Lobbing firms possitioning to influence(buy) Democrats.

This just makes me puke. This needs to be banned once and for all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601598.html

Is to institute publicly funded election campaign for all offices, from president to dogcatcher. Take money out of the equation, and we will have politicians who aren't beholden to corporate masters and their running dogs lobbyists. For an extra FU measure, we could fund these elections via a special tax on lobbyists:evilgrin:

We can avoid the free speech issues entirely and still bring honesty and integrity to the process.
The way is to pass a simple law. All monies given to one side must be matched by the same contributions to the other side.

If a pac raises money for a republiclown senatorial race, that money has to be either split between that candidate and his/her opponent or, lacking an opponent, must go to the opposition organization, such as the DSCC.

Since it appears we cannot limit the criminal actions by eliminating the money, the remaining solution is to equalize the money. An additional tag could be that all donations must be made anonymous, perhaps by a central clearing house that oversees all political contributions and doles out the money equally, within a particular set of races. I.E. One may specify that a particular contribution go to house races only or senate races only or local selectmen races, etc.

This fulfills three requirements--

1)You cannot eliminate money from politics
2)We cannot restrict free speech by disallowing contributions
3)The real problem is not individual contributions, per se, but massive contributions, with the attendant expectations of return on that investment

All your proposal does is solidify the "two party, same corporate master" system of government that we're operating under now. Hell, the vast majority of your big time corporate and individual donors already give to both parties come election season, and generally at the same aprox. amount. This is called hedging their bets, whoever wins is still beholden to them and their money.

And frankly I have a huge problem with the entire concept of monetary donations being defined as "free speech". Money talks, I grant you that, but it isn't a person or living thing. Frankly this concept is about as wrong as granting corporations "personhood" as we see in the current growing trend. And frankly, if we want to get around that, instead of passing PFEs as a law, make it a Constitutional Amendment.

If we want to take the monetary corruption out of our government, we're going to have to remove the money. We remove the money and that will allow a broader spectrum of views to be represented, and corporations will not be able to easily craft legislation that benefits them as they do now. PFE's have already been passed in four states, and they have benefitted from the law. It is high time that we took it nationwide.

It is time to return government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people.

Especially about corporate personhood, which, like a total repeal of all inheritance taxes, assure that there exists an entity that can live into perpetuity, thus assuring that those undying entities will end up with all the jelly beans.

The problem comes from the fact that, although I consider it nothing more than base bribery, the system of contributions to the careers of favored politicians has stood the test of many, many challenges and has always survived.
Although it is a worthy goal - removing bribery from politics - it just ain't gonna happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

Given that we have to work with the reality we have, rather than that which we wish were true, it looks like equalizing the money and making it anonymous would serve.
There will always be crooks in government, just as in the general population, and our job is to find 'em out, rout 'em out, and minimize the damage they can do to democracy until we catch them.

Edit to add: Oh, and you are quite right. My proposal does nothing to open up the two party stranglehold to more diversity-a laudible goal for most of us.

Things that we can do include re-asserting public control over the airwaves, as well as broadcasting in general and re-establishing the principle of more honest campaigning, rather than the out-and-out factless smearing and unchallenged falsehoods that are promulgated as campaign rhetoric.

Parsing the first amendment is probably not realistic at this time.

But rolling over and asserting that this is "just the way things are and that's what we have to work with" simply insures that the culture of election and governmental corruption will continue to flourish. We *don't* have to accept the way things are, that is the beauty about a democracy, we the people can make changes as we see fit.

Yes, I won't deny that pushing through PFE would be a hell of a task, anything worthwhile generally is. But that still doesn't mean we should throw up our hands in despair and do nothing. It means that we should roll up our sleeves and fight all the harder for what we want and what is right. If you simply sit around and do nothing, then nothing is exactly what will be achieved.

Four states have already passed PFE for statewide and local elections, we need to light a fire under the rest. However this is going to be a long, brutal fight, because the entrenched political establishment, be they Dems or 'Pugs, will not help us out one iota on this one, because we are threatening their wallet and power with this. Thus it is up to us to reassert our control over government, rather than continuing to let government assert their control over us.

Sure, this all sounds idealistic, and perhaps impossible. But that is how some of our greatest victories started out, idealistic and impossible. But through the hard work of many, many people, the idealistic and impossible became reality. Let's make it so on this issue too.

You play the game on the field you are given, while working to change the field. Plus it's nice that the gambler in the lobbying industry think that betting on Democrats doin well in November is worth a few bucks atleast.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

That'll work. Meanwhile, the field you're playing on is the one where you're winning, or have won before, so why fix what ain't broke?

But not taking the money and being a purist is like showing up for football in tennis gear - not likely to lead to victory.

I don't know. I guess my rationale for taking the money is that while that won't make it any easier to fix the problem of campaign finance and legalized bribery, it will hopefully us to make headway on other issues.

Bryant

You could always come up with your own game. However, we seem to just keep playing football. So you have to play by those rules, use their equipment, end up winning the same trophy. Different strategies sure, but ultimately playing toward the same end.

.. and vote against them the next morning, you've got no business in Texas politics."

Great quote from Molly Ivins (referencing, I-can't-remember-whom).

That's the trouble of what's gone wrong in Texas politics of today. They can't vote against 'em.

Look, we're always going to have lobbyists and Democrats need money from somewhere. It's not so bad, we're still far better than they are, we still stand for the right things. If you want a completely clean and honest government, go to some New England town with a Congregationalist background and only 200 people. Otherwise, if you're going to live in the real world, you're going to live in a world of lobbyists and pacs. Not all PACs are bad, some are working for good things afterall, like better Medicare coverage of medical procedures, et. al. As Democrats we need to use the system in order to change the system. We need more pro-consumer pacs. The problem now is that big business has all the power and all the pacs. Democrats can change this. The Big Dawg changed it. Begala and Carville changed it. I'd like to see K Street swarming with people who will look after our interests for a change. That's the only way we're going to get National Health Insurance.

Essentially, "We may be bad, but they're far worse."

I'm actually volunteering on a campaign right now. And I've lived in the Washington, D.C. area all my life. I've worked for the federal government and on the Hill and yes, now I work for a benevolent pac. So I see things as they really are, and I try to make them better.

Where I draw the line is if the lobbyist is actually married to the Congressman who has authority to award the contracts. That is crookedness! And I'm doing something actively to bring that to an end. Are you doing anything, DU purists?

http://www.hurstforcongress.com

I understand that life is made up of complex shades of gray, and none of us are "pure".
But this system is deeply corrupt and broken, and nothing genuinely improves by compromising one's integrity like a slide ruler as needed to play the game. Because once you start sliding that bar around to suit the situation, there is no longer a point of reference...only rules of convenience.
That's how corruption creeps in.

I DON'T agree that we'll ALWAYS have lobbyists and PACs, etc., and that's NOT a good reason to accept something....just because it's always been that way and 'always will'.

Won't go there with you. Perhaps working within the system has given you a unique perspective on the inner workings of the machine, but it also sounds like you've become identified with it.
I think our current form of government should and probably will go the way of the combustion engine. It's just too toxic for the environment, now. We need to start creating new models instead of keeping this one on life support.

I'm actively working on more sustainable systems.

Just call me Dr. Kevorkian.

I'd be curious to know. I'm out there trying to promote a better candidate and a better world. All the purists who rush to criticize me don't give much of a coherent alternative. I'm putting in hours for a candidate who doesn't take pac money. I'm giving my money, my time and my belief that we can make a better world.

http://www.hurstforcongress.com

What did the Big Dawg change? NAFTA? Telecommunications? If by change you mean that he helped move the jobs quicker, and helped consolidate media power into fewer hands, you'd be correct.

not put the interests of the greedy special interests--big energy, big pharma, etc.--before the good of the country.

Always representing our interests.

receive massive campaign contributions from the military industrial complex.

The people with their ears most profoundly to the ground for these midterms are the lobbyists, and the interests they represent. Yes, many of them suck...but I'll take our breed of corruption over the GOPs any day of the week if I have to. The fact that these people are expecting a change is the best indication I've seen yet that a change is in fact on the way.

They know which way the wind is blowing.

if they take back Congress to put the interests of the American people above those of the lobbyists and the special interests they represent?

I do agree that our special interests--labor, environment, trial lawyers, Hollywood, women's reproductive rights groups---are the good guys--but let's not become the water carriers for the Republicans' special interests--big energy, big pharma, etc., like our DLC (Democratic Leaning Corporatists) Democrats.

They have people to come and put it out. When organized interests buy representation, only that organized interest gets to hold anyone accountable. It's called private property.

Plenty of money to pass around to purchase the legislation they need.

I hope you are right that our crooks are better than their crooks. When it comes to IraqNam, I fear that they will be just the same, if not worse. I hope very much that I am wrong about that.

This, of course, will ensure that we have more of the likes of Holy Joe, et al to make certain the military industrial complex still gets to do what it wants.

We'll talk. Not til then. Lobbying is a necessary part of government, but it's time to shove these high-powered lizards off the train.

when the Republicans stripped the Senate amendment which reduced the cost of tv ads out the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, S.27.

5. H.AMDT.419 to H.R.2356 Amendment deleted section 305 which guaranteed special television media rates for advertising for political candidates.

Sponsor: Rep Green, Gene (introduced 2/13/2002) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 2/13/2002 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Green (TX) amendment (A005) Agreed to by recorded vote: 327 - 101 (Roll no. 23).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d107:./temp/~bdaUZHb:1<1-20>(Amendments_For_H.R.2356)&./temp/~bd1t2l ( Thomas Link expires quickly!)

( With a vote of 327 to 101, a lot of cowardly Democrats voted for this incumbent-protecting amendment!)

And, as some have said, our bribe takers will outlaw bribery once they've taken the bribes to get in office.

Sure they will.

“America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress." - Mark Twain

That the democrats are going back to the same old shit that got them kicked out in the first place.


They need to go to work on real reforms in lobbing, not the BS that is in place.

what you want, as a law maker, is to hear both/all sides. The GOP and the lobbyists (most lobbyists) all think alike so the lobbyists push the GOP further right and into the hands of big business. Hopefully, because the Dems look after the interests of everyone including the lower and middle classes, lobbyists would play the role of devil's advocate. Honestly, if you are writing laws, one of your greatest fears is unintended consequences.