I think this is a general plan of sorts. We are building a parallel system due to other system failure. We should keep presence in both systems. As one grows or shrinks collectively we shift to use of an alternative system and mold them as we need. If we loose one we build another, two seems far more solid then one.
I don’t know about you all, but I feel that corruption in politics is an issue agreed upon across the aisle, among majority of Americans, up there with Paid Family Leave. You even have representatives like Gaetz and AOC coming together to address it in Congress in relation to lawmakers owning stocks.
Is there no way for us to band together to get a politician to push the issue, as we did with getting Bernie to force a vote on $15 minimum wage?
I just ask because I also agree that a lot of our issues stem from this concept. I understand that there are too many players participating in this corruption, but how many is the question when you have people like Gaetz trying to address it?
The problem is that corruption is pervasive far beyond politics. The entirety of our society is built on corruption.
The way to stop the corruption is to bypass the purpose of financing entirely. Money should never be a motivator for anything. As long as we’re using money as a carrot on a stick we can trick a gigantic portion of the population into believing the idea that a person’s value is based on how they choose to spend their time.
To combat the corruption is to show capitalists that money is irrelevant. Provide goods and services for free. Help others in need. Share your supplies with anyone who needs them. Donate anything extra you may have to the unhoused. There are so many things we can do to help each other and none of them require any exchange of currency.
4 Likes
Everything turns on this.
I’m not sure how much this would help or if it would be allowed, but if the Citizen’s United decision were published verbatim on social media sites including a few right wing sites, maybe some people would read it. I’m not sure how good an idea this is, but I welcome feedback on that.
I agree with the spirit of your argument but honestly we have a hurdle from the citizens united decision. AS the law stands right now money is speech. We have to overcome this with a federal constitutional amendment OR public funding of elections. I don’t see any other way around it.
Your point here, about the corporate duopoly, I think we can address. Have you checked out my topic thread, run republican progressives? I detail more there, but we can use the duopoly to triangulate on the corporate oligarchy. Kind of using their strategy against them.
Your point here about our Orwellian justice system granting money the rights of speech, I think we can address this. I started a topic thread about a class action against federalist society / heritage foundation. That type of plan could maybe expose many of the rulings which were bought and paid for by the oligarchy as legally illegitimate.
idk, it seems like everyone on both sides can agree the bribery is a problem. that’s like the one thing everyone agrees on. whether they say that about their favourite politicians is another issue.
under the current laws, there can be some regulations regarding speech AND there are laws on the books that somewhat limit donations and spending. this is just a lot more strict.
that would be a great thing to put on the ballot, either way, we just need to pick a plan and put it on a ballot initiative, a direct vote
I think requiring that the person running discloses all their contributions in order to have their name on the ballot at all would be a good first step towards enforcement. then election officials can monitor this and point out anyone who donates too much. if someone running tries to hide additional donations the will be disqualified from running and possibly face criminal charges. it’s really something that would be easier to enforce at the state and local level. for federal elections the most we could effectively do is kick their name off the ballot statewide. all the punishment is on the person running because that’s where the bribery has the most effect and that’s what needs to be dealt with first.
I think the flaw is how would you prevent this an election official from capture? Likely they need to be granted a bunch of powers they don’t have now. Otherwise they couldn’t enforce anything. Then the incentive to capture that official would be immense. How would you defray that inertia to capture?
you don’t enforce it with a single election official. there should be an entire election office that would deal with this. also, you can illegalize bribery to not just elected officials but also appointed or hired officials. the bigger problem is who this is reported to, and who would investigate. my first reaction is to think about the AG. also, this is mostly an effort to reform lower level elections because the state level ballot measures will have an easier time affecting those races.
Are you guys aware of wolf-pac.com? If not, check it out – Cenk started it over 10 years ago. I donate a little every month. They have to start with the states and then the feds won’t have a choice.
4 Likes
Reply tailored for polling and gaining consensus on ideas and priorities
artifact-of-change legislation-idea
Poll for: money-out-of-politics-by-bypassing-the-corrupt-politicians
Summary:
Topic: Democratic Process
Subcategory: Money In Politics / Corporatocracy
Is Legislation: Yes
Is Federal: No
States: Any Applicable
| What? | Why? |
|---|---|
| “You know those state level ballot measures voters get to directly vote on? let’s put something to get money out of politics on the ballot. Bypass the corrupted politicians entirely on this one.” | “get this passed in like 10 states and watch the political landscape change overnight. When state legislatures repeal it pretty much immediately that’s political gold for the progressives that run against them. it’s the biggest issue that effects legislation for all other issues. it needs to change or everything else won’t change fast enough to help anyone.” |
[/details]
Original Poster @agent_n7 , if you have any disputes in regard to the classification (What and Why, etc.), please @ me and I will update in accordance… it is after all, Your input
Now @everyone, please vote on the following questions:
- Are you in favor of this idea? (higher is better)
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
0
voters
If AGAINST, on what grounds are you against of the idea?
- Conceptual Grounds (Idea itself)
- Strategic Grounds (Strategic Liability)
0
voters
2 Likes
Could you add note to the yes vote? A conditional vote yes or no maybe useful as well.
1 Like
Oh yes! I don’t know what I was thinking! That was the original plan so it will be different than the regular [like]. Imma correct that on the ones up, and include it on the pending. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it.
1 Like
Again, thank you for your feedback. I replaced it with a numerical rank instead. My original idea was a like dislike, but this is more nuanced so that voter wouldn’t be limited to those two options only.
2 Likes
I would like to know why they think it’s a strategic liability when over half of the country agrees that they dislike the legalized bribery, even half of republicans agree