Could you explain what you mean about changing the 1st amendment?
I think campaign finances are a major problem in our democracy. The millions spent on campaigns is ridiculous. I’d like to see a cap on spending and strcter limits on donations. I guess I’m unrealsitic and extreme on this but I think donations should only come from registered voters, indivduals not groups or pacs or unions or businesses. I’d like to see more involvement and education of the voters and the use of the tools available to us such as the internet and TV, town hall meetings etc so we can get to know who’s running and make an informed decision.
I’m not against lobbying because I believe Congress needs to be informed to make good decisions. Various groups and businesses need to make their case to DC when a bill is under consideration.
In todays atmosphere I also support term limits.
Except the trial lawyer focus isn’t on passing laws in their favor as such, its on preventing large corporations passing laws in their own favor - tort “reform” laws that will cap the damages corporations have to pay out for injuring individuals, regardless of the true cost of those injuries.
Is there self interest involved? Certainly. But what trial lawyers are seeking is essentially defensive (and serves the benefit of consumers).
All of these ‘good government’ reforms will fail. See, one man’s ‘influence’ is another man’s ‘representation’. When you give the government the power to regulate and control huge swaths of the economy, you create huge incentives for people to manipulate the government.
Not only that, but government needs input from industry, because politicians don’t know a damned thing about whatever it is they’re regulating. So they pass broad-strokes bills, and rely on the permanent bureaucrat class to actually write the regulations. These bureaucrats ‘consult’ with industry, to avoid screwing things up even worse than they will.
Would you want a bill on the internet written by Congress, with no input whatsoever from the stakeholders? Would you like to see a health care bill that includes no input from doctors, insurance companies, and other health care providers? How about a transportation bill that ignores everything that Boeing and Ford can tell the government about transportation?
This is the essential problem of government in a technological age. If you want to govern well, you have to have expertise. The expertise resides in the industries being governed. So they have to have a say. But they have their own vested interests. So you wind up with a government at the top, and a ‘shadow’ technical class behind the government, representing special interests and twisting legislation to their benefit.
A much better answer would be to get government out of much of the stuff it currently does. This constant technical micromanagement by Congress is a disaster, and will continue to be a disaster no matter how many reforms you put in place. Here’s the best reform of all: No bill shall be passed that is greater than 100 pages. If the feds need more than that, they’re micromanaging at too much.
The U.S. government represents the largest concentration of power on the planet. Power corrupts. It will always be that way. You can shred your constitution and interfere with people’s right to representation to stop it, but you won’t. The corruption will just mutate into different forms.
This would be like cutting off your penis to avoid genital warts. A small powerless government creates a power vacuum, & in an unrestrained private sector, corruption is just business as usual. We’d not really be better off.
I don’t think those are really the only options. I posted above that trying to bring the power of the moneyed special interests under the power of the people might help, & there are surely more ways of doing that than “watchdog groups.”
Well, help me out with some particulars: let’s say it’s 2012, and it’s Obama versus Romney, and both sides have just now hit the “cap on spending” you have in mind, and here I am wanting to spread the word about how awesome my candidate is and why I think you should vote for him, and –
– er, how many of my dollars am I allowed to spend on that? Can I buy a couple of full-page ads in the local newspaper? Are you going to cut me off at one television commercial before making sure I don’t pass out too many flyers? Is it okay for me to make a website touting his merits? What if I use bumper stickers or billboard space to advertise that website?
Are you going to limit me? If so, how?
I think you’re right about this. And it’s the inherent problem in finding a solution. I don’t think free speech rights should be limited. If you can’t give the money to the politician directly, you can spend it yourself. And that might make the problem even worse. The money will be spent, the perception will remain that the candidate serves the special interest, and the candidate can’t even fund a campaign to define himself.
Thanks for the feedback everybody. It gives me a better perspective on this problem. But less optimism regarding a better future for our country.
That would take a long discussion and a lot of consideration. I completely support free speech but are we willing to equate money and the willingness to spend it, with speech? If we do, what are we gaining, what are we losing?
Off hand, {and I’m willing to listen and consider arguments} I’d say individuals taking out ads for their candidatures at their own expense is the same thing as a campaign contribution , so, if you’ve already given the max you can’t do that. That means either for your guy or against his opponent. However, I don’t think we should limit people’s ability to volunteer their time and labor so if you decide to personally go door to door or hold public gatherings to talk about how wonderful your guy is, have at it.
How about T shirts , and bumper stickers? I’d say it’s reasonable to print your own for you and your immediate family. Printing in large lots and handing them out would aslo be a campaign contribution.
The goal I’m shooting for is for cvandidates to be weighed on their merits and their position on real issues, rather than by who raises the most money. So they can essentially have the same funding and then get to decide how they use it, and also how many average citizens get behind them and donate thier time for a person they believe in. registering voters and providing rides for voters, helping voters with absentee ballots , etc, could fall under vulunteer services that help the election process. If you personally choose to target an area that leans toward your chosen party so be it. You are not allowed to question registering voters or riders who they favor.
I’d also favor looking closely at the laws on slander and libel when it comes to the real down and dirty tactics. Aren’t those laws there to prevent someone from being personally and financially damaged by intentional lies? Isn’t someone being damaged when you intentionally lie about them to prevent them from winning an election?
Reading the OP, it looks like you have it backwards. If you’re running for Congress and not yet a congressman, you can take all the money you want from anybody you want in contributions, because you’re not an elected or appointed official. It’s only after you get elected and are running for reelection that you’re screwed.
And to be fair, the only people you won’t be able to accept money from then are people bidding on government contracts or registered lobbyists.
I’m not a fan of limiting free speech either but my question is are we correct in equating having money to spend with free speech, and is that good or bad for our electoral process.
Want to get together with your community and have discussions about the issues and candidates in a public building? Great! Want to gather in smaller groups in homes to look at the candidates and take turns explaining your views? Awesome.
Have local reps from the perspective parties give talks on the candidates. Let’s make it about the real live voters and the issues instead of talking points and distortions in multi million dollar media blitzes.
Is part of the problem that we still haven’t learned how to have a reasonable respectful discussion so we’d rather let the money decide it than talk to the people in our town or city?
Yes, I did leave unlimited contributions open to the unelected, but I intended the contract/lobbyist limit for family and friends after the election, while the official wouldn’t be able to get money from anybody. But unless people are limited from campaigning for candidates of their choice, the process will continue, with only a few added restrictions, that as I noted before, might even make the problem worse.
I don’t want to limit free speech by individuals, just the practice of bribery under the guise of free speech, and that looks increasingly difficult to achieve.
I agree which is why I don’t disaprove of lobbying if it’s done to educate those writing the laws, rather than bribing them.
It depends on what area you’re talking about but I essentially agree. Bills should rise or fall on their own merit without totally unrelated riders. THat won’t stop them from making back room deals but will make the deals more transparent. If you promised to vote yes on some piece of shit in order to get a vote on something else your name will be on the piece of shit without excuse.
Sadly I think this is correct. You can’t deal with billions of dollars without corruption. You can only continue to weed it out continuously.
I’d say the office being sought after ought to have some reasonable cap, whether it’s your first time running or your last.
Can the elected official not get money from anybody, or just not from people bidding on contracts and registered lobbyists? Because if you’re not letting them or their family members accept any gifts from anyone, it’s going to be a sad Christmas at the Congressman’s house this year.
I meant the official can’t take anything from anyone except his salary and existing investments. The limits on the family are to prevent secondary bribery. But it all just increases the complexity. And as you point out, what about a gift from family members? It wouldn’t be reasonable to ban Christmas and birthday presents.