This is the best start to getting money out of politics. Lots of people who don’t follow politics have no idea what citizen’s united is… or that it’s even a thing. I believe that if they actually knew about it and what it has done to the interpretation of our constitution and governing, they would rally around it getting repealed.
And… if they learn that some states are even now considering laws to allow corporations to VOTE… then, they would see the damage this can reap beyond what’s already done.
It should be an educational campaign at first… and once there’s enough momentum, it can be pitched to initiate legislation.
i love this idea… have you heard what the cool kids over at Wolf PAC are doing?
They’re working for a Campaign Finance Reform Amendment because it HAS to be CFR and it HAS to be an amendment to overrule the slew of SCOTUS’ disastrous anti-democratic decisions.
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 like the idea of a protest where people read it into the camera speaking as a corporation (thanking them) with XYZ cooperate logo on their shirt prominently displayed then @ the politicians that take money from XYZ corporation.
This wasn’t intended as a general discussion, but since it has now been reclassified, i guess it’s just general talk now. Thanks for your support! Glad to have at least sparked some thoughts.
I think the way we get money out of politics is with public funding of elections and for the FCC to require media companies to give equal time to candidates who receive public money vs. private money for elections. And we should put a cap on the quantity and cost of 527 ads, and candidate ads.
Yes, but only-public funding I think is the best route.
That goes for incumbents and all challengers alike. National and local elections alike. ‘We the people’ buy our way (via tax dollars) out of the corruption. And we get the added benefit of office holders who have time to govern. Lobbying is fine as long as it is moneyless/favorless. The enforcement that zero money or gifts or insider info are received directly or indirectly by an office holder would of course have to be effective (perhaps a dedicated service for that). All of the conceivable ways to cheat would have to be made unavailable. And the penalties would have to be severe. Basically, to have the public trust you need to give up your financial privacy and the freedom to trade in securities. It could also prohibit the use of commercial tv time for political purposes (as was done with tobacco). This would remove alliances between candidates and news channels. The gov’t could setup public commercial-free channels that are universally accessible where only candidate ads and debates are played at no cost to the candidates (with an algorithm to make primetime slots distributed fairly). A lot of the need for campaign money is buying tv time, take that away and public funding may not be so expensive or complicated. Finally, incorporate bonuses, as in the private sector, into the compensation of office holders. If office holders measurably increase the public welfare using objective modeling, they are rewarded with very very attractive bonuses (above their attractive base pay). Public colleges could offer degrees in ‘Congress Person’, ‘Senator’, ‘President’ that would prepare students how to earn such bonuses (read: these are not ho-hum bonuses). The arguments we now have over campaign finance would then revolve around defining the objective public welfare models.
Probably on the order of women’s suffrage, if at all given the wholesale removal of governmental influence from corporations that it posits as well as the communications distortion and educational issues.
Its a pickle. I suppose one strategy might be to legally bribe politicians to vote against their own job-security until you have enough votes to get fair-play on voting rights and the bevy of other laws needed to protect our elections from the likes of those on trial in Fulton County. Then get some famous, rich, beloved, educated movie / TV / country music / sports / stars to become educated in governance and run for office using the idea as their platform (and of course not take any PAC money doing it). Have the country’s best scholars research the idea to prove it is in fact a superior way to run a railroad. Then write the bill (no matter how tall it stands when printed on paper) and have the debate, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps an enlightened state could adopt a version of it to see how it works in the real world. We are embarked on colonizing space, I think we can make a few amendments to the Constitution as the Constitution intended in order to sustain the Constitution.It will take time.
This would spawn debate. In academia some disciplines are politically driven not only information driven. Finance Economics colleges aren’t funded on science it is very clear they are partly founded on politics. This framing is given to you in school to prepare you for the “real world” which everything you learned means little. This is due to the political capture of the science.
So a statement like get the best scholars sounds like a small ask. I suspect it would exceeding difficult to have agreement on who those people were.
Good point. There would surely be dueling research. I imagine the ‘best’ would reveal themselves through sound work and peer acclaim. An off-hand example from a different subject area to illustrate.
Congress isn’t going to vote on any of our initiatives because they are being funded by the very system we’re trying to end. We better be ready for war. We need to think like we’re in a war. We need generals who can come together like Sherman and Grant in the civil war. They adhered to a coherent strategy of conquest. We need to legally annihilate the enemy. The enemy is exploitation of people by not giving us MFA, Education for all, housing for all, clothing for all, and food for all.
no, you got the wrong analogy… this is more like the French Revolution than the civil war. We need the PEOPLE to rise up against the government… NOT the government to recruit people to fight their battles. this is OUR battle. Les Miserables.