Counteracting the influence of money in politics

[Hattushilish]

Somewhere along the line here in the United States we decided that money = speech, and our Supreme Court recently ruled that what is essentially bribery is a protected form of free speech.

People on the left and the right blasted the ruling, but it looks like it's here to stay, so I thought I'd pass along a creative proposal I read about a long time ago to counteract the effect.

In several countries, Australia to name one example, voting is mandatory and those who don't vote are subject to fines.
That might work, but in the United States we have what is sometimes called the "perpetual campaign season," where hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to finance a viable presidential campaign, and congressional races are influenced in large part by saturation advertising and media amplification. Compulsory voting wouldn't make a lot of difference if the only candidates made available to us were still purchased by corporate interests several months ahead of the elections.


So the idea to counteract the influence of moneyed interests works this way: over the course of the year, a small sum is withheld from your paycheck (say $25 or $50) and set aside until you do your taxes. When you fill out your taxes, you choose a candidate, party or political action committee to which your money is contributed. If you choose not to contribute the money, you don't have the option of getting the money back. As Pericles said, "We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as one who minds his own business, but as one who is good for nothing."

Now I'm sure this will elicit some knee-jerk reactions from the "git yer gum'ment outta my gum'ment" crowd, but I ask you to evaluate the proposal on its merits as a means of solving a very real problem. If you're opposed to this idea, I'd like to hear a viable alternative to counteracting the influence of corporate finance (i.e., legal bribery) in the election process.
I know there's zero chance that this proposal would ever be enacted because the moneyed interests would fight tooth & claw to defeat it even if the people got behind it, but could it work in theory?
Just imagine if candidates actually had an incentive to listen to the people, knowing that if they got enough of those $25 contributions they could actually finance a viable campaign. The truth is that with this recent Supreme Court ruling, the biggest incentive out there for any candidate will be to do whatever it takes to get corporations to butter their bread. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

[magickyleo101]

I would oppose the idea of forcing people to contribute to campaigns. You're essentially talking about compelled speech, which is generally considered a first amendment no-no.

Insofar as a work around for the corporate contributions problem is needed, I think the easiest approach would be to handle it as an issue of corporate control. Certain decisions by corporations have to be approved by stockholders (e.g. issuing new shares of stock), and I think laws that required contributions to be approved by shareholders would be the easiest solution.

[Phier]

Funny how its always about corporations and not about unions or other special interest groups which give more than the corporations.

Personally I think its a idea. If I'm not motivated enough to give on my own and I normally do not give political contributions, though I am this year, forcing me to work to give to a politician is simply you stealing from me.

We wouldn't have politicians listening to the people, we would simply have extra tax with very little over all change.

You leftists have to stop thinking the solution to all problems is taking money from people working.

[Hattushilish]

Insofar as a work around for the corporate contributions problem is needed, I think the easiest approach would be to handle it as an issue of corporate control. Certain decisions by corporations have to be approved by stockholders (e.g. issuing new shares of stock), and I think laws that required contributions to be approved by shareholders would be the easiest solution.

Yes, but then the lawmakers are supposed to respond to the concerns of the voters, not the concerns of the shareholders from whichever corporation offers the largest campaign contribution.

Funny how its always about corporations and not about unions or other special interest groups which give more than the corporations.

That's because there used to be restrictions on corporate contributions before the Supreme Court decision I just mentioned. Get with the program Phier.

You leftists have to stop thinking the solution to all problems is taking money from people working.

Of course. More thoughtful, ruminative commentary from Phier.

[justicar5]

Funny how its always about corporations and not about unions or other special interest groups which give more than the corporations.

because unions are mostly democratic, whree as corporations are undemocratic and more importantly Anti-democratic, look at the actions of corporations in the third world where states aren't strong enough to oppose them, how many millions displaced, how many thousands dead to these mosters of greed and exploitation. When those responsible have been tried and convicted, and any repirition of said actions results in the dismantling of the corporation and the imprisonemnt of it's board of directors, then we can talk.

[The.Delegate]

because unions are mostly democratic, whree as corporations are undemocratic and more importantly Anti-democratic, look at the actions of corporations in the third world where states aren't strong enough to oppose them, how many millions displaced, how many thousands dead to these mosters of greed and exploitation. When those responsible have been tried and convicted, and any repirition of said actions results in the dismantling of the corporation and the imprisonemnt of it's board of directors, then we can talk.

Well said.

However, the idea of the OP is shite. I despise the political parties here and most of the people involved. Therefore, I don't donate to them. Why would I ever want my money taken from me and given to these people?

To counteract the influence of money in politics, you need strict laws stating that political contributions and donations may not exceed X amount per person, group, charity, corporation, or whatever else. Then you need to either ban special interest groups and lobbyists or somehow find a way of severely curtailing their power. Finally, you need to get the people involved in politics again. The 60% voter turnouts in Canada is not contributing to a democratic majority government. You need mandatory voting like in Australia, where if you don't vote, you get fined. Finally, there needs to be a law stating that people who serve on the boards of large corporations may not pursue any sort of political career.

All of this put together ensures that the people, not large business interests, set the agenda. As you can see, in my view, it is best to seperate business and government, as the two put together result in too much power concentration in the hands of certain people.

[Hattushilish]

To counteract the influence of money in politics, you need strict laws stating that political contributions and donations may not exceed X amount per person, group, charity, corporation, or whatever else. Then you need to either ban special interest groups and lobbyists or somehow find a way of severely curtailing their power.

But that, apparently, would be a violation of our first amendment. Our Supreme Court seems to think that bribes are a form of free speech.

You need mandatory voting like in Australia, where if you don't vote, you get fined.

But the Australian campaign season only lasts a couple of weeks. Their elections are similar to the British elections in that respect. You don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to run a viable campaign in Australia.

You could enact compulsory voting here in the US, but the only candidates who'd last through the entire campaign are the candidates who solicit enough bribes to finance a year-and-a-half-long campaign. The candidates still standing on the day of the election would still be wholly owned subsidiaries of the moneyed interests.

LOL at the people that think businesses are entities unto themselves and not people.

How is a business a person? And don't give me this "they represent the interests of the people who work for them" nonsense. In structure, the political counterpart to a corporation is a totalitarian state.

[43rdFoot]

I think I'd agree if there was an abstention choice on the ballots. Not voting is just as much a right as voting.

[Snowball]

I find your idea of stealing MORE of everyones money simply to hand it over to a politician, to be as hilarious as it is stupid. Regular taxes are bad enough, and at least then we are getting some form of service from it, you are proposing the forced looting of peoples property which imo is never a good idea.

[Big War Bird]

LOL at the people that think businesses are entities unto themselves and not people.

Take money out of politics and all you are going to get is more hookers in pols beds.

The problem isn't money, it is power. The federal government has accumulated regulatory control over so much that every entity, corporate, union and person must pony up their money to try to ensure that their interest gets a fair shake. Take a look at this website, federalregister.com and just try to read a few days worth of announcements. It is positively mindnumbing to see how involved the government is in, well, everything and then some.

[Snowball]

I norway we have banned political advertising on tv ^_^yaaay

[The.Delegate]

But that, apparently, would be a violation of our first amendment. Our Supreme Court seems to think that bribes are a form of free speech.

But the Australian campaign season only lasts a couple of weeks. Their elections are similar to the British elections in that respect. You don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to run a viable campaign in Australia.

You could enact compulsory voting here in the US, but the only candidates who'd last through the entire campaign are the candidates who solicit enough bribes to finance a year-and-a-half-long campaign. The candidates still standing on the day of the election would still be wholly owned subsidiaries of the moneyed interests.

Ok well your Supreme Court obviously has problems then. In Canada our court system is well respected as impartial and fair. Although, as in any court system, there are -ups.

As for the Australian campaign season length. Well I don't know whether or not that's true. In the US, I think your campaigns are far too long and costly. Here, we tend to have an election campaign run for about 2months. Even after 2 months, we are burned out on all the rhetoric and have spent several hundred million dollars. I think that's a pretty good length for an election campaign; any longer and its too expensive and people lose interest, too short and people don't get a clear view of what the full picture is. Here we tend to have elections every 3-5 years, depending on various factors. Governments are not allowed to rule past the 5 year term limit.

[Hattushilish]

Ok well your Supreme Court obviously has problems then.

Absolutely. That's why I mentioned this proposal. If we can't restrict campaign contributions, we need to work around the problem and come up with an incentive for politicians to listen to the people.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

party politics as a whole is a disaster

need some new form of democracy

[Maverick]

Somewhere along the line here in the United States we decided that money = speech

By not giving a .

America is still a democracy, you can change the system from the bottom up.

There's an old saying you can't cheat an honest man. Nobody wants to do even the minimum to participate in the democracy, get some kind of education, read the odd newspaper and keep tabs on what your representatives are up to.

As Pericles said, "We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as one who minds his own business, but as one who is good for nothing."

Athens was massive, like the size of Rhode Island with a voting population of say 50-75000 citizen-soldiers. Greeks were competitive, a man lived to demostrate his excellence and win the esteem and respect of his polis like the Homeric heroes. But they were human, Socrates ditched the wife to hang out with his friends at drinking parties. Of course lively discussion was a big part of the fun.

What I'm getting at is the founding fathers had some things in common with the Greeks as agrarian aristocrats who liked a drink and a good debate and may have been able to read the classics in Greek.

They wanted liberty (defined by Cicero as participation in power). Not all of them, for instance Jeffersonian horizontal agrarian concerns vs Hamiltonian vertical banking interests (guess who eventually won out?) and the issue of slavery etc.

But now nobody cares. The most vocal self-proclaimed patriots know nothing about the country (teabaggers) and now thanks in small part to Rupert Murdoch the American flag represents everything ugly about the nation. But just because the right won the race to the bottom does not mean the left are at the top, they are almost as ignorant and prejudiced just much more socialized.

Also America got too big and populous, your voting power has diminished to 1/100th of an American living in the late 18th century.

I think I'm probably in the top 5% of intelligence and that's not bragging, I'm a 22 year old college drop out, that's frightening. I don't believe democracy is ascendant, I see an important civics lesson being "rammed down America's throat" as they like to say which is that natural law (inalienable rights and so on) is just a bunch of semantics and that the only universal law is the right of the strong to do what they can and the weak to suffer what they must and the weaker you are, the fewer skills and knowledge you possess the more dependent you are on the power elite to not do what they have always done.

[TheTrainee]

http://video.pbs.org/video/1406052426/ After Citizens United. Skip the intro by Bill if you want to get to the juice.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02...anscript5.html Transcripts

This is a very interesting discussion between a Harvard professor, LAWRENCE LESSIG, who opposes Citizens United, and a leading libertarian journalist and intellectual, NICK GILLESPIE, for Citizens United, moderated by Bill Moyers. Bill, himself, is an outspoken liberal and he's against Citizens Untied, but he's a fair moderator. Both interviewees agree that money's influence on politics has a negative influence on capitalism and maintaining a free market. They disagree, however, on how we should fix "corporate welfare." Predictably, Gillespie generally suggests smaller government is the solution, while Lessig generally suggests stronger regulation and/or public funding for elections. In whatever case, far too many people believe (referenced in the program) money buys results in politics when people have the confidence in democracy to be assured that votes buy results.

We can't deny [Citizens United's] potential. But it might be that spending money on lobbyists is a more effective way for Goldman to get what they want. And God knows they have spent an enormous amount on lobbyists. And they have gotten exactly the regulations they wanted. Which led us into the catastrophe we have just come through. And I think one of the problems with this attention to Citizens United is if we think it's a solution to go back to the day before Citizens United, then we're completely delusional about the problem. The problem wasn't created by Citizens United. We already had a problem when Citizens United was decided. And we have to address that more fundamental problem, and this is exactly what Nick was trying to say we should get exercised about. Nick said we should get exercised about the lobbyists who use their power to get government to benefit some against others, rather than the free market.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1363172387/
Another Bill Moyers interview about Wall Street's influence on Washington, largely about health care and highly critical of the democrats.

[Exarch]

Solution: When someone enters public office, their private property is immediately confiscated and placed in the trust of the state; then if the government makes a profit or a loess, it's added or subtracted from their property until their term of office expires.
this will encourage politicians to bemore efficient and turn a profit

[Problem Sleuth]

Solution: When someone enters public office, their private property is immediately confiscated and placed in the trust of the state; then if the government makes a profit or a loess, it's added or subtracted from their property until their term of office expires.
this will encourage politicians to bemore efficient and turn a profit

Not necessarily, no. It could very easily encourage extremely short-term policies. For example, you could get into office, make self-destructive policies that lead to a brief period of growth, end your career wealthy, and then laugh your way to the bank as the next poor sucker loses everything he's got. That is, if you meant the economy, not the government. If you mean how much the government makes, then you're simply encouraging politicians to overtax people to benefit themselves. No, not enough money to break even, but much more than it would ever need.

[Exarch]

Not necessarily, no. It could very easily encourage extremely short-term policies. For example, you could get into office, make self-destructive policies that lead to a brief period of growth, end your career wealthy, and then laugh your way to the bank as the next poor sucker loses everything he's got. That is, if you meant the economy, not the government. If you mean how much the government makes, then you're simply encouraging politicians to overtax people to benefit themselves. No, not enough money to break even, but much more than it would ever need.

aye i was referring to the economy
the point is that it doesnt matter if said politician will or wont have to live up to his election promises, so long as the economy booms and the country sells more xyz products and there're jobs as a result.
at the end of his term, the percentage of profit/loss from the point he takes office is added or subtracted from his collective wealth.

when it's his $$$ on the line here, i reckon said politician will take better care of the economy

[chamaeleo]

Not necessarily, no. It could very easily encourage extremely short-term policies. For example, you could get into office, make self-destructive policies that lead to a brief period of growth, end your career wealthy, and then laugh your way to the bank as the next poor sucker loses everything he's got.

Sounds like 2000-2008, so in other words, no effective difference?

Eliminating the peddling of influence through favors and bribes (legal or otherwise) is impossible, so perhaps we should instead focus on ways to track inappropriate lobbyist relationships, and make campaign funding sources more transparent? Every politician is bought, that's a given, we can at least make the owners' identities public knowledge. Not that this makes much difference to our largely complacent and attention-span challenged population, but it's a start.