How Do The American People Criminalize Campaign Donations & Lobbying?

If you really want to fight it, I say set your sights on a better target. You won't win playing their game.

If we had a popular vote system (or any number of good voting systems, many of which are covered by cgp grey on the tube) we could actually just have a vote on this sort of thing.

I'd be willing to bet that 50% of the people who would bother voting don't want big corporations running things.

The problem is that we don't get to vote on issues- and we don't get to directly vote on anything at all.


What we need is a true vote. This is something the internet makes possible. I'd almost be curious to see one that was set up where people are allowed to register and vote, even if their votes don't mean anything. It'd be really curious to see what a popular vote vs what our corrupt system chooses to do when enacting any new law.

Of course, if you managed to build this, and people used it, and it actually became a method for voting on popular issues... then you'd have no need to fight the huge cash 'donations' being used to buy our government- as they'd instantly become irrelevant, as corporations would have to bribe the public instead of a select few rich people in big chairs.

a reply to: greencmp

While there is certainly widespread bribery and in kind corruption of every type throughout all levels of government, outlawing discussions between associations or individuals and their elected government officials is neither desirable nor feasible.

Agreed .

I don't think outlawing lobbying and discussions between our gov't and private industry and individuals is the answer or a good solution.

However, I think we need to Reform and/or update to 21st century the process and take money out of the equation.

We have the technology and capabilities to at least start TALKING about implementing a system that allows equal voices from the consumer and the corporations versus the highest bidder.

This IMO is the only way to get back control of out gov't and this is the only issue we as Americans should be concentrating on. Everything else wrong with this country and the world is just symptoms of the decisions being made by the corporations and special interest groups in the pursuit of the dollar with unrealistic goals of infinitely beating last years earnings. Nothing wrong with those goals , but the problem is that they ALSO have the power and money to move the grey area around which is good for them but bad for the world.

The sad part is the individual democrats and republicans are being manipulated by the DNC and the GOP to keep fighting among themselves about the symptoms so they don't concentrate on the real problem. Corruption in gov't should be the easiest thing for the two party to come together on, since it effects both party equally negatively and is the direct cause of majority of our ills.

The other thing that must be taken care of and handled is taking money out of the equation to pitch your political infommercials . A 30 second multi million ad is no way to inform the public on issues.

21st century All issues and advertisement dealing with our gov't has to be done through the same protocol on the same system funded by the tax payers.

a reply to: FaceMyBook

That would probably end up helping the average joe, which is proven bad for business (if business = heavily concentrated personal profit)

from memory
it is actually other way around
never mind but that was aweful
u know the rich daddy poor daddy quote about bankrupcy
(I am so sorry I am pulling here stuff from memory I am sorry I am not really checking the validity of my statements.. is just a shady chat on my behalf rather then a full discussion)

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
a reply to: greencmp


Surely you don't think ONLY state lobbying is bad.

No one is that dense. You work for big tobacco? Wait no...blue cross?

www.opensecrets.org...

The problem is that power wielded is power peddled. Without the power to manipulate the free market or award loot, there would be no (or at least much much less) motivation for special interest influence on government officials.

Once that is achieved, there is little justification for maintaining such a large bureaucratic apparatus. It can then safely dwindle and become more ceremonial.

Since I believe that the state is bad, yes, I believe that state lobbying is bad.

Since I believe that free associations of citizens are not bad, I do not believe that non-governmental lobbying is bad.

Think about it.

Hit the nail on the head. The reason lobbying exists is because the government, through regulations and laws, can choose winners and losers in the marketplace and one has to lobby because those who don't, get left on the side of the road.

Reduce governmental power to do things and you reduce the influence of lobbyists.

a reply to: FaceMyBook

Welcome to Murica.

that is actually so funny and how random that u say that..

in fact it is my favorite travel destination got my frequent traveller sorted last week..

a reply to: lordcomac

maybe dividing the states into like 5 self governed blocks.

like the size of USA in comparison to a state like AU (even that it is like WA and east coast are totally separate states)

whatever not my problem(what follows is another shady memory not even sure if it is true or relevant) someone said that the constitution (shait is it what it is called) is actually extremely difficult to change or more importantly it actually isn't the cause of the problem .. problem is the quote u guys have too many people cooking in the kitchen is bad for the restaurant (smth like that)

is like the WTO that is 12 years in deadlock what is the Efin point before that some 30 years.. only eg i could think of right now.. time is of importance.. especially in a critical situation like a fiscal policy and other crap necessary to stay afloat.

but I doubt anyone wants to play roommates at the whitehouse.. the place is just not big enough for five people!! god forbid dividing $400000 pa and golf privileges between 5..

a reply to: NavyDoc

yes but then is that exactly why u have opposing political parties? maybe is just how it works home and pretty sure here in AU..

facemybook

the corruption blah blah it works both ways is like a baby sitter working for cash.. is the people who set up their head quarters at Deion costa rica to avoid taxes (or switzerland is it) who are the issue.. I think

I really don't think it is as simple as it sounds instants cultural differences.. like how do u deal with a situation lets say u are the mediator for a business deal ur china and america guy when china guy walks in with a 50g gift as part of their culture and sign of good will and ur USA guys freaks out about being seen as bribed them china guy gets insulted no deal at all.. that was just one dump thing I can think of right now I know u guys talking at home I think but everyone's current issues are beyond home i doubt if the world view u as a corrupt skank they would not call u to the table even better select ur state as a number 1 leading example of good gov good god or go home


like isn't the point of any type of donation to charity or Goverment what ever for any type of business or individual to offset it against tax payable rather then actually the place it goes to(well to an extend)? check ur tax laws who knows of my memory is so bad..

and another thing is from study the most sensitive industry in bilateral trade is agriculture so I asked my half american AU professor why is that his response is that Hystoricaly there is something about the fact countries protect they farmers (not services and intellectual property and other merchandise) Russia's most vocal quote is if government can't protect the farmer what is the point they would also never escalate into situation where they would jeopardize situation of the "farmer".

the lobby word was throwen at me smt about Japan AU wine, cow meat lobbying
but like fudge it Japan is the largest super investor in AU. both side win and actually statistically ur standard of living rises.. feel free to prove me wrong

maybe I am naive

a reply to: interupt42

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: lordcomac

maybe dividing the states into like 5 self governed blocks.

like the size of USA in comparison to a state like AU (even that it is like WA and east coast are totally separate states)

whatever not my problem(what follows is another shady memory not even sure if it is true or relevant) someone said that the constitution (shait is it what it is called) is actually extremely difficult to change or more importantly it actually isn't the cause of the problem .. problem is the quote u guys have too many people cooking in the kitchen is bad for the restaurant (smth like that)

is like the WTO that is 12 years in deadlock what is the Efin point before that some 30 years.. only eg i could think of right now.. time is of importance.. especially in a critical situation like a fiscal policy and other crap necessary to stay afloat.

but I doubt anyone wants to play roommates at the whitehouse.. the place is just not big enough for five people!! god forbid dividing $400000 pa and golf privileges between 5..

99% of the US federal system is derived from one phrase in the constitution. Called the necessary and proper clause, sometimes the elastic clause. It is all to "provide for the common good"

a reply to: ISawItFirst

so sorry
can u elaborate more on my post
I hear these stuff but my unfamiliarity with ur political system (istotally different then home, then EU, then AU) especially trying to figure it out in another language

like i am saying everything based on some basic assumptions that i kind of get these awful terms .. so ur comment means

like I am that dull about it to me the constitution and the bill of rights are the same thing

I know I am being kind of ignorant but is too much info

a reply to: lordcomac

Actually that's a very good idea, but I have no knowledge of HTML or coding

I'd call it "FederalPopularVote.com"

That way people would actually think it's official.

a reply to: FaceMyBook

ah and the net is no corporation

why u have bills then (is it called that?)
I am so vague sorry cause i am so bad with this topic from memory
like I can't remember for instance gay rights only needed let's say 200000 signatures to be lawfully presented as a sufficient issue to bring up and pass on to the parliament were each of (how many seats u guys have 150?) individually vote yes/no to make it law
or smt like that

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: greencmp

While there is certainly widespread bribery and in kind corruption of every type throughout all levels of government, outlawing discussions between associations or individuals and their elected government officials is neither desirable nor feasible.

Agreed .

I don't think outlawing lobbying and discussions between our gov't and private industry and individuals is the answer or a good solution.

However, I think we need to Reform and/or update to 21st century the process and take money out of the equation.

We have the technology and capabilities to at least start TALKING about implementing a system that allows equal voices from the consumer and the corporations versus the highest bidder.

This IMO is the only way to get back control of out gov't and this is the only issue we as Americans should be concentrating on. Everything else wrong with this country and the world is just symptoms of the decisions being made by the corporations and special interest groups in the pursuit of the dollar with unrealistic goals of infinitely beating last years earnings. Nothing wrong with those goals , but the problem is that they ALSO have the power and money to move the grey area around which is good for them but bad for the world.

The sad part is the individual democrats and republicans are being manipulated by the DNC and the GOP to keep fighting among themselves about the symptoms so they don't concentrate on the real problem. Corruption in gov't should be the easiest thing for the two party to come together on, since it effects both party equally negatively and is the direct cause of majority of our ills.

The other thing that must be taken care of and handled is taking money out of the equation to pitch your political infommercials . A 30 second multi million ad is no way to inform the public on issues.

21st century All issues and advertisement dealing with our gov't has to be done through the same protocol on the same system funded by the tax payers.

Yes! Exactly what I was getting at in the OP

a reply to: FaceMyBook

last thought
isn't this kind of pointless conversation ?
doesn't the power ultimately lay in the hands of the consumer of goods and services?
did anyone force u into purchase..
even with tax or what ever duties we have..u need a school, hospital, road..
like this is just complaining about what really
even this.. like eg I admire Protesting people against digging oil but until there is a solar Boeing not sure if I would be completely appreciative of complete shut down.. then stuff like access.. how much crap u dont need have u purchased last month.. and so on

originally posted by: greencmp
The problem is that power wielded is power peddled. Without the power to manipulate the free market or award loot, there would be no (or at least much much less) motivation for special interest influence on government officials.

Once that is achieved, there is little justification for maintaining such a large bureaucratic apparatus. It can then safely dwindle and become more ceremonial.

Since I believe that the state is bad, yes, I believe that state lobbying is bad.

Since I believe that free associations of citizens are not bad, I do not believe that non-governmental lobbying is bad.

Think about it.

Then there's an easy fix. Have more representatives, with 16,000 of them (as we would have if we stuck to the 1:20,000 ratio) each individual has less power. The fewer you have, the more concentrated it is. Furthermore, holding money over a person is a form of power. The people could pay their congressmen much more. That is how we lobby our government, right now corporations are paying more money. If we pay them more, corporations can't keep up and they lose influence.

Any law banning campaign contributions from corporations would have to be made by the supreme court. Judging by the way citizens united was voted I don't have faith it can be changed. The will of the people is irrelevant at this point. Its sad to feel so powerless as a person with the way the current political system is set up. We are truly slaves to the corporate system and there is literally nothing we can do about it.

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
a reply to: lordcomac

Actually that's a very good idea, but I have no knowledge of HTML or coding

I'd call it "FederalPopularVote.com"

That way people would actually think it's official.

I have 19 years coding experience and one of my degrees is in Web Programming specifically so maybe I can give you some insight.

I shared a voting system here over a year ago that went into detail with how you can make a voting system that is 100% secure, and it's even capable of checking itself for evidence of fraud to declare elections invalid. While it wasn't online in it's entirety it could be modified to do so if you wish, however I believe that to be a very bad idea.

The problem with online voting comes from identifying the person voting to make sure they are who they claim they are and that it's not someone voting under their name. This can be done but it creates another issue in that the computer now has a record of a verified voter and what they cast their vote as. This loss of the anonymous vote is a major security threat if a politician wanted to get revenge and the only thing preventing that is the word of the company running the votes that they aren't storing these two pieces of data (voter and vote) in any linkable fashion. Given how data hungry we have seen governments and corporations being there is no way to take their word here, even if we were to use open source programming to verify it, there's no guarantee that it isn't simply stored on another machine that intercepts the incoming signal.

In short, online voting either requires the loss of the anonymous vote or the loss of the ability to verify the person voting should be able to vote, and that that person is only voting once. Online voting is much better suited to publicly accountable votes such as from Congress.

Anyways, here's a thread I wrote on voting systems a year ago January.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Aazadan


to me net is an idea therefore it can be claimed to be not owned by no one but the actual thing who knows like if u can censor things on net how can u have any true vote on anything on net.. but I can say right now I have no idea about IT.. is just like a gut feeling

anyway like just super briefly going through this article gives me a sense my idea of net is somehow as I see it..

news.harvard.edu...

clash over who should decide which information flows through Internet networks — and at what price — is now before a Washington, D.C., federal appeals court in a landmark case that could grant Internet service providers (ISPs) the unfettered power to turn the information superhighway into a private toll road.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
The problem is that power wielded is power peddled. Without the power to manipulate the free market or award loot, there would be no (or at least much much less) motivation for special interest influence on government officials.

Once that is achieved, there is little justification for maintaining such a large bureaucratic apparatus. It can then safely dwindle and become more ceremonial.

Since I believe that the state is bad, yes, I believe that state lobbying is bad.

Since I believe that free associations of citizens are not bad, I do not believe that non-governmental lobbying is bad.

Think about it.

Then there's an easy fix. Have more representatives, with 16,000 of them (as we would have if we stuck to the 1:20,000 ratio) each individual has less power. The fewer you have, the more concentrated it is. Furthermore, holding money over a person is a form of power. The people could pay their congressmen much more. That is how we lobby our government, right now corporations are paying more money. If we pay them more, corporations can't keep up and they lose influence.

I agree with that, remove all staff and elect the correct constitutional ratio of representatives to citizens. It should be a wash budget wise.

Diluting influence is an acceptable first step, reducing it is next.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sadly, I agree with you.

However, if we had a true vote, we could vote to shut that nonsense down, and create a government actually for the people.

Yes- we'd have a big problem during the transition in which votes would be effectively public- but what's worse? Right now, votes are private- so one sketchy politician can cast thousands of votes from 'people' that either chose not to vote, or were dead, etc- and they do this- and it works.

We would have to give up private voting for it to work, more or less. It still doesn't need to be public (users simply get a checksum or number assigned to them) but an individual could cast a vote, and theoretically even go back and change it at a later date if they changed how they felt about a given issue.
Voting doesn't need to be an auction- or a raffle.
Hell, we could even have running permanent votes- and only issues with a near divide would need any sort of discussion.

The existing system of voting is just about the worst damn option available to us. Fix that, and the people get their voice back.