The ONLY way to take back the USA from the Politicians their Cronies

Money is king is politics... at least in our current system. Those that give the most, get the most in return. That is the case whether you are a Crony Capitalist Company, a Public / Private Union, or any other Special Interest group. I know the SCOTUS recently ruled that money is Free Speech, which I believe to be a complete subversion of Free Speech.

What needs to happen to restore the power back to, "We the People" is to stop this money from making it to our "Leaders".

Here is what needs to happen. It is non-partisan, fair, and restores the power to the people.

1. Only U.S. Citizens may contribute to a political campaign of any sort. That includes referendums, propositions, etc....
2. A U.S. Citizen may only contribute to a campaign that impacts them geographically. (President: Anyone nationally, Senate: Anyone from the state, Congress: Only within the District, and the same goes for referendums.)
3. The maximum total for all contributions a U.S. Citizen can make in a year may not exceed $10,000.

This stops all contributions from Companies, Specialist Interest Groups, Unions, Foreign Entities, etc.... Only a Private Citizen.

If we do this, and take the money out of politics, the nation will finally start gaining officials that listen to and represent, "We the People" over their special interest donors.

 

The Citizens United decision turned out to have zero impact on the election. The only thing it did was allow people to waste a lot of money and subject people in battleground states to more ads.

It had no effect on the outcome of the election so your fears are not justified. Republicans spent far more than Obama and it didn't matter. Obviously money does not win you elections in this country. Turns out the Supreme Court called this one right.

 

Thanks for your false opinion.

It is clear that money effects elections and no the Republicans did not outspend the Democrats.

... and the next time if the Republicans raise more... the Democrats will lose.

 

Did you not read that chart in your own link you posted? Even it shows the republicans outspent the democrats yet they still lost. So tell me how money buys elections again?

 

Personally, I disagree with your first two suggestions, but agree with your last one. Money does not buy votes in politics. Instead, money buys access, and access allows for influence. That influence sways votes. The real issue is ensuring that each individual is entitled equal access to their political leaders. Therefore, I like the idea of establishing a maximum annual contributions level. I would go one step further by establishing a one-time contributions limit of $100. I think this would introduce a new competitiveness in influencing politicians, both during and after elections.

Furthermore, I also favor making reforms to how politicians conduct daily activities. Committee hearings should not be the only proceedings open to average citizens. Proceedings on the floor of Congress should be as well. Doing so would not be that different from having Congressional proceeding on CSPAN, yet it would add another dimension of accountability, transparency, and efficacy to the political sphere.

From here, I would begin addressing the abomination that is gerrymandering. I would take the power of redistricting away from the state legislatures altogether. Instead, I would require that independent organizations be contracted to establish district lines based upon reasonable apportionment. In doing so, the use of a highly unbiased algorithm should occur. This algorithm is known as the shortest split-line algorithm. In redrawing district lines using this algorithm, a new area of Congressional electoral competitiveness will ensue. In turn, politicians will be forced to develop new, original, and effective policies, not old, antiquated, and sub-par ones.

Lastly, I would change the way the federal electoral process is conducted. I would reform the popular voting system by introducing what is known as range voting. This voting system not only eliminates the two-party stranglehold, but the political party stranglehold in general. No longer will political candidates require a large party apparatus to get elected. They will require a comprehensive set of effective and efficient policies.

Feel free to agree or disagree with me.

 

So... who are the politicians beholden too? The special interests, businesses, unions, and foreign entities that gave them each about $1,000,000,000 OR We the People?

 

Mostly to the voters.

Its the voters that vote them into office and politicians first and foremost crave power. They will turn on any special interest or business if it means getting into office. Those organizations you listed are just a means to an end but not the reason.

If it were don't you think corporations would simply pluck a yes man from their company and fund him to run for office? Then they wouldn't need to lobby or bribe or offer jobs once his term is done. They obviously are not buying elections. Just trying to influence it as much as possible.

Its like this; an interest group looks at the field of candidates running and decides which one would be most beneficial to their cause, they then support that candidate in hopes that he wins election. The candidate is not beholden to that group and kindly says thank you and if they are elected he may try to return the favor but hes still doing what he would have in the first place anyways. The interest group just helped him get elected, they didn't influence him to do anything he wasn't going to anyways.

Politicians are not blank slates that interests groups fill in according to how much they donate. They already have an agenda and interest groups want that agenda into office.

 

I agree with number one.

I agree with number two with the exception of the senators. Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the states' representation in the congress. The possibility of immediate recall by their state legislature will go far to ensure the senators are looking out for their state's interests.

I disagree with number three. Limiting the donors to the constituency of the office is enough to control the influence of money in the elections, IMO.

 

The way to take the power back is to support individual state efforts at nullification of federal over reaches. I would be quite happy if we became a country where the Feds in DC talk, annoy and spend while the States protect their citizens from federal excess...Let the Feds become simply a vast bureaucracy notable only for the cost and damage they try ti inflict and let the States ignore them.

 

I disagree with you about the contribution limits and I don't understand your concept of "range voting", but I believe you are right about gerrymandering. Something needs to be done about that for sure. I like the idea of a neutral algorithm for that.

 

Its been said that corporations "are people". If you don't allow corporations to make donations isn't in effect disenfranchising them?

 

I think nullification's revival is a prerequisite for the other ideas being discussed here. That's where a lot of people who are active in state politics are currently focusing their efforts right now. If the states don't reassert their sovereignty soon, we'll never get off the road to a completely centralized totalitarian police state.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been said. Doesn't make it so.

 

They only way to get rid of cronyism is to get an informed electorate, sadly I don't see that happening...

The money will never go away, but only the foolish and ignorant are subject to its effects...

 

Save insurrection, this is the only answer. Low information voters, public education indoctrinated voters, government dependent voters (be they the 40 million employees and government reliant contractors, or the millions of transfer payment recipients ), single issue voters, and loyal straight ticket voters conspire to overpower all the politics bound money in the world.

 

Well, they can't keep up the spending, its simply not possible, which means Obama will be at the helm when cuts come or he bankrupts us... He's a fool and amateur, but I'm not convinced he'd actually destroy us...

 

I completely agree. The US Government has breached the constitutional contract by its redefinition of the word people to consist of corporations, and its formation of speech as money. As such, they have relegated all natural citizens to SECOND CLASS, unable to be as represented or influential in government as corporations, and unable to speak as significantly as corporations. It is no longer a country by and of the people, natural people.

It begs the question why the founding fathers would clarify with the word "people" in the first place when talking about government (which is obviously comprised of people) if it wasn't to exclude the clubs, societies, aristocracies, royalties, corporations and other entities from making the natural people second class. YES: The US Government is in breach of contract.

Everything you said is a fine solution to the US Government problem!

 

you libs need to get a grasp on what it means when someone says that a corporation is a "legal person". It is not to be taken literally. the courts made that ruling to protect shareholders and employees from legal liability that could arise from acts of the corporation.

Sarbanes/Oxley holds certain corporate upper management people liable, but not employees and shareholders.

It does not mean that the corporation is a "person" in the literal sense.

 

Money doesn't effect the outcome except to a few people that are so brain-dead they can be persuaded by a 30 second filled with lies political commercial. For those in this category, there is no hope other than free lobotomies!

For the remaining 99%, people have tattooed on their asses either the caricature of a donkey or an elephant, and they are going to vote based on their political bias. It makes no difference about money, or about truths, or about facts; they are going to vote for 'their' party candidate.

IMO 98% of people who call themselves 'independent' are just as polarized as the ones with the tattoos. This group originated in one of the two political parties, went through the brain-washing process, made an attempt to escape the political dogma, but once in that voting booth, find it very difficult to vote for a candidate from the 'other' party.

This leaves 1% with an open-mind when it comes to voting and they can't be persuaded by money and idiotic political soundbites.

Bottom line; political campaigns have become a for-profit career group. Politicians and the media know a handsome reward awaits those who tap into this economic gold mine! They are exactly like religions; hawking their product to millions of people in the guise of an American election, throttling up the emotions with sensationalized crap, planting fears and being told donating money will solve the evil perpetrators...all of which is non-taxable...

 

Corporations, as legal constructs that only exist in the minds of people, do not act. People act.

You are right, a corporation is not a person. A corporation is what shields business people from the consequences of their actions.

 

Man your posts are crazy. Did you watch any of the election coverage or analysis? Why do you post to a political forum?

Well spending all your money on balloons won't win you an election no matter how much money you raise. No one said money inoculates people from stupidity.

 

I don't see any problems with what you want to do but the Citizens United ruling pretty much says you can't do the most important components of that. Also things get a bit tricky since the House and Senate make national laws that affect everyone.

 

The problem isn't money - the problem is ignorant citizens.

As it would seem you don't understand this, the problem is you; or rather, should I say you are a symptom of the problem.

Politicans is an ugly and telling descriptor and illustrative of the ignorance of the average Amerikan. We aren't supposed to be electing politicians, we're supposed to be electing representatives. Those representatives are supposed to be conducting the governments business, on our behalf, within the confines of the Constitution. Is that happening?? Of course not.

Our country no longer functions as a republic, it dysfunctions as a democracy. Do you understand the difference??

Do you understand that democracies always disintegrate and collapse under the weight of their own corruption?? That as the people come to understand that they can simply vote themselves sustenance and goodies out of the public treasury that demagoguery replaces substantive debate, and that expansion of government and corruption are as sure to follow as the Sun rising tomorrow??

If the FedGov were properly constrained as designed by the Constitution, Big Government wouldn't be the Big Business it is today. Prior to McKinley, lobbying your FedGov representative was done to resolve a tariff, trade, citizenship, treaty, or civil rights issues. Now it is Big Business.

If all one need do is give a greasy politican $2 to get a token which grants him access to the treasury vault - what do you think is going to happen??

The vault doors are wide open, the citizenry is ignorant, and the government is completely unconstrained by the rule of law - seriously, what would you expect to happen under such conditions??