|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 10, 2012 23:31:26 GMT -5
For me, this whole thing begins and ends with one idea: that the influence of money should be removed from politics. On the surface, that looks to mean that all of our politicians are corrupt. I don't believe that that is the case, however, money plays such a role in our electoral process that even the most moral, honest, and ethical politician can be swayed by it.
There are two ways (that I can immediately think of) that money influences our elected officials. The first is the obvious quid pro quo, which is illegal but is often disguised as other things. The second (and probably most common) is the aspect of fear that arises.
Let's take a quick look at quid pro quo influence. A candidate runs for office (typically with the backing of a party). Right off the bat, they are beholden to their party (and its donors), since in this two-party system it is next to impossible to be elected as a third-party or outside of a party (it happens, but not often). So in exchange for the support of their party, both politically and monetarily, they necessarily compromise their own ideas in order to be closer to the party line. Next are the private donors, who contribute to a campaign and expect something in return. We keep funding you, you keep giving us what we want. Sometimes this crosses the line, and an elected official receives direct compensation for their actions. I would like to hope that the only times that this has ever happened we've known about, but I fear that it's more common than we know.
The real danger, however, is the fear angle. If you don't do things that we like, we're going to spend billions to get rid of you. This is the one that can hit any politician, regardless of their integrity. If you get on someone's bad side, they can spend as much money as they'd like making you look horrible to all voters. To the best of my knowledge, none of it even needs to be true, it just needs to be unchallenged by a reach as broad as the accusers. (To ponder: Does anyone know of any kind of truth-in-advertising laws relating to political campaigns? Beyond the obvious slander/libel laws -- which are pretty weak when it comes to public figures anyway. As they probably should be.)
So, we have a system that is controlled, one way or another, by moneyed interests. It doesn't matter your profession, no one wants to be fired. Everyone wants to keep their job until they determine that it's time to move on. Politicians are no different. We need to make it easier and less expensive to mount a campaign. It shouldn't be impossible for someone to challenge an incumbent, and the incumbent shouldn't be constantly trying to hold on to their job.
There are many things that we can list that will help to fix this problem. For me, that's the entirety of what this should be about. This is the core of the problem. When we fix the dysfunction of the government (specifically Congress), we the people can get anything else that we want.
I invite everyone to list grievances in this thread that fall under this header. Some things might be Citizens United v FEC, public financing of elections, stronger ethical oversight, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 11, 2012 13:11:59 GMT -5
I think it IMPERATIVE that we take the complexities of this issue and break them up into their simplest parts. For me there are two things we can almost all, I mean 80%+, agree on. 1. Ban corporate political contributions to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties. We will have to discuss PAC and Super PACs, separately, as there is a quagmire of free speech and rights to assemble issues. If you are unaware of these please, please, please read "The Hard Truths about Citizen's United" in Salon... www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/ Also, conservatives like the Shareholder's Rights aspect. If you hold stock in a company, it is not right that they support a candidate you don't. 2. Stop the outrageous, now legal, extortion and bribery of elected officials. There are hair raising stories about having to make contributions to the reelection campaigns of legislators before they will even listen to a constituent/lobbyist. And also large contributions being made in anticipation of the legislator voting the "right" way. How, we the People, allow this to be—is beyond me. While I personally have no problem with Congress limiting the amounts PACs can spend, apparently the Supreme Court does. I do not believe, that there is sufficient support in the country to pass an amendment to the constitution—today, which is my standard for a "nail" for the CC2, but it would make a dandy "hammer (You can read about this under the topic, Strategic Options). By way of proof, in the last election, the republicans took the house, therefore, roughly speaking half the states were red, not the necessary 75% blue. My preferred immediate solution for corporate speech is to pass the Super PAC Act as written by the Sunlight Foundation calling for complete, immediate, and total transparency of PAC money. I believe that has enough support to be a "nail", as it polls well north of 75% on aGREATER.US, which gives equal weight to the opinions of conservatives, progressives, and independents (albeit it sometimes skews a tad high, as the site attracts reformers.) The primary reason the CC2 has not gotten press in mainstream media (MSM) is that Corporate Personhood, and Restricting Corporate Free Speech is a shot across the bow to the media. Here's an example... Say you're a baker, and a customer comes into your aromatic shop and asks to put up a poster in your window that says "Don't Eat Wheat." Then goes on to ask if you would donate several dozen pastries so the protestors outside your shop shouldn't be hungry. How would you feel? Banning Corporate Personhood to the media, is what "Don't Eat Wheat" is to the baker. This one is tilting at windmills, at least in 2012.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2012 14:10:25 GMT -5
This data is a few years old but bears on our deliberations.
Public election financing runs across every demographic group. A national survey conducted for Public Campaign by The Mellman Group found this level of support among the following demographic groups:
Democrats 76% Independents 71% Republicans 59% Conservative Republicans 51%
It is already law in four states: Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
There is STRONG support for this type of reform of elections; it just needs a push.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 16, 2012 16:54:06 GMT -5
I like the "Whereas" introduction to any given grievance.
For Example:
Whereas the term "corporate person" is a useful fiction, perhaps necessary, to make it possible for a corporation to conduct certain legal and administrative functions, like entering into a contract, filing a lawsuit, opening a bank account, etc., but since the corporation is a piece of paper created by state legislators, it takes a skewed interpretation to assert that the corporation has a RIGHT to influence our elections by using corporate money to fund campaigns, PACS, or advertising.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 16, 2012 17:37:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 16:08:18 GMT -5
I like the money out of the election process as well. Elections should be clean of powerful money interests, and transparent to show where money comes from. One things that strikes me in the whole "corporations are people" argument, is that people do not have, from a legal stand point, "limited liability" that corporations benefit from. Do corporations serve jail time? Can they be arrested? The fact of the matter is that corporations are not people, and if they are, then all the shareholders should be at fault for any corporate wrong doing. That's a sucky reality, but you didn't have to "buy their stock" without them hiding some truth from you.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Duncanson on Jun 18, 2012 21:37:26 GMT -5
In reading the Salon article, I see that many non-profit organizations which truly represent the interests of their members would be denied the right to speak on behalf of those members if most of the proposed changes to corporate person-hood were put into effect.
I'm thinking that we need a different name (instead of "corporation") for groups that merely aggregate the resources or willing contributors and speak on behalf of their members. Those groups which actually represent the interests of their members (the members being natural persons) should receive some constitutional protections - such as freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. For-profit businesses, however, should be denied all such rights and exist at the whim of government (assuming government actually represents the people).
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 19, 2012 0:10:58 GMT -5
I think we must outlaw all private money in political campaigns. No corporate funds, No Pacs (super or otherwise), No union funds, No billionaire sugar daddy funds!! Voters can decide our votes by watching debates, reading or watching interviews, or by attending town hall speeches...No corporate, religious, or union propaganda and No paid TV lies! All lobbyists should be out of jobs and lawmakers must decide their support for legislation by debate, by research, by public hearings, or by public input. It should not be differentiated according to for-profit or non- profit...all campaign funds must be public and All lobbying illegal. Thanks, KJ Lowry. TX-12
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 19, 2012 5:40:54 GMT -5
I have no problem with publicly funded elections, but they must be lavishly funded. Even if the Fed has to print money every two years to do so. I for one want to see every candidate misstep and see how they come out of it. I want to know their biases. Their character. And if all we get is a once over lightly on every candidate, we won't get that. Also, media hates publicly funded elections, and won't give it any air time to speak of. They will lose gigantic ad revenues. And advertising creates jobs in America. How to write this is tricky.
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jun 19, 2012 12:55:59 GMT -5
jondenn - I also like seeing all sides of a candidate, but do not believe that the obscene amounts of money spent on media advertising helps us to do that. Between UTube, the cable news, debates, rallies, and real journalism, we ought to be able to see the truth of a candidate. The trouble with the big money campaigns is that it is all spent on blanketing the media with dramatically enacted propaganda and FOR TOO MANY voters - that is all they see before choosing their vote. I do not believe that lavish funding is necessary or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 20, 2012 22:42:50 GMT -5
I agree with KJ... the first candidate to run with absolutely no money, just volunteers and donations of talent, will get my vote. Hell, I'd like to do it myself, but I work full-time.
|
|
|
Post by monamitchell on Jun 29, 2012 10:28:54 GMT -5
The legal basis for their use of corporate money in politics is "Corporate Personhood" - if we get that revoked all their legal arguments to contribute to campaigns go out the window. That's why it's been pushed so hard bu Move to Amend and Bernie Sanders. It's the one point almost everyone agrees upon. This is the point I've promised everyone to fight for in the final 10.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 29, 2012 13:15:50 GMT -5
Hi Mona, If Corporate Personhood was banned, then our meeting in Philly with the CC2 would likely be illegal, Michael Pollok and the board members could be arrested, as CC2 is a corporation and they're now not allowed speech if it costs money. The NAACP may have been blocked from participating in the civil rights movement, because they too are a corporation, and even money spent on assembly could be deemed speech. Move to Amend and Bernie Sanders Bill has a loophole for nonprofits. But Citizen's United IS a nonprofit. Therefore virtually no reformers but neo-progressives support MTA and most pragmatic progressives don't either. If you break apart what corporate speech is we can get everything the 99 needs, but not everything we want this year. Maybe we can. Anyone coming to CC2 really must read the Salon (that progressive bastion) article The Hard Truth about Citizens' United www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/I think we can all agree to Ban Corporate Political Expenditures to and for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties. But banning Super PAC money is just not achievable yet, as there may be a supermajority against it, but nowhere near a supermajority on the solution, EXCEPT to make all PAC money totally transparent with passage of the Disclose Act 2012. I suppose we could throw McCain Feingold into a Constitutional Amendment with other more important issues like the one above, but I've not read any commentary on the problems with that approach. If there are attorneys, policy wonks, or constitutional scholars on the forum who think I'm wrong, please enlighten me. I won't take it personally. I just want doable consensus reform. Jon
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 29, 2012 22:20:36 GMT -5
I'm not an attorney, policy wonk, or constitutional scholar, but here's my two cents on "corporate personhood" anyway. First things first; there is an upside to the Citizens United decision. With unlimited campaign contributions, the top candidates are very nearly operating as if they didn't need money at all, which allows more people to stay on the ballot longer. In the past, the first handful of states who held primaries pretty much determined the candidate. This year we saw a handful of candidates hang on long after they traditionally would have left the race, giving more people an opportunity to voice their opinion on who they wanted to win. Having real choice on a ballot is never a bad thing. Naturally, this only applies to the top candidates, and isn't really open ballot access, but it IS a positive, nonetheless. We all know the downsides to this system, so we'll skip those. As far as "Corporate Personhood" goes, Jon mentions that taking that away would cause many "good" corporations to be unable to function. He's right and he's wrong. Let's say that Corporate Personhood was completely revoked; corporations are NOT people, and they have no rights. Corporations have no right to assemble or to free speech. The people who make up those corporations (and indeed, this is the reasoning used in Citizens United) still have those rights. So the corporation could still function, as a group of people, but it's possible that any money collected would be considered personal income, subject to taxation, and any expenditures would be personal expenditures. It wouldn't make it impossible to function, but it would make it very difficult. However, this scenario assumes an absolute solution: that corporations have no rights. I don't believe that to be the case. Corporations are convenient legal entities, and that's where the crux of this whole thing lies. A corporation allows a fluid group of people to function as a whole and centralize the tedium of daily operational matters. In order to function, that legal entity must have certain rights and privileges. A corporation must be able to collect and spend money, it must be able to make decisions for and independently of its individual members (in the scope of corporate operations), it must be able to have commercial speech. And here's where it gets interesting. The people of the corporation have a right to free political speech. Each individual can say whatever he or she wants about any political subject, and is free from reprisal. It can even be a bald-faced lie, as long as it's not slander (and even then, the scope of what constitutes slanderous or libelous speech is very, very narrow when it comes to politicians). Now, corporations themselves have a right to commercial speech. They can advertise their products or services. But they can't lie. We already recognize a limit to corporate speech with truth-in-advertising laws. The tricky part of this whole thing is that we're not talking about corporations like WalMart or McDonald's. We're talking about groups of people who have a singular message getting together and pooling their resources. Each individual member is allowed to donate up to $2,500 to any candidate they wish per election. The same is true for the corporation as a whole. However, each member of the corporation is free to spend as much as he would like on tangential efforts to get their candidate elected. If an individual citizen would like to purchase airtime on a cable station and run an ad supporting a candidate or denouncing another, they are completely free to do so. So why is it that when many people pool their resources, they are suddenly unable to do the same? It would be easy to say "Well, running an ad or having a rally that supports a candidate is implicitly a donation to their campaign, and should be subject to the same limits as direct donations are." However, what if someone runs an ad AGAINST a candidate, without specifying someone to support instead? Remember that anyone can donate to as many campaigns as they would like, so which campaign are they donating to in this situation? I think that we need to redefine the entire conversation before we can really get to where we want to be. It's wrong that a handful of people (with deep pockets) can dominate electoral discourse. It's wrong that the American people have so little choice in our elections, and that the vast majority of us only receive the information that the previously mentioned deep-pocketed handful wants us to receive. At the same time, it's perfectly right that people can band together, pool their resources, and make their voices heard. It's right that any group of people is restricted only by their aptitude. So let's figure out how to reconcile the two.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 30, 2012 5:17:20 GMT -5
Hey Nathan, you sound like a policy wonk to me ;o))
I think I have the solution:
1. Ban Corporate Political Expenditures to or for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties.
So, no lobbying with gifts or money. No donations to reelection campaigns. No back room deciding all the money will go to X candidate. No swiftboating.
2. Corporate issue advertising would be totally transparent.
If Marriott wants to advertise for a lenient immigration policy (they need entry level workers and Americans are not fond of cleaning toilets and washing dishes) they can do that. If the Unions want to advertise for a more stringent immigration policy to keep wages high they can do that. But both have to brand their ad and post all contributors to it online. I have no problem, in fact, I enjoy hearing all sides of the issue. Nothing seems black and white anymore, just varying shades of grey.
But mention a candidate/elected official/party—go to jail. Actually the outlet might be liable for running the ad, too.
3. Limit personal political expenditures.
But they are now. But I would extend that to the same restrictions above, issue advertising limited mention of candidate/elected official/party. So, a person could swiftboat but could only spend $2500 total doing it. And individuals could spontaneously join together in social networks to do so. But not as a corporation. Is $2500 the correct amount? I don't know. As a centrist I don't have a strong opinion either way. I like a lot of what I hear from various proposals. The one thing about $2500 is with a bundler, the money can grow large pretty fast. On the other hand I want elections lavishly funded. And if you need any proof why, look at us, and our failed election. If it were me, I think I'd just print money to fund elections. Having a fiat currency has its benefits.
This work for you?
Jon
|
|