.) during a 100-150 year period. It will also require those working in government (and supporting industries) to really decide if they want to follow the caravan every two years or remain in the area.

    The primary X factor is convincing congress to do business out of an existing or low-budget center in each city and not building a new massive congressional hall every 2 years. Otherwise I can see sluggish economic factors once the exodus moves on - but those can be mitigated through planning.

    doubt it will fly, but intriguing nonetheless. Centralization is certainly the enemy of democracy.

    Anyone else see any problems with that?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  19. Robert Gabrielsky

    Centralization may not always be compatible with democracy, but on the other hand decentralization is no guarantee of democracy either as 100 years of states rights in the Jim Crow South or the machines of the urban north demonstrated. Ultimately, democracy has little to do with centralization or decentralization. It's another thing altogether.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  20. jeanette.wallace

    Oh, I don't think it will fly - I was just trying to think of a way to escape from the dominance of inside-the-beltway dominance of our government and even the ideas that get presented.

    And I do believe that in this case the location of all of the important functions of our government in a few square miles contributes to that.

    I think of Washington DC as a huge block of granite, impossible to penetrate unless you have gobs and gobs of money. Lobbying itself has become an industry with its own special interests and having "our representatives" just sitting there waiting for the lobbyists to attack is not a good situation.

    Thanks for the support, Zauberer44, and for your expansion on my idea!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  21. luvwith

    "Through donations to political and nonpolitical 501c3's and other organizations, they are represented on one's behalf. By making donations to these organizations, we give our support to

    their causes or efforts."

    Why don't we let the government fund government and let charites keep their money for doing charitable work?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  22. luvwith

    "My point is, that everyone should take an interested and proactive stance - but writing your congressman (even weekly) is not enough. In order to effectively manage an argumentative position in legislature - there must be a persistent and constant reinforcement. Otherwise, the position will be over-taken by interests which are more competitive and well-funded than ours. Writing them will only go so far to express our opinions because when they are walking into a session, they don't hear our letters. They hear the words of lobbyists standing right next to them."

    That is all the more reason to do away with paid lobbyists altogether. I don't want an expert paid to advocate a point of view. I want to find the best experts and hear what they really think.

    I'm an expert on 1920s clothing. If you pay me, I can convince you of things that are absolutely not true, because I know more than you. Is that what you think is the best way to educate our leaders?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  23. luvwith

    "The most prime example is the opposition of TARP. I and many hundreds of thousands of others wrote in utter disgust to our representatives on several occasions. In fact the media reported a 200:1 influx against that legislation. All of a sudden, industry got involved, some favors were pulled, and pork was added to choke down the bill. Reps reported that the inflow of opposition had slowed and there was more of a balanced opinion. I find this a fabrication as the large majority wrote once expressing their distaste and felt that was enough. How could the game have changed if taxpayers had a true lobby to compete with those of private industry and obscured political agendas?"

    So you think that by allow MORE lobbying you can somehow overcome the vast avalanche of money that the banks can bring to bear on an issue?

    Let me tell you something, if the politicians couldn't count on a gusher of big money to spend on commercials counteracting all the ill will the TARP caused there's no way in hell it would ever have passed. The TARP far from being an example of why lobbying is good is the exact opposite.

    So the taxpayers need a lobby to compete with corporations that have an inexhaustible resources to draw on? That's really your solution?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  24. luvwith

    "By removing this layer, and relying only on taxpayer financing, we remove a layer of debate and also rely solely on the individual opinions of our representatives, which can often be confused uninformed or otherwise obscured - despite their best intentions. Open debate needs to be facilitated at national and local levels and not only in committee or behind the closed doors of Washington lunch meetings."

    Yes individual politicians can be mistaken or misled as you say. OR they can be systematically intimidated, corrupted, "educated" by slick corporate campaigns that have market research on the right way to parse every phrase.

    I'll take the poor uneducated public servant who is not beholden to big money interests, but instead understands that they don't have to worry about being massively outspent in the next election (for going against those interests). Instead they have to worry about explaining what they actually did for/to THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  25. luvwith

    "How could the game have changed if taxpayers had a true lobby to compete with those of private industry and obscured political agendas?"

    By the way, I have seen what "taxpayer" associations do. Let me tell you, their interests and mine are not the same.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  26. luvwith

    "The strongest opinion has to be the opinion of the constituency and the only way to achieve that is to compete on a level playing field. Corporate interests don't have to write to congressmen."

    That means a ban on all paid lobbying. You think a corporation that can hire senator so and so's wife to go to a half hour meeting every six months and payer a half million dollars is going to be on a level playing field with the sierra club? Who are you kidding.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  27. luvwith

    "Again, regarding nonprofit lobbying, the issue comes down to educating politicians."

    The education needs to be for the corporations as well, and it needs to be this...you are allowed to exist for the public good, the public is not here for YOUR GOOD. When your business practices are no longer in the public interest you need to change or close up shop. There is no "right" in this country to make profits at the expense of society.

    In this country it's government of the people, for the people and by the people. Corporate profits are not a right laid out in the consitution. They are allowed to exist because the people of this country created laws alowing corporations to exist. Laws have changed in the past and they will change in the future, and if corporate america doesn't want the american people to steam roll them right out of existence they need to start being a benefit and not a downfall of the rest of society.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  28. luvwith

    "Since our country's inception there has been a forum to petition governmnet. It is a constitutionally vested right,

    show me where in the constitution is says "congress shall make no laws stopping corporations from hiring family members of Congress." Give me a break.

    "and while the current state of lobbying actions is drastically misappropriated to private corporate interests - it is still a necessary method of communication with constituencies and non-political interests."

    Let me tell you, your congressman doesn't give a damn what you think when they can raise all the money they need to get elected from a few big donors. You know when he cares about you? when your interests line up with those of his donors...then he can milk the whole man of the people routine. But it's a joke.

    "Without it, we would have no way of communicating our desires, needs, or intentions other than via individualized communication and the ballot box."

    Yes the ballot box. It's amazing how elections can turn out when all the candidate have an equal footing financially and actually are forced to make the more persuasive argument for their position. Gee, the decisions are much more in favor of those doing the voting.

    "We've all seen in California how well the ballot box can express it's opinion and make decisions."

    And the problem with voting in California (where I live by the way, so I know what I'm talking about) YOU GUESSED IT! Lopsided money advantage for corporate interests.

    Imagine how much better the voting results would be for ballot measures if there was an equal time requirement. If there wasn't tens of millions in pharmaceutical and health insurance funded ads lying to people 50 times a day on every show on TV about how covering people without health insurance was somehow going to lead to government taking away your "good" health insurance and replacing it with a huge government bureaucracy and we'll all have to wait in line for 5 days to see a doctor.

    It was a complete lie. No one had any intention of stopping private insurance. They wanted to offer an alternative...which would have forced private insurance to compete and would have cut into the 50% profits they make year in and year out.

    An the opposition ads that pointed out that the ads were misleading? 4am on turner classic movies while they were showing musicals from the 40s...if you were lucky enough to see one at all.

    That's a great system you're advocating for.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  29. luvwith

    "Perhaps a more effective means to take the best components of petitioning face-to-face and to leave the worst incentives to buy votes would be to require all lobbyists to be paid by taxpayer funds - "

    Great. But then they aren't lobbyists anymore, they are experts paid by the govermnet to give an expert opinion.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  30. luvwith

    "We have little if no true representation in our own government. In my opinion the most effective way is to open the entire process to scrutiny and allow interested and prudent citizens to decide and take action."

    When someone is getting raped in front of you, first you stop the rapist...THEN you find out what actions the victim wants to take. We are geting raped by corporations, and your suggesting we take more initiative and be more interested and prudent. Well, yeah that all sounds great...but can you please get these rapists and plunderers off my back and THEN we can talk about civic engagement?

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  31. luvwith

    "This is an archaic and bureaucratic institution. While our long-term goal may be to remove he necessity and effect of political action committees; this arduous process must start with a first step - most appropriately opening the system to accountability and debate."

    That's fine. You are living in the world we inhabit and you are trying to make it better...a little bit. I am looking at the world and saying to myself "is the really the way it needs to be at all?" If I were to set up a society from scratch is this what I would want?

    So why sugar coat it? Why make it better...more tolerable.

    Let me tell you, if you advocate for the thing you are advocing you'll get something somewhere in the middle. The right has no trouble understanding that. They take the most extreeme position possible...and then settle for what they wanted all along.

    If you really want to limit the amount of money corporations can donate to a campaign...then advocate for them to be cut out completely from the decision making process...and settle for something less. If you want to have a more equal playing field for the poor and for the labor movement...advocate for a COMPLETE END TO LOBBYING. And settle for something in the middle.

    The left is too meek. too mainstream. Not radical. It doesn't make wave. It likes to be liked. It never succeeds in any meaningful reform that isn't just shoved down the throat of the right.

    The right does not compromise. The right is not interested in bi-partisanship. You know when they start talking about being bipartisan? When they sense they are about to get stiff-armed and steam rolled. Then they start acting bi-partisan and not a minute before.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  32. luvwith

    "Perhaps there is a place for the current lobbying implementation in the open forum of government, perhaps not - but the citizen's right to petition one's own government must be protected and further enabled to ensure we are represented in a just and practical manner."

    The right to own one's government doesn't mean one share for you and 5,000 shares for the head of Goldmann Sachs. That's not ownership. That's you getting steamrolled.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  33. luvwith

    "My goal is to return competent representation to the people and remove the invested corporate interests from our government. By your argument, I can tell you are in complete agreement with that agenda and I look forward to your continued contributions in the future!"

    I appreciate the time and thought you put into a well written post. But I would urge you to a be a bit more radical in your views, The right wing in this country is super radical. If we are moderate in the face of that radicalism we get pushed right as a country and we wind up where we have been for the last 8 tears.

    We need forceful, in your face arguments against right wing extreemism. The more radical they get the more radical we need to get. They will not compromise, but they ARE cowards and they will stuff their bad ideas if they are gonna hit real forceful, competent opposition. Be the opposition.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  34. luvwith

    "I find it really odd that anti-corporate progressives (and I'm one of them) would trust a government (which they acknowledge is dominated by big corporations) to fairly fund elections."

    I don't expect it at all. I think it's highly unlikely...unless it's absolutely DEMANDED by 90% of the population. That is why I DEMAND IT! And that is why I am encouraging other to demand it as well.

    Look, I engage in beating up politicians as often as the next guy. But really, you don't get into politics because of the money. There are more lucretive things that capable people could do. Most politicians actually start out wanting to do the right things, but are systematically forced to compromise their integrity in exchance for contributions in the next election cycle or be voted from office. Some of them do have ethics and try do the best they can.

    Some of those are in "safe" districts and don't really need to worry about re-election, but many are voted out of office for going against powerful interests.

    Unfortunately, it is the moderates in swing states that are the most vulnerable to the influence of money in an election. Itis also the moderates in competitive states who are usually looked to to forge compromise between the two party bases.

    So what you have is a situation where the very people who you count on the make the compromises ALWAYS are concious of their vulnerability to big money interests.

    "This is yet another short cut or get rich scheme or back door to real democracy which avoids the essential and necessary issue that it is up to us to organize. We can't expect a corporate dominated government to do it for us or any fairness from it."

    Any progressive gain accomplished by organization alone, and not SYSTEMATIC change, is temporary at best. A well funded corporate interest will always be ready to work behind the scenes to undo their work the minute the "organized" force is dispersed or has moved on to the next issue.

    Look at how many progressive causes were undone by Bush in his very first year.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  35. luvwith

    zauberer

    "Looking at history, the basis of government funding was "direct and apportioned" implying taxes were only levied for the most necessary of services. They would be avoided at all costs in favor of soliciting private voluntary funding for projects on behalf of the actors or dedicated parties. The distinction here, is that funds were typically raised voluntarily by government or other appointed officials with the specific purpose of passing those funds onto contractors, who bid openly."

    I'm all for open bidding. But comparing social spending to an era where slaves were the norm, child labor was an accepted practice, sweatshops and starvation were commonplace might be off the mark for todays reality.

    That reality is that if you are looking for a cheap government that doesn't tax very much and spends little on social programs you wind up with places like Chad and Bolivia, and where there are social programs and higher taxes you find sweden and denmark and for Americas most prosperous years, the 40s to the 80s, you had America.

    In these instances, each project iteration had to justify it's case to every individual in order to raise appropriate funding. In many instances it wasn't enough. I vaguely remember a specific instance from Ben Franklyn's autobiography in which they attempted to secure funds for cannon and other armaments to protect the Philadelphia settlement. Enough funds were not raised to purchase outright the number of new armaments they needed - so the actors in government were forced to be creative by purchasing used items from another colony, utilizing donated labor to build the fortifications, and exceptional human ingenuity to stretch the money that was raises as far as possible.

    Donated labor? You mean slaves? Yes, when natural resources in this country were without limit, and labor was cheap or free you could compel starving people to build your fortifications in exchange for not starving to death...and sure you could parlay that american "enginiuity" into really stretching that money as far as possible.

    Now if you're suggesting that we go back to treating our laborers like we did in the 1700s and letting people starve to death because they aren't willing to work for you for free...well, you can go to hell.

    "The lesson here is not that under-funding will provide inadequate provision of good or services, as some would argue; but rather that we must all live within our appropriate means and make the best of the situation with the resources at hand."

    Let me guess...a Reagan democrat? Government isn't the solution it's the problem? Right!

    Let's not pay for a levey we know is going to fail, let's pay for billions in cleanup when it does.

    Let's not pay for healthcare for all because it's too expensive. Let's wait until they're in the emergency room and wind up being wards of the state for some obcure virus that could have need treated with a doctors visit.

    Let's not pay for illegal aliens to go to school. Let's let 2 million children wander the streets all day while their parents work so we can fill our jails and hospitals with uneducated, unemployable poeple at 50 times the cost of an education.

    Let's not pay for college, even though college graduates pay for their schooling many times over with the increased earnings they pay taxes on.

    Whenever I hear someone talking about the government "living withing it's means" I look for my wallet. The things government does in the way of social spending keep us from spending MORE.

    Penny wise, pound follish.

    "I've mentioned before, do not believe this should come from a mandatory tax - but rather a system similar to that we have now

    You mean the way we have funded the TARP and the tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq war? The fact is we don't need a specific election tax. We just need to make room for in the budget. And when we stop writing budgets that suck up to corporate interests, like Halliburton and Blackwater, there will plenty of room in the budget to cover it.

    "with voluntary donations but obscures the personalities associated with donations from the candidate. Perhaps through a third or fourth party, which is accountable to the people and not government.

    "Not exactly sure how to accomplish that. Any ideas?

    Yes. Anyone who passes a certain threshold, say 10% support, and is a viable candidate gets equal funding with all the other candidates. Period. How well you spend your money and how good your ideas are is how persuesive you will be.

    Mandatory free airtime...equal airtime for every candidate...provided for free, on television and radio...in addition to that which could be purchased by the publicaly financed campaign fund.

    A middle ground could be just a strict, hard and fast limit on how much money you could raise. Once you've hit the limit, there's no incentive left for you to suck up to big money interests.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  36. luvwith

    "Well, the old IWW organizer Big Bill Haywood said that the treasury of the revolution was in the pockets of the working class.

    Yes...but Reagan picked our pockets.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  37. jeanette.wallace

    When lobbying and lobbyists were challenged, the Supreme Court ruled that they were legal under the first amendment right of free speech. "Speech" now seems to mean "money." I don't understand that ruling. What do you think the chances are that Congress will pass a law outlawing payment to a third party to exercise one's (or a group's) rights to free speech? I'd say nil.

    And even if they did, it wouldn't take long for people to 1) find a way around it and 2) challenge it in the Supreme Court.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  38. Robert Gabrielsky

    "Any progressive gain accomplished by organization alone, and not SYSTEMATIC change, is temporary at best. A well funded corporate interest will always be ready to work behind the scenes to undo their work the minute the "organized" force is dispersed or has moved on to the next issue."

    Progressive sentiment is extremely widespread in the United States and for the most part always has been. Majority opinion stands pretty staunchly against current American military policy. According to most polls 60% of the unorganized workers in the nation would join a union if the opportunity were available to them. More than 60% of the population are for single payer health care. A substantial number are for living wage legislation. One could go on and on.

    Yet public policy and even public policy discussions don't refect any of this. Why? We despite such widespread progressive sentiment, it remains inchoate and largely unorganized. The most obvious example is that the United States remains the only industrialized democracy in the world where the labor movement doesn't have its own political party. Only 10% of the work force is organized in contrast to 60 or 70% of the work force in other industrialized democracies. Those progressive institutions which are organized, such as Progressive Democrats of America, remain weak and ineffectual. Of course, systemic change is essential, but such systemic change will never come about without effective and comprehensive organization at the base. What is more, in the absence of such and organized base to hold politicians and public institutions accountable even such systemic reforms easily unravel and/or turn into their opposite.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  39. luvwith

    Janette: You are right...BUT if we convince 90% of the American people...even the wingnut, knuckle dragging right wing kooks that it is in THEIR interests to DEMAND change...then congress will be forced to do it. It is our job to tirelessly advocate for that most important change.

    I think you also assume that there are not politicians who would JUMP at the chance to vote their conscience and not be under the heel of corporate interests.

    We have a job to do. We must convince progressives and conservatives alike that no progressive change will happen - or be permanent - until corporate dominance of politics is dealt with. We must convince them that this is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THE COUNTRY. IT IS!!!

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  40. Robert Gabrielsky

    The way to take on American corporatism is not to expect the American corporatist state to do anything about it but rather to organize a serious and coordinated anticorporatist opposition such as a mass labor party.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  41. tolynette

    Does anybody have a CLUE about WHO actually runs America? It's almost as clear as the nose on your face and as easy as doing a little digging on the Net. Of course once you start finding stuff, you'll have a difficult time stopping... and a difficult time sleeping.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  42. luvwith

    "gabegabrielsky 9 minutes ago

    The way to take on American corporatism is not to expect the American corporatist state to do anything about it but rather to organize a serious and coordinated anticorporatist opposition such as a mass labor party."

    That sounds great. But you better pray you pass instant runoff elections...

    http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3306-4049

    ...before you do it or you will be splitting the progressive vote and giving the republicans their only hope of regaining power anytime in the next 40 years.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  43. zauberer44

    Wow, what wonderful comments. I don't have time to respond to everything now - but let me just say that I am extremely excited to see this level of interest and thought taking place on an open government forum.

    I'd like to make two particular comments now, and save the rest for later. The first one is regarding my comment on the California legislature. My implied reasoning here is that when given the opportunity, The People will always vote in favor of a fantasy land. They will unanimously vote for spending initiatives that have some perceived direct personal benefit to them at the exact same time they vote in favor of someone else paying for it. This is the prime reason California is in such dire straights. Citizens are over-taxed as it is and spending is apportioned in such strict and unmodifiable means that there is little the management can do but try to levy taxes, and cut programs. You are completely right that we should take proactive measures to protect the interests of our tax dollars. That is no more evident than in California, where the emergency rooms and streets are filled with "illegals" living off the social service system that we refuse to allow them to pay into.

    The problem is not multi-million dollar ad campaigns created to confuse voters, which are often on topics that are only of narrow political interest in protecting a specific traditional social paradigm (futile efforts which cannot impede real broad social progress forever). The problem is that the California constitution gives voters the responsibility of the day-to-day management of its own government but does not enable them to fully comprehend and make responsible and educated decisions. It's a viscous and problematic cycle of which powerful and arguably evil corporate interests are only a minor faction; gaming an already broken and (obviously) misaligned system. California is a prime example of why our fore-fathers chose a representative democracy over a direct one.

    My second point is regarding indentured or forced servitude. Slavery is alive and well in the twenty-first century. Arguably more prevalent even in our rich nation than it was in the eighteenth century. The primary difference of course being that it is no longer strictly applied to racial lines, but socio-economic ones. Fact is, labor is as relatively inexpensive as it has ever been, to those who can afford it. Look at the huge gap between price inflation and wage arbitration over the current period (I'd start in the mid seventies). Then compare that to the real perceived change in the income gap between the top earners and the bottom ones.

    Ideas such as "Reaganomics," welfare, and other social ideologies and programs typically serve as an excuse to further undermine the personal liberties of the poor by forcing them into government intervention - despite being heralded as otherwise.

    Freedom is a fickle thing which requires constant forbearance and vigilance. The people as a whole in this country are by no means free for many reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say that the barrier to breaking into "the middle-class", as we call it; is probably the hard-line between indentured servitude to anther's power and will and having the experiential and financial fortitude to act (at least partially) in one's own self interest or voluntarily on behalf of others.

    Additionally, I agree that the massive difference between real socio-political (labour, health care, environment, etc.) organization in this country and most other industrialized nations is frightening at best.

    If I may share a story - I lived in Munich for a year. During my time there, the SW//M, the primary municipal trade union, organized three times in defense of workers rights. On each occasion city services shut down for a period from hours to days, and in each instance a compromise was agreed to which was fair to all parties.

    Not championed by corrupt union leaders, not championed by corporate trade unions; but engaged by ordinary workers who were not afraid to make their voices heard. The objectives were well defined, the debate was open to the public, and all reasonable points were articulated and shared through media outlets. That, is a far cry from the runaway socialism the right fears in this country and shows precisely the lessons the German people learned after blindly handing power to a leadership regime and expecting their representatives to make decisions for them.

    3 years ago
    0
    0
  44. jeanette.wallace

    I agree that it's great to see such an exchange of ideas.

    Do you (anyone) think that we can put some of them to work? It would be terrific if we could develop a process to start the ball rolling. I find that I feel less frustrated when I'm DOING something - but not without a planned process.

    3 years ago
    0
    0