Money is the root of all political evil

[Aesir]

So after getting into a bit of a debate with Jam about various political things, I came up with a interesting topic idea sorta.

Watch it and it should give you an idea of what's wrong with the political system.

As was pointed out in the social thread, or at least what I think was going on. All this Hope, Change stuff we saw in 2008 was a nice campaign slogan, as it's what the country wanted to hear there's hope and we can get meaningful change. However obviously that didn't happen. While the president has done a lot and he should get credit where credit is due, it's no surprise why nothing got done, he suffers from the same illness most democrats do; Fear of being reduced to irrelevancy. You can't go out there and speak truth to power because if you do you lose your backing, you won't have the money to contend with a reelection bid.

Because as what was pointed in the video I posted it's all about money, that's the engine of politics. As long as wall street and every other multinational corporation can inject millions of dollars into campaigns, you're never going to see change, just an illusion to change. Obama was the closest thing and that frankly is sad.

So I leave this here, I could write more but I'll hold off on it, if any of you disagree with me go for it I'll respond if you don't then I feel bad because I thought I was the only one who felt this pessimistic.

 

[rvkevin]

Do we know the breakdown of Obama's campaign donations? I find it somewhat confusing why Obama wouldn't use the media against the Republicans on issues that are well supported by the general public. Is it because it would be against the interest of the people contributing to his campaign donations?

Also, are there any actual avenues to work outside of the system?

 

[Aesir]

Do we know the breakdown of Obama's campaign donations? I find it somewhat confusing why Obama wouldn't use the media against the Republicans on issues that are well supported by the general public. Is it because it would be against the interest of the people contributing to his campaign donations?

Also, are there any actual avenues to work outside of the system?

these were the top contributors. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

(If I recall at least.)

I dunno that's really hard, in the 60's and 70's and part of the 80's Ralph Nader was a huge thorn in their side, kept them honest and pushed them to do the right thing usually. However after the 80's he was sorta locked out, and those types of advocates rarely get things done. The day when you can actually petition your government is sorta over. The type of politicians that respond to well thought out legislation are to and far between. Now a days if you want something done it requires money other wise they won't break away from their shell. This is completely evident by any sort of letter you write to your legislator as their response will be worded in just a way to not say they don't agree with you, but enough to keep it ambiguous as to not put them in a rough spot.

So to put it bluntly, I'm sure there is a way but getting politicians to do anything is hard work. Imo what I think SHOULD be done, all 3rd parties should form sort of a coalition party with one goal in mind to get money out of politics, and maybe electoral reform (which needs to be done, without a doubt.) But mostly stick to getting money out of politics, they won't win however they might get enough support to get into the debates and really bring the issue to light, the thing about Americans they don't know what the problems are unless it right in front of them. (maybe willful ignorance or we just need to be pushed to care.)

 

[rvkevin]

The day when you can actually petition your government is sorta over.

I don't know if you know this, but the White House made it possible to petition the White House (here) and if the issue gets more than 25,000 signatures, they will issue a response. However, they were basically just statements saying that they were going to continue the status quo, so someone started a petition petitioning the White House to take the petitions seriously and merited enough signatures (I am curious as to what the response will be). I think it demonstrates the problem quite well; we no longer have a government that represents us.

Imo what I think SHOULD be done, all 3rd parties should form sort of a coalition party with one goal in mind to get money out of politics, and maybe electoral reform (which needs to be done, without a doubt.) But mostly stick to getting money out of politics, they won't win however they might get enough support to get into the debates and really bring the issue to light, the thing about Americans they don't know what the problems are unless it right in front of them. (maybe willful ignorance or we just need to be pushed to care.)

I think this would be a good start. Even if we could get a good percentage of people to vote third party, it would kind of disrupt the two party system and show that its not a waste of a vote. I'm kind of hoping that the Occupy movement could spearhead this. This piqued my interest. However, it could just be as much talk as Obama's change campaign.

 

[Aesir]

I don't know if you know this, but the White House made it possible to petition the White House (here) and if the issue gets more than 25,000 signatures, they will issue a response. However, they were basically just statements saying that they were going to continue the status quo, so someone started a petition petitioning the White House to take the petitions seriously and merited enough signatures (I am curious as to what the response will be). I think it demonstrates the problem quite well; we no longer have a government that represents us.

Yes I know of it, it's one of those symbolic things, it's no where near as effective as what Ralph Nader did for the consumer movement. Those days are more a less over, advocates who very well are probably right are thrown to the wayside because dishonest is fueled by money.

I think this would be a good start. Even if we could get a good percentage of people to vote third party, it would kind of disrupt the two party system and show that its not a waste of a vote. I'm kind of hoping that the Occupy movement could spearhead this. This piqued my interest. However, it could just be as much talk as Obama's change campaign.

I'll watch the video when I have more time, however it's not about getting votes it's more about pushing the other parties to being more honest. You know how many ideas the Democratic party stole from the socialist party in the 30s during the new deal? It's stuff like that, it pushes them to be honest. more to come later;

So I'm watching the video now, I like this guy however I don't plan on seeing this happening. This is why, what american's poll and what american's vote for are not the same thing. This poll he's referencing I would like to see it the questions that were asked. Since the way the poll is worded can mean a whole lot, after all over 50% of the country apparently wants single payer, but the moment anyone brings that up the debate switches from being medicare for all to dirty rotten socialism. I mean it's a great idea what he's doing, but I really don't think it'll amount to anything other than what you're seeing. He won't poll more then 15% which is what is needed to get into the debates and with out that exposure he won't make any traction. Maybe 5-6%. If I'm wrong I'll eat my words but frankly that's what I see happening.

Not to mention even if he gets elected the policies he's talking about will be defeated every step of the way, the amount of money special interests inject into the political process is staggering.

My two cents.

edit: I hope people don't think this is a 1v1 debate, by all means anyone else wanna hash it out with me go ahead I'm sure most of you don't agree with what I'm saying.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you want a boon for minor political parties, have a look at Preferential Voting. It's already been implemented in Australia and it is far fairer than the First Past the Post system in the USA. It could really shake things up, and see the two-party system significantly eroded, especially in the upper house.

Campaign donations caps would also be nice.

 

[rvkevin]

however it's not about getting votes it's more about pushing the other parties to being more honest. You know how many ideas the Democratic party stole from the socialist party in the 30s during the new deal? It's stuff like that, it pushes them to be honest. more to come later;

What do you mean by "pushing them to be honest"? Do you mean simply exposing their tactics? Isn't this the role of the media? I know the media doesn't do the best job of emphasizing it, but its still there. Also, even if everyone knew what was happening, its not like we could do anything to change it. We would still have the illusion of choice between candidate A and candidate B and we can't force their hand once they take office. The only way it would make a difference is if the public could efficiently impeach politicians. This way, they would be accountable to the public for the bills that they pass, but no one is going to pass a bill that threatens their job security.

As for the Justice Party, I agree it won't get any traction as a third party, but I'm just glad that those types of positions are being expressed. And I see this as a conversation rather than a debate, but yeah, others are allowed.

 

[Aesir]

What do you mean by "pushing them to be honest"? Do you mean simply exposing their tactics? Isn't this the role of the media? I know the media doesn't do the best job of emphasizing it, but its still there. Also, even if everyone knew what was happening, its not like we could do anything to change it. We would still have the illusion of choice between candidate A and candidate B and we can't force their hand once they take office. The only way it would make a difference is if the public could efficiently impeach politicians. This way, they would be accountable to the public for the bills that they pass, but no one is going to pass a bill that threatens their job security.

That's why recalling (effectively what you just suggested) Only looks good when you have crazys in office. When you have a politician who knows you should do X because X would lead to Y (a very bad consequence) but his constituents hate the idea of X and recall him because he did the right thing, is not a good form of government.

What I mean by keeping them honest is holding their feet to the fire, all this job is now is welfare for bad lawyers. (granted there are exceptions.) No one looks at the content of policy but rather (am I going to lose my funding if I vote for this.) This shouldn't be what goes through your mind when your vote can make or break lives/economy ect... That's why we need to remove money entirely from the equation, and work on electoral reform real electoral reform. Make the Presidential elections instant run off, with a popular vote, change the debate threshold to 5% and on enough state ballots to realistically win an election. (basically if you're on enough state ballots to win the election.) No more of this excluding good candidates from the debate which really are not debates anymore just duel interviews.

But that's all secondary the number 1 first priority should be remove the money out of politics.

As for the Justice Party, I agree it won't get any traction as a third party, but I'm just glad that those types of positions are being expressed. And I see this as a conversation rather than a debate, but yeah, others are allowed.

Unfortunately politics envokes some nasty side effects it's kinda silly

 

[rvkevin]

That's why recalling (effectively what you just suggested) Only looks good when you have crazys in office. When you have a politician who knows you should do X because X would lead to Y (a very bad consequence) but his constituents hate the idea of X and recall him because he did the right thing, is not a good form of government.

I agree that this is a problem, but the problem is basically a lack of rationality among the general public. This would cause problems for any system. Even if the system were to simply elect the best candidate, it wouldn't mean that the general public would act rationally since they may vote for the guy that they would rather have a beer with (e.g. George Bush). The reason I mentioned this is that it makes them immediately accountable to the public, rather than to other interests. Also, if they do wish to enact something that is wildly unpopular, they would then have to engage in the market place of ideas and persuade the populace. If their ideas are really in the best interest of the nation, then it should be easy to find support. However, they probably won't since the public is routinely misinformed by the likes of Fox "News". Hence the value of having an educated population.

So, how do we get money out of politics? Elect someone to do it? How do you ensure that one of the possible candidates is even running on this issue? How do you ensure that this person fulfills his or her promise? How do you ensure that the other politicians will allow this measure to pass? I think we have a lot to be pessimistic about.

 

[Aesir]

I agree that this is a problem, but the problem is basically a lack of rationality among the general public. This would cause problems for any system. Even if the system were to simply elect the best candidate, it wouldn't mean that the general public would act rationally since they may vote for the guy that they would rather have a beer with (e.g. George Bush). The reason I mentioned this is that it makes them immediately accountable to the public, rather than to other interests. Also, if they do wish to enact something that is wildly unpopular, they would then have to engage in the market place of ideas and persuade the populace. If their ideas are really in the best interest of the nation, then it should be easy to find support. However, they probably won't since the public is routinely misinformed by the likes of Fox "News". Hence the value of having an educated population.

I wouldn't agree with that, you can't persuade people when their religious beliefs say otherwise. IE Gay Rights. I understand what you're saying, the problem is the general public has been pampered and believes you can have your cake and eat it too, hard decisions don't exist. Also to many people are willing to throw away the rights of others just to protect their own narrow world view.

So, how do we get money out of politics? Elect someone to do it? How do you ensure that one of the possible candidates is even running on this issue? How do you ensure that this person fulfills his or her promise? How do you ensure that the other politicians will allow this measure to pass? I think we have a lot to be pessimistic about.

It has to be done through the courts again, or we hope we get a honest president who calls out congress for being bought. (like the video I posted in the first post.)

But to be realistic, it needs to happen through the courts. But that won't happen as long as Scalia and Thomas are still around (they're the biggest problems currently in the court.)

 

[rvkevin]

I wouldn't agree with that, you can't persuade people when their religious beliefs say otherwise. IE Gay Rights. I understand what you're saying, the problem is the general public has been pampered and believes you can have your cake and eat it too, hard decisions don't exist. Also to many people are willing to throw away the rights of others just to protect their own narrow world view.

I'm not sure what you're not agreeing to, I said the problem was a lack of rationality amongst the public. Personally, I wouldn't consider religion to be a bastion of rationality, so you would be pointing out one of the problems in any democratic system.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not sure what you're not agreeing to, I said the problem was a lack of rationality amongst the public. Personally, I wouldn't consider religion to be a bastion of rationality, so you would be pointing out one of the problems in any democratic system.

Unless I'm mistaken you think being able to recall a politician is good?

 

[rvkevin]

Unless I'm mistaken you think being able to recall a politician is good?

I was proposing it as a way to change the incentive structure in Washington. Right now, the political donations give a great incentive to vote in ways that are contrary to what the public wants. If we introduce a counter to that, then that would decrease some of the negative effects of political donations. However, recalling has its own drawbacks so we would need restrictions on when a politician could be recalled in order to minimize these drawbacks. Also, this may already be set in place as a consequence of breaching their fiduciary duty to the public. It's just a matter of which system is better. Politics is such a complex system that it is unwise to have a firm position on policy such as this, especially since this hasn't been thoroughly tested. As such, consider these as hypotheses; hence why I consider this more of a conversation rather than a debate.

Of course, it would be much better to eliminate money from politics, but I have a hard time imagining that happening. There are quite a few hurdles to overcome. How would you prevent a company hiring a former politician as a "consultant" as reciprocation for voting a particular way? It would be nigh impossible to show that they were influenced by said company since they could say that they only signed on because they personally agreed with said position. The only way to prevent this from happening legally is a non-compete clause for politicians, but I doubt any such clause would be legal.

 

[Aesir]

I was proposing it as a way to change the incentive structure in Washington. Right now, the political donations give a great incentive to vote in ways that are contrary to what the public wants. If we introduce a counter to that, then that would decrease some of the negative effects of political donations. However, recalling has its own drawbacks so we would need restrictions on when a politician could be recalled in order to minimize these drawbacks. Also, this may already be set in place as a consequence of breaching their fiduciary duty to the public. It's just a matter of which system is better. Politics is such a complex system that it is unwise to have a firm position on policy such as this, especially since this hasn't been thoroughly tested. As such, consider these as hypotheses; hence why I consider this more of a conversation rather than a debate.

A conversation can be a debate.

Anyway the problem with recalls as i'm sure you know is the uneducated public recalling for the wrong reasons. This counter I think would be short lived however hypothetically if it happened, and it worked for it's intended purpose what's to stop X whom owns a news network from spreading disinformation and causing a recall of a good politician? (which also brings up the debate should news organizations be owned? If so should they be exempt from making money? )

Of course, it would be much better to eliminate money from politics, but I have a hard time imagining that happening. There are quite a few hurdles to overcome. How would you prevent a company hiring a former politician as a "consultant" as reciprocation for voting a particular way? It would be nigh impossible to show that they were influenced by said company since they could say that they only signed on because they personally agreed with said position. The only way to prevent this from happening legally is a non-compete clause for politicians, but I doubt any such clause would be legal.

That's a good point, as that does happen a lot today. It would be very hard to actually prove that, though it could be considered unethical, especially if it's particularly damning. IE he voted to increase subsidies for a company and then got hired by them. This is just as unethical as pushing the creation of an agency as a congressmen and then getting to head it (which is actually illegal.) So you could as you say make it illegal to go work for a company that benefited from your votes. Then again the counter argument is, you might not vote on those certain things even if they're good.

So you have a point it's particularly hard to fully implement that. However I would argue then it's not about making a perfect system, but if we can limit the amount of damage special interest can do it's a victory. Getting money out of politics should be the goal, and maybe someday it will be.

 

[rvkevin]

Anyway the problem with recalls as I'm sure you know is the uneducated public recalling for the wrong reasons. This counter I think would be short lived however hypothetically if it happened, and it worked for it's intended purpose what's to stop X whom owns a news network from spreading disinformation and causing a recall of a good politician? (which also brings up the debate should news organizations be owned? If so should they be exempt from making money? )

Like I said before, it would need to have restrictions in order for it simply not being a majority vote. You could make the process similar to a breach of contract. Politicians have a fiduciary duty to the public and if they breach that, then they could be at risk for potential dismissal. You would then need to make a case against that politician in a court of law. Typically it is up to the General Attorney of who gets prosecuted, which makes it possible that high level officials can get away with crimes. However, this is where petitions could play a role. If the public is misinformed then the judge would dismiss the case quickly and no harm is done. If not, then the problem is on its way to be corrected via the legal system.

That's a good point, as that does happen a lot today. It would be very hard to actually prove that, though it could be considered unethical, especially if it's particularly damning. IE he voted to increase subsidies for a company and then got hired by them. This is just as unethical as pushing the creation of an agency as a congressmen and then getting to head it (which is actually illegal.) So you could as you say make it illegal to go work for a company that benefited from your votes. Then again the counter argument is, you might not vote on those certain things even if they're good.

The problem with saying that you can't work at so an so company is that I doubt that it would be legal. Non-compete clauses have to be very specific in place and time. They tend to be unenforceable after two years. Waiting two years doesn't seem like much of a wait; just consider it a retirement package. This is not even considering whether it would be legal to use them for this specific purpose in the first place.

 

[Aesir]

Like I said before, it would need to have restrictions in order for it simply not being a majority vote. You could make the process similar to a breach of contract. Politicians have a fiduciary duty to the public and if they breach that, then they could be at risk for potential dismissal. You would then need to make a case against that politician in a court of law. Typically it is up to the General Attorney of who gets prosecuted, which makes it possible that high level officials can get away with crimes. However, this is where petitions could play a role. If the public is misinformed then the judge would dismiss the case quickly and no harm is done. If not, then the problem is on its way to be corrected via the legal system.

You do realize judges are just as bought as politicians right? That's where this idea falls flat. Judges have their own view of the law and are just as susceptible to the same problems politicians face.

Giving the politician a fear of getting voted out because his constitutes are dumb and don't understand the issues is not good government.

The problem with saying that you can't work at so an so company is that I doubt that it would be legal. Non-compete clauses have to be very specific in place and time. They tend to be unenforceable after two years. Waiting two years doesn't seem like much of a wait; just consider it a retirement package. This is not even considering whether it would be legal to use them for this specific purpose in the first place.

Well like I said you had a point, though you could pass a constitutional amendment, though that would be a bit harder.

However if the news outlets weren't bought and paid for as well, this sort of thing would likely not happen. IE real investigative journalism.

 

[rvkevin]

Sooner or later you're going to have to find some rational people (Don't actually read the article). Every system that is build on people has the problem with dealing with human error. The only question is which solution is least prone to complications. If we want representatives to make decisions in our best interest, that's fine, but electing them isn't necessarily going to accomplish that goal since the public can't make informed decisions. Here we are again back at the same problem of not having an informed public, and this doesn't even touch the issue of political donations. Governing by majority vote has its downsides if the public is uninformed. Governing by representation has its downsides as they are either voted in (see previous problem) or appointed, in which case simply moves the power up another level and then we have to ask how do we decide who has that role. We can play this game until we reach the Presidency. The fact of the matter is that human error will always be a factor so pointing out how the system could fail because of it is not helpful; unless there is a new form of government that I have missed that solves the problem.

However if the news outlets weren't bought and paid for as well, this sort of thing would likely not happen. IE real investigative journalism.

I don't know why people rely on the mainstream media so often. It's not like their coverage is that great. If I had my guess, its not because people are looking to be informed, but rather so they can be entertained. Why do you think shows track criminal trials to such an extent? Constant updates, new evidence, new testimony, people need to hear the ending. This has nothing to do with being informed about what's happening in the world and all about a murder/mystery tale. This would mean that the problem revolves around their profit model/customer demand rather than money in the media.

When it comes to their science, they hardly get the science correct, nor do they cite the paper they are referring to so that the reader can double check that the person is conveying the information correctly or to double check the methodology of the study. When it comes to politics, it is little more of quoting both sides; lacking any discernible attempt to analyze the issues or to find relevant information. I find it frustrating to read, especially since it reads like they only had the night before to type it up. And they think I'm going to rely on that information? No thanks, I'll do my own research.

 

[Aesir]

Sooner or later you're going to have to find some rational people (Don't actually read the article). Every system that is build on people has the problem with dealing with human error. The only question is which solution is least prone to complications. If we want representatives to make decisions in our best interest, that's fine, but electing them isn't necessarily going to accomplish that goal since the public can't make informed decisions. Here we are again back at the same problem of not having an informed public, and this doesn't even touch the issue of political donations. Governing by majority vote has its downsides if the public is uninformed. Governing by representation has its downsides as they are either voted in (see previous problem) or appointed, in which case simply moves the power up another level and then we have to ask how do we decide who has that role. We can play this game until we reach the Presidency. The fact of the matter is that human error will always be a factor so pointing out how the system could fail because of it is not helpful; unless there is a new form of government that I have missed that solves the problem.

Representative Democracy does have the least complications, when you include recalls into the mix you prevent those representatives from making ration decisions instead they have to always do what their constituents want. Which doesn't always mean what the right choice is.

I don't really get what you're getting at here, are you saying having a direct democracy type involvement produces less complications? because I can tell you it doesn't, it just makes the system far more resistant to change and produces more problems when a politicians actually sticks their principles and does the right thing. Money in politics simply rewards a behavior of complacency, rather than punishing it.

I don't know why people rely on the mainstream media so often. It's not like their coverage is that great. If I had my guess, its not because people are looking to be informed, but rather so they can be entertained. Why do you think shows track criminal trials to such an extent? Constant updates, new evidence, new testimony, people need to hear the ending. This has nothing to do with being informed about what's happening in the world and all about a murder/mystery tale. This would mean that the problem revolves around their profit model/customer demand rather than money in the media.

When it comes to their science, they hardly get the science correct, nor do they cite the paper they are referring to so that the reader can double check that the person is conveying the information correctly or to double check the methodology of the study. When it comes to politics, it is little more of quoting both sides; lacking any discernible attempt to analyze the issues or to find relevant information. I find it frustrating to read, especially since it reads like they only had the night before to type it up. And they think I'm going to rely on that information? No thanks, I'll do my own research.

Neither of us are old enough to remember when the news corps didn't need to make money. Prior to the 70's there was an unwritten rule, news didn't need to bring in money, it's primary objective was to report the news. But now because most networks expect a profit, it's sexed up and certain stories fall through the rugs, showing both sides as legitimate (which lets face, not every side has a legitimate claim)

All you have to do is watch all the networks and you'll see there's a huge corporate bias. MSNBC ignoring their parent companies tax evasion. Now that Dems are out of power in congress you rarely hear about the shenanigans going on. But 2 years ago it was on the nightly news constantly.

You're saying their coverage isn't that great, that's because we grew up with news that was never news to begin with. News was the watch dog of our democracy, all of these great causes in the late 20th century do you think they would have been possible with todays news? of course not. Ralph Nader would have been ridiculed as a communist wanting to destroy the car industry. Do you really think Daniel Ellsberg would have been considered legitimate figure? Probably not. If the pentagon papers happened today it would have been swept under the rug like almost every other bad idea our government tries.

 

[Calibrate]

People made money. Therefore, people are the root of all political evil. Good and evil is also a man-made thing. Politics is also a man-made thing (at least the practical aspect of it).

Therefore, you could say. People are the root of all something-we-call-evil-and-has-no-true-meaning of the man-made-way-of-living-life.