33 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No matter our political ideology, most of us can agree that the American political system is broken. The influence of private money on politics has effectively transformed the United States into an oligarchy. Do you know how much money was spent on the midterm that just passed? Over $6 billion. On a MIDTERM! It's obscene. And yet we have become so inured to it over the years that most of us don't even notice it. $6 billion. Where do you think that money came from? And what do they demand in return?

 

The only way to fix the problem is to get private money out of politics forever. Elections should not be about who can raise the most money, they should be about who has the best ideas. This country was founded on ideas, among them the then-novel notion that all men are created equal (sorry, ladies). We seem to have forgotten that along the way. Ideas have been pushed aside, muscled off the podium by money. It was once said that in America, money talks. Now it rules. The unbridled rule of the wealthy is inherently antithetical to the principles upon which this country was founded. Democracy cannot exist side by side with unbridled capitalism and unlimited wealth. That is a recipe for handing control to a smaller and smaller group of elites at the top. Say around one percent. Well, you get the idea.

 

I propose that we ban all private money from politics, and instead institute a system of publically-funded elections. If you could collect 1000 signatures, you could qualify for some small level of public funding, say $2500. If you could then gather 10,000 signatures you would qualify for more funding, say $10,000, and so on up the line to designated maximums for each office, based on population and local media market prices ($1 million could saturate the airwaves in some districts, for example, while it would hardly buy one TV advertisement in others). Each level would be more and more difficult to reach, weeding out the cranks and others unable to garner sufficient support. But everyone would have a voice and every idea could get a fair public hearing. Fail to make your case and you might not move on to the next level. But at least you got the chance to try.

Such a system would not be cheap. But it would effectively break the stranglehold of the Big Two political parties. And it would shatter the grip of private money on the political process. No more donations. No more junkets. No more free homes and cars and the million other perks elected officials receive from wealthy private interests. Lobbying would still be allowed, of course, but lobbyists would be forced to make their case based on the strength of their ideas and how many people they can get to agree with them. How many VOTES they can deliver, in other words, not how many dollars. You know, democracy.

Conservatives, consider: Your knee-jerk reaction to this is likely going to be to reject the idea out of hand. I know you guys don't like spending money. But if you truly believe in the strength of your conservative ideals then you should not be afraid to let them compete on an even footing with other ideologies. May the best ideas win. A genuine ideological conservative should not be afraid of such a challenge. But the Big Money guys hate the very idea of it. After all, it's a lot easier to buy elections than it is to win them. No one ever said you had to be smart to be rich.

[Redezra]

Yay

[Jumbo]

Sorry American political system was all way broken senses the start of American but some how it works.It not perfect but lot better then most government systems.

 

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

James Madison

 

Sadly that not the case.

[Shokkou]

Conservatives, consider: Your knee-jerk reaction to this is likely going to be to reject the idea out of hand. I know you guys don't like spending money. But if you truly believe in the strength of your conservative ideals then you should not be afraid to let them compete on an even footing with other ideologies. May the best ideas win. A genuine ideological conservative should not be afraid of such a challenge. But the Big Money guys hate the very idea of it. After all, it's a lot easier to buy elections than it is to win them. No one ever said you had to be smart to be rich.

I mean, I guess this doesn't mean much since I'm not really a conservative but my issue has always been with where the tax money is going. I do like the idea of spending as little as possible, but I'm not against spending entirely. In this case, the money would be going towards promoting real democracy instead of all the rampant lobbying that goes on. I'd have to look over such a system thoroughly were it proposed for real, but this is something I could potentially support.

[Manoka]

I don't think the whole system is broken, and he who has the most money doesn't always win (look at Obama vs. Romney), but... 

 

"This country was founded"- By a bunch of rich old people, with the power to make a change because of their position in life. They won largely because they got things like gunpowder and lead balls from the french, which allowed them to fight.

 

 

So, resources unfortunately are inherent to win. 

 

9.5/10 doh, for the "if you get x votes, you get x funding"; not a bad way to do it. 

 

 

That's not a bad system, so that way every person claiming to be a candidate can't go up there and ask for money to campaign. 

 

The only problem is, people vote for someone they like after they see advertising, not before, so it's kind of a catch 22 to get signatures before that...

 

 

What might be interesting is to give money to certain parties, so if a popular candidate steps down they can start advertising a new guy quickly. 

 

Although then that limits it to large parties, so that's rough. 

Edited by Manoka, 07 November 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

I propose the only money involved is the quarter you flip when you're undecided.

[CeltSoldierKev]

So what I don't understand, Jorost, is why do you have such a hatred for people using their 1st Amendment rights? Now, if you were to limit individual spending (already done with a maximum cap), and banned corporate and union donations, then I would be in favore of that. But, to take my tax money, and then re-distribute it to a large number of candidates, many of whom I do not support, no. Why can't you understand that individuals have the right to contribute to candidates of their choice? Especially when you break down the 2 options. 1) Private citizens donate money to candidates and causes they support. That money goes directly to the campaign, with some overhead for campaign staff, websites, etc. Then, that money is spent on advertising, things like yard signs, mailers, and TV ads. All of things cost money, AND, the reason it costs money is that it goes to private firms that make those things. It all gives a boost to the economy. 2) We do your gov't funding idea, and we pay more taxes (granted, this would have the positive of getting more people interested), there are is then going to be an agency of the federal gov't that will have administrative costs, then they will give $ to campaigns which have their own administrative costs. THEN whatever pennies are left over will go to name recognition, polling, positives increasing, and get out the vote activities. Not to mention, the fact that a small un-elected federal agency would determine which candidates receive funding and how much is just frightening.

[Shokkou]

So what I don't understand, Jorost, is why do you have such a hatred for people using their 1st Amendment rights? Now, if you were to limit individual spending (already done with a maximum cap), and banned corporate and union donations, then I would be in favore of that. But, to take my tax money, and then re-distribute it to a large number of candidates, many of whom I do not support, no. Why can't you understand that individuals have the right to contribute to candidates of their choice? Especially when you break down the 2 options. 1) Private citizens donate money to candidates and causes they support. That money goes directly to the campaign, with some overhead for campaign staff, websites, etc. Then, that money is spent on advertising, things like yard signs, mailers, and TV ads. All of things cost money, AND, the reason it costs money is that it goes to private firms that make those things. It all gives a boost to the economy. 2) We do your gov't funding idea, and we pay more taxes (granted, this would have the positive of getting more people interested), there are is then going to be an agency of the federal gov't that will have administrative costs, then they will give $ to campaigns which have their own administrative costs. THEN whatever pennies are left over will go to name recognition, polling, positives increasing, and get out the vote activities. Not to mention, the fact that a small un-elected federal agency would determine which candidates receive funding and how much is just frightening.

The main qualm I have with option 1 is that it basically means candidates get money to improve their visibility based on how wealthy their supporters are, which increases the value of the vote of a wealthier person. Even banning corporate and union donations wouldn't change that. You help out a billionaire, you get more money to spend on PR campaigns and personnel than you would get for helping out a middle-class citizen.

 

On the other hand, option 2 has its drawbacks as well. As for the problem of taking tax money and giving it to candidates the individual does not support, I wouldn't look at it that way so much as I'd view it as giving the money to make sure anyone who wants to run could have their voice heard. If I don't agree with them, oh well. I still agree with their right to run for office if they want. There would be the problem of adding another layer of bureaucracy to the mix which would bloat administrative costs and bog down the process. There'd also be the question of how the agency responsible for this program would be held accountable to the public, which could possibly be worked around by making it an elected council but then you need campaign money for them. Who would oversee that? More bloated and inefficient bureaucracy.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Money is not speech. At least, not to most people. The Supreme Court evidently disagrees with me, however. And that's a huge problem. If money equals speech, then it's like saying all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. I would actually like to see a world where "advertising" per se was restricted in politics. I'd rather see candidates be asked to explain themselves on a variety of issues, and have those answers given in a forum to which a wide variety of people have access, i.e. internet, television, radio, etc. Ah, but I was Roddenberric.

 

If we allow the unbridled influence of money, then the guy with the most will win in almost every case. Someone upthread mentioned Barack Obama but conveniently forgets that Barack Obama raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history in 2008. Money was a BIG part of why he won. There were many other factors, to be sure, but if the Obama campaign had not been able to outspend Hillary Clinton who knows what the outcome might have been? Same in the general election with McCain. Barack Obama's most brilliant political move was figuring out how to tap into huge amounts of money from small donations made (largely) online. It was revolutionary. Now it's par for the course. And individual contributions are no longer limited.

 

If we maintain the present system we will effectively transform into an aristocracy, in which more and more power in concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer families. We are already seeing it: The most likely candidate for president in 2016 is the wife of a former president; one of her most likely opponents is the brother and son of a president. It's turning into political Westeros out there. Are you for House Clinton or House Bush?

[Redezra]

Why do you care where your money goes? I mean it's tax money right?

 

It is pretty confusing, the idea that the people are government and the government is made of the people, but it is  a separate entity, and you can't decide you don't like where your money is going individually. If the majority of people want gov funds directed in one way, you don't get a choice, because tax money is not your money, it's everyone's money.

 

I've never understood the individualistic rage with "I don't like where my tax dollars are going". And I pay tax, before you ask

[Shokkou]

The sheer ignorance of that post is mind boggling. I have papers to write, but when I'm done with them I'll come back and try to put into a coherent post the words to explain just how absurd what you just said is.

 

EDIT: Ok, really? Go back and reread what you just posted. People shouldn't care what their tax money is being spent on because it's tax money? They shouldn't care because it's not their money anymore, but everyone's money? If no one should care what their tax money is being spent on, what if Australia decided to cut all social programs and put all their tax money into defense spending? Would you shrug and go "I don't care where the money goes. It's tax money, after all?" I highly doubt that you would. You would be livid, and you would have every right to be if you didn't agree with that course of action.

 

If someone don't like where the money is going, they absolutely have a choice. It's called voting. It is their money, just as much as it is everyone else's money. They have a right to be angry if they don't agree with the choices being made, they have every right to express their anger and disapproval, and they damn well ought to care where their tax dollars are going.

 

How much and what the hell flavor of Big-Brother-Knows-Best Kool-Aid did you have to drink to even think something like that?

[Redezra]

Because the system works?

 

If your preference is in the minority, the majority's will is enacted. In this way the money the government raises is used. And it raises it through taxes. Think of it more of a service fee for living in the nation.

 

So no, there's no point in being grumpy over what taxes are spent on individually. You can definitely campaign to get the majority opinion on your side, but straight up complaining about taxes and where "your" money goes is silly. It's not your money.

[Shokkou]

It works because people have a voice. They have a say. They have the right to do something if they disapprove of the direction the government takes things in.

 

Just because the government took their money doesn't mean they don't have a right to be angry if the government then decides to do something they don't like with that money.

[Redezra]

It doesn't decide anything, the people decide what it does... so I mean, by being mad with a government, you're only being mad with yourself.

[Shokkou]

The government is run by people. Their decisions are not handled by referendum. Your statement is invalid.

[Redezra]

The Government represents the will of the people. No it's not invalid, it's the entire point of government.

[Shokkou]

Unless it is purely democratic, your statement is indeed invalid.

[Redezra]

It doesn't need to be purely democratic. They are representatives. If you don't like your representative's choices, then you should not have voted them in.

 

Given, the contrary viewpoint there is that in fact, you do want those choices, at least in principal, on a majority level in your electorate. That's why you voted them in.

[Redezra]

I mean, your argument is completely moot. You're thinking as if some external entity created this "Government" thing to mess around with your money.

 

It isn't. You made it. You live with the consequences.

 

This is why politics are important.

 

 

 

Edit: 'Dezra gotta maintain the classiness :3

Edited by Redezra, 10 November 2014 - 06:19 AM.

[Shokkou]

But what if they didn't vote for the person in office? What if the person in office isn't doing what they said they would? Also, you're trying to lump the entire population in together to say that they all chose something when that isn't the case. If there wasn't any point in being angry with what our representatives did, we wouldn't have systems in place to remove them from office.
 
You even seem to have answered your own question. People can, and should, be vocal if the government isn't doing what they wanted. If they didn't, the system would be inherently less democratic.
 
Also, to get back to the original point, you're actually the one making government out to be some separate entity. If it is the people, then saying that tax money isn't their money is a contradiction. Saying that it isn't their money because it is everyone's money is also either a contradiction or an attempt at making the person arguing against whatever spending a non-person. You're either just outright wrong, or you're trying to say that they're not a part of "everyone."
 
Oh, and I just noticed that at this point you've now said that government both is and is not a separate entity. Interesting how that changes when it's convenient to the point you're trying to make at any given moment.
 

It is pretty confusing, the idea that the people are government and the government is made of the people, but it is a separate entity, and you can't decide you don't like where your money is going individually.

You're thinking as if some external entity created this "Government" thing to mess around with your money.
 
It isn't.

 
P.S. Enjoy the new link in my sig. It's entirely relevant.