What To Do To Stop Back-room Dealing In Politics

I have to disagree with your premise that abck room deals can be stopped and immigration is complex.

IMO, it's the opposite.

Immigration is not a problem - enforcement is the problem. We are allowing illegal alien invaders into our country - they bring disease, crime and poverty with them - for nearly nothing in return. Enforce the present laws and the illegal invader problem goes away.

Back room deals are another story. Take a look at the Hillary Clinton candidacy - would she have been the Democrat Candidate if not for fixed state conventions and "super delegates"? The fix was in and everyone knew it.

Both parties are very guilty of back room deals - look at the actions of the Senators and Representatives from both parties as they tell their constituents anything to get elected, yet support an open border, global corporation agenda - at least until President Trump came along and shocked both parties and their back room deal makers. The solution to back room deals is a free and OBJECTIVE press that reports the truth about all parties and events as opposed to "spinning" such things one way or the other - depending on the ideology of the journalists and their fake news outlets.

 

I doubt that there are any congressmen/senators who think they aren't voting in the best interest of the USA. The problem is that the different groups have different opinions about what is the best interest of the USA.

 

Lobbying is protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

This comes down to the question of character- the individual requirement of a person to conduct themselves honorably. IF everybody had and respected good character, most of the problems of society would disappear. However, that is not human nature. Fact is, that what people can get away with, they will do. Solution- don't tolerate it. This is no different than raising kids. The more backtalk and misbehavior you will tolerate because you won't back up the rules- the more of it you will get.

The one entity in government that has total control over itself (outside of the electoral process) is Congress.
The founders assumed that enough members of congress would be of a quality that Congress could be trusted to supervise itself.
Knowing that some dishonorable people would manage to get elected. the founders gave congress the power to expel any unsuitable member by a 2/3 vote. Not a trial, not a lengthy process- just simply the consensus of not being acceptable. It would be a lot like being fired; as in- clean out your desk, now.

In theory, this is the tool for congress to police itself, but it requires that the general quality of character among members remain high. It also requires that tolerance of bad conduct be very short, and the rule used promptly. If it is not- it becomes worthless.

There are 535 members of congress. Over the century, a substantial number of them have been convicted of felonies and imprisoned. A much larger number of them have behaved in such a way as to shame not only the congress, but the entire nation. So... how effectively has congress used it's power to police itself?

Since the civil war, congress has chosen to use that power- TWICE.
During the war, it used it 17 times- to expel members because their political stand was too favorable to the south, which would mean it was used as a political tool.
Between the origination of congress, it was used twice.
In the total history of the US Congress, with the thousands of people who have come and gone, Congress has seen fit to rid itself of 21 members- and only four for purposes that served the purpose the rule was intended for.

Clearly, Congress has never been willing to clean it's own house. In today's world, they all play the same game, and there is little choice due to the way power is bartered in congress. With what it requires to get in and to get assignments of value, the established power structure can and does protect it's territory and privileges. So- who will oversee it for the purpose of keeping congress honorable? Clearly- Congress will not discipline itself to that purpose.

Myself and some friends, including a political science professor and a constitutional lawyer, put together an idea for that purpose. Briefly-

Congress, in an act of good faith (motivated by a vast super-majority of angry voters) would pass a bill delegating it's power to expel, in perpetuity, to a council of citizens- a Congressional Oversight Panel. This group would be ordinary Americans- chosen as jurors are, to serve for a limited time and only once, and prohibited from benefiting or using the position in any way. The group of perhaps 50 or 100 would rotate in staggered fashion. It would have a staff and investigative powers. It would have the power to expel any member of congress for violations of ethics, of the oath of office, and violation of fiduciary duty. The decision of the panel has the some process as firing, it is immediate and without further process.

While members of congress are chosen by voters of their state- once sworn in, they are employees of the federal government. Just as a trust fund or bank would dismiss an employed officer who violated the duties of his position, members of congress would find themselves in the same position- and all they have to do to avoid expulsion is conduct themselves honorably.

If one looks up the standards of the Oath, the Ethics and the Fiduciary duty- you can see they require a great deal more than we are getting from our elected congress.

Such a change would take ONE piece of legislation. It would be totally non-partisan, and it would require a strong majority of public demand to push it through. Given that it's only effect would be to require a higher standard of conduct in office, it would be hard to come up with legitimate objections- but of course, there would be a battle.

If such an oversight panel were to be created- no doubt it would have to prove itself. However, once a few heads rolled down the congressional aisle and the members realized that the rules were no longer elastic and safe to ignore, I think we would see the majority finding a new religion of ethics guiding their conduct. I also believe that such a congress would attract far better candidates than it does now, and the extreme partisan form of politics we are plagued with today would be greatly replaced with cooperation and reasoning.

 

it borders on treasonous to imply any part of government is susceptible to collusion up to and including the Presidency.

the powers that be are duly elected representatives of the people, therefore every part of government is fortified with integrity.

special interests merely serve special people, who have earned their status in our democracy with intelligence, hard work, and honor.

 

I have the solution.

Make political parties illegal and establish term limits.

 

Giving money and services to congressmen isn’t, especially if you can find a quid pro quo.

 

That is bribery, not lobbying.

 

Exterminate politicians.

 

If we locked her up we could do a lot to correct the system.

 

Some say this is a problem of the large state. I believe this to be a double headed monster. If government is for purchase, there is an incentive to increase it’s size and power for the sake of one’s own interests. Since government is inherently the one to implement taxes, there is a built in incentive to bend them to your favor. Also worth noting is that many talking points to reduce the size of governments from elected officials are mearly illusions in the effort to obfuscate the fact that their reduction in government only means the protection they could provide over the public.

A constitutional amendment to eliminate outside money from political campaigns is one effort that is currently being worked on. This is a very slow process, and will only come once the majority of states agree and it will be brought forth for hearing, and even then could very well be struck down by the overwelming influence.

Rank voting, though an indirect approach, could open the opportunity for voters to vote more honest to their opinions. The dualism of the parties certainly has an impact on the voting process, and only the most corrupt will have the percieved popularity to win an election. This plays directly into the hands of an overwelming influence of money.

Much of the issue lies in how can you get a corrupted government to chop down their own money tree. This is largely the responsibility of the voters to research and understand their candidates, and to educate their neighbors on the nature of each politician. Only then could we have clean elections. Efforts must be made to this approach, which they are popping up thankfully.

 

I like your idea.

@Meta, I disagree with those who think this is just business as usual, and it's OK.

I think of members of Congress as our employees.

Now imagine for a moment that you worked for someone. And you are not on a work break. You are talking to someone. Your boss asks you what you are doing. And you reply that you're doing your job. "Oh really? What were you talking about?", asks the boss. "I will not tell you", you answer. How long do you think you could get away with that?

My POV is that my members of Congress are my employees who I hired to represent me. Therefore, I am their boss, and I have a right to know everything they are talking about with anyone that is related to the job I hired them to do.

So therefore, I favor surveillance, recording, and transcription of all communications of my members of Congress (excepting purely personal matters like communications with spouses and children as examples). This includes all email, mail, phone calls, and meetings. As his or her boss, I want to know everything my members of Congress are doing, what they're talking about, and with who.

And I will second the idea of a non-partisan Congressional Oversight Committee that can fire members of Congress.

Seth

 

Certainly this happens but that is the fault of the voter for choosing to remain uninformed.

We have been given all the tools we need to decide who should represent us, if we choose not to keep up with it then that is our fault for allowing it to happen.

We shouldn't artificially impose limits on politicians because that does nothing but limit the choices of those who do spend the time to look deep into facts.

I would suggest our efforts are better used in getting people to want to be informed, not doing their job for them.

 

the best way would be to adapt the Athenian system and elect people by lot.

 

Didn't read whole thread. Easiest one yet.

Decentralize power.

Centralized power over vast pools of money without stringent, local community, private and not public oversight is an absolute assurance of massive corruption. This has been the case throughout history and is no less the case today. The Framers knew it, and any educated, aware adult today knows it.

Wide scale corruption in the U.S. federal government began in earnest with its illicit expansion after the Civil War, proliferated in dozens of instances of illicit government expansion since. Today, we live under an overbearing, thoroughly corrupt, massively expensive central leviathan in which average middle class people are elected to central office, then leave a few decades later multimillionaires despite providing no discernible goods or services other than political influence in the interim.

As is so often the case, and was since Hamilton in the U.S., those who seek to harvest government fiat power for bad or self-enriching purpose use a veneer of moral imperative or "necessity" to do so, but surprise surprise, once the moral crisis is handled, the "necessity" addressed, the massively enlarged and entrenched bureaucracies, cronies and corruption remain in perpetuity.

Of course state and local governments are also subject to corrupting forces, but living a stone's throw from the governed has a severe chilling effect on its growth. If this country is to survive another century, political power must be massively decentralized and government at all levels strictly limited to its very few truly -necessary- functions.

 

If people can't take the time to research the current politicians then ranked voting isn't going to help that, they will still be just as clueless.

As for people being too busy to pay attention to every bill.....well that is exactly the case and why we hire people to do it for us either because we don't have the ability, don't have the time, or don't have the desire to do it ourselves.

Now I'm fairly certain that most of us on this board know our representatives and the positions of all the candidates but I can also assume the vast majority of voters do not and that's where our election system comes into play and makes it superior to ranked voting. Most voters have a general sense of the direction they want the nation to go which is represented fairly well by the two major parties. They gain enough information to make their decision and are comfortable with that....it makes it easier for them to vote. They like democrats or they like republicans, its a simple choice designed for a majority that thinks simply, as our Founders put it roughly.

Ranked voting would work great for those of us who make politics our hobby and stay up to date but for most people it would lead to simple frustration and be ineffective.

Better to draw little bright arrows on the ground so people know which way to go.

One red and one blue.

 

I disagree. If they are discussing official business, there should be 100% transparency, and 100% disclosure. They have the right to confidenciality in their PESONAL affairs, not in official dealings.