Pay to Play the U.S. Way 844
Thu Anon Coward writes "There's an article on CNN.com that finally shows proof that corporations actually demand access to politicians for contributing $$$. And that political parties promise access based on how much the corporations "donate". Microsoft donated money on the condition that they be seated next to "Sen. (Paul) Coverdell or leadership, Commerce Committee or Judiciary Committee," according to a GOP memo. The memo added Microsoft did not want to sit with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major critic." How can we fight this? Write letters to the companies saying we won't buy their products because of their undue influence? You think the politicians will actually listen if we write them instead?" The campaign finance debate is probably the most important political issue in the U.S. right now. You should pay attention, even if you hate politics.
Oooh, me likes to "donate" (Score:5, Funny)
In canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
Green Party. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And your point is? (Score:2)
return(c-greed);
}
Re:green=socialists (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the first option is the better one, because welfare has some drawbacks: it's expensive above a certain unemployment level and to have no work at all has also severe psychological consequences for the affected people and their families. That does not mean that welfare should be eliminated completely - it should just be a last hope for difficult cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Green Party. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since they don't take major corporate funding, there is no easy way for a moderate GP candidate to get press. The Libertarian party suffers the exact same problem of the press only paying attention to marginalized extreme members of the party.
The only way I've seen around this so far are donation caps and mandated equal media coverage for all registered candidates. Not just "free press", some places have that to some extent, but "equal press". Very hard to mandate such a thing in a democracy/republic/etc.
Until we somehow have a constituency who will make up their minds based on issues on a per-candidate basis, we'll always have problems like this while we have parties. Participate in each election and read up on your candidates and their issues beforehand (for instance, I voted Libertarian on a couple of ballots where I thought I would vote Democrat because I couldn't find the publicly posted opinions of the Democratic candidate anywhere and I don't consider N/A a valid opinion).
Which is going to be easier: do away with parties or get an educated and ACTIVE constituency? That's a toughie.
Who's Gonna Buy the TV Time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who's Gonna Buy the TV Time? (Score:5, Insightful)
And to think, you're not considered an apathetic voter if you see a candidate on television. Sad.
Re:In canada... (Score:5, Informative)
You can also check how it's done in various provinces. Coming from Québec, I can tell you that only individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties here: corporations, lobbies, etc. are not (but members of those obviously can). So Microsoft (or Disney) couldn't give money to any party, but Bill, Steve and whoever is the CEO of Disney can. I think the yearly limit (for provincial contributions) is CAN$3000 by party.
For those saying "But then how do you advertise?", the answer comes in three parts. First, if you score a minimum at the polls (I don't remember exactly, maybe 20%), part of your expenses are refunded by the government. Second, the TV stations are mandated to give free air-time (during political campaigns) to each official parties (no single candidates have TV spots because TV is not local enough, and no office is directly elected as the president of the governors). Third, I'm pretty sure there's a cap (by candidate, or by party) for the expenses during the whole political campaign.
BTW, here in Canada federal parties usually have a weaker link to provincial parties than in the States. For exemple, the Liberal Party of Canada has no link (other than the name and some concepts) to the Liberal Party of Québec, to the point that the current leader of that party comes from the Progressive-Conservative Party of Canada, which was (it's really weak ATM) the other national party. So you need to redo all your "shopping" in the provinces as well.
Re:Platform Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
So how are they going to pay for services (the Mounties, locks & canals, etc.)? With a wink and a smile?
Re:Platform Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Not huge, but a little less USA-influenced.
Yes, to an extent, but it involves a complete income tax system revamp. It also, more importantly, means that you can reduce your taxation when you're only paying for necessities, as opposed to the luxuries for which people who can afford taxes would be willing to pay.
This would reduce welfare strain, for example.
Limits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Limits? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Limits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Limits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Limits? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Limits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Limits? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty telling that the only time Congress cares about the Bill of Rights is when their paychecks are in jeopardy.
Re:Limits? (Score:5, Informative)
Individual Citizens may contribute the following per year (at maximum)
1) $1,000 to any Canidate or Canidate comittee
2) $20,000 to any National Party
3) $5,000 to any other political comitee
4) A cap of $25,000 per year between all combined contributions.
So, while you and I can "Buy" $25,000 of senator, Microsoft is not limited in it's ability to buy shares of a political-whore?
Not only do they have an effective monopoly on operating systems, they (along with other corporations) have been able to make the $25,000 shares of your average citizen look like pennies that get discarded on the city street because they're not worth the effort to pick up after they fall from your pocket.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't corporations supposed to, in law, have the rights of an individual? Shouldn't they be subject to that limit the same as an individual?
Absolutely not. That would render individual limits pointless as anyone could start up 10,000 corporations and donate $25K with each.
Re:Limits? (Score:5, Informative)
However, many of the wealthy people who give money to ACT are apparently afraid of having their donations being published for reasons that are unclear to me; since there's a $5000 disclosure limit, a local law firm whose partners are pro-ACT helped people around this by taking donors' money, and then having the staff of the company make $4999 donations.
(Ironically enough a number of people who support ACT whine about more socially oriented companies such as Stephen Tindell's Warehouse chain getting involved in philanthropy; supporters such as economist Gareth Morgan trot out the line that companies becoming involved in social/political action are "stealing from owners"; Mr Morgan was rather silent on this little trick).
One of the problems with these sorts of regulations is that the unscrupulous will go to considerable lengths to evade the law and have the resources to help them: consider the aforementioned example, where secretaries, junior lawyers, and other employees are press-ganged into evading the law and supporting their bosses' favourite party.
So basically... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can only come to one conclusion: The ballot is definitely stronger than the bullet, but in today's United States of America, the Dollar is stronger than the ballot.
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Informative)
You'll probably find that the reason that a group gives donations to a party is because they feel that the party thinks in a similar way to they do.
Did you read the linked article? They quote documents that damn-near say they'll let you write your own laws for a quarter million. For example:
Nicholson enclosed a copy of the RNC's health care proposals and asked Heimbold for his suggestions to improve it. He also included an outline of GOP lawmakers were doing involving health care legislation.
In the next paragraph, Nicholson encouraged Bristol-Myers -- already a GOP donor -- to give $250,000
Guess what? Bristol-Myers gave $291,200
READ IT! [cnn.com] The letters and internal memos are disgusting! We're not talking about corporations supporting parties and candidates that they happen to agree with, we are talking about selling political influence. Why else would all these companies hand equal amounts of soft money to BOTH parties? [commoncause.org]
-
Yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why there are laws against forming monopolies. However we've passed that threshold. Microsoft isn't "becoming" a monopoly that we can stop, Microsoft is and has been a monopoly that those laws were suppose to prevent in the first place. Now it's going to take a lot longer to rid them of the monopoly than it would have been to prevent it from forming about 8 years ago.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the aggression against Microsoft here is a tad misplaced. First, they are but one example of the corporate power-bidding going on, and you seem to ignore the rest out of personal bias.
Second, the larger issue here is clearly the political side of things, where parties/candidates who's job it is to represent their constituents (NOT corporations) are prostituting themselves directly now to corporations (who have nothing in their legal "job description" about buying power and influence).
Thanks for your time.
What can be done about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Republic or Democracy? (Score:2)
Definitely Republic (Score:3, Interesting)
A republic on the other hand, insists that the law rules regardless of what the majority wants. This is not popular a lot of times. For example, the majority of people in the USA want to give up freedoms for security, but the Constitution is effectively slowing down, if not preventing, the complete elimination of our freedoms in favor of security. The times that you do see the Constitution being ignored, you're seeing a great example of true democracy in action.
Re:What can be done about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What can be done about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
While we're on the topic of corruption in politics how about Clinton and his infamous cash-for-clemency ring? Toricelli? hah. What about the foreign bribe iquiries into the DNC? What about DNC head, party McAuliffe--teamsters union money swap mean anything to you? I could go on...
Re:What can be done about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, do you let talk radio spoon feed your political views to you. Your rant sounds like Rush Limbaugh, or possibly convicted felon, G. Gordon Liddy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What can be done about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
money != speech
tv != speech
newspaper != speech
speech == speech.
Not EVERYONE can afford a newspaper advertisement. However EVERYONE can afford speech. It's free (both as in beer and as in FREE).
You do not have a right to reach a larger audience just because you have more cash than others... once we accept that we have doomed ourselves to be an oligarchy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you think what you're saying makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but there is a startlingly common hypocrisy by those who claim that "Dan Heskett" on a street corner, the local paper, the local radio station, and the TV networks, should all receive equal treatment in our society. Everyone knows that what goes on TV has immense effects. Yet there's this smarmy doublethink surrounding it. You have ideologues who claim the sanctity of the current political system vis a vis TV under the umbrella of the venerable Fourth Estate, but who can within minutes (and without considering it strange) rabidly campaign to censor "harmful" and "dangerous" images like a stray nipple or a proscribed word. But I'm sure you believe nudity, cursing, and graphic violence on TV is fine, because, after all, this is America.
And it's easy for us to not examine that thoroughly because it's scary to most people that, yes, really, what we see on TV affects our beliefs, behaviors, and decisions, often in the most literal and pedantic way. In fact, directly. Massively. The whole advertising industry is a 12-figure testimony to this fact. TV and radio have supplanted the community culture that came before them, and replaced it with a uniform source, and that has big consequences. And unlike newspapers, I cannot start a TV station if I'm unhappy with the local coverage. In fact, I think as an exercise, before you start going on about the sacredness of your press and its speech, you should go figure out what it takes to start your own radio station.
Or what the penalties are for "unauthorized" broadcasts.
It turns out, "we" take threats to the current broadcaster's hegemony with the most deadly seriousness. Perhaps because... "unregulated" broadcasting is... in the words of the FCC: dangerous.
This is one reason why the Internet is such a positive invention. But I digress.
New systems, new playing field, new rules. Right now the rules are that you have to pay astronomical sums to the broadcast trust for a few seconds of airtime. They can refuse your business, or not. If one of the broadcast trust members wants to devote an entire channel to Republican propaganda and call it "Fox News", hey, it's good to be the king.
You can hypothesize bad new rules - straw men of censorship and totalitarianism that you hold up when your fundamentalist take on the First Amendment is questioned, but you can't abdicate responsibility for thinking of a better way to have a mass-media embued democracy. In other words, rather than hiding your head in the sand, or crying about the wrong way to do things, consider what good alternatives there are to having political control go to those with the best ties, financial and otherwise, to the media.
The Swiss simply said, if I understand it correctly from another poster here, no political ads allowed on TV and radio. If they didn't, let's consider it hypothetically anyway. You don't quite know how to level the modern playing field, so you just go back to the system the Framers understood - one where all political speech is far more equal, because anyone can afford newsprint, and practically anyone can become their own publisher. Censorship, as another responder pointed out, can take many forms. You are invoking the specter of Soviet Russia where the real danger is more that of the Highway Patroll. You just can't drive faster that 65 MPH, sir. No, no one can. Not even if they're His Majesty Rupert Murdoch the First.
Dan Heskett can curse on the street. In New York, "Danette Heskett" can even walk around on the street topless. Yet we think that broadcasting curses and nipples is so dangerous that the thought of it ending up on NBC where a parent might somehow momentarily lapse in their parental supervision and allow their child to see it sends us into conniptions. And yet we can simultaneously believe that laissez fair is a good idea for political speech in the media.
Astounding, isn't it?
One of the few "conservative" beliefs I harbor is a faith in the right to self-defense. I believe that if we truly grant that ordinary men and women can bear the responsibility to vote, or to raise children without supervision, we have no choice but to assume they are up to the trivial (and millenia old) right of owning and carrying a weapon. Yet, just as with driver's licenses, we acknowledge that for the general safety of all, some basic prudence is in order, and we do some paperwork, and we have some simple ground rules.
In advocating "free speech" as your only guiding principle when discussing politics and the mass media, you are like a pro-weapon extremist who believes that nuclear weapons should be unregulated.
Actually, writing as you are, today, in America, you're like a pro-weapon extremist making a speach on how regulating nuclear weapons is wrong from inside a gigantic, smoking, eerily luminescent blast crater.
Still, from one admirer of the Constitution to another, I hope you will take my arguments in the spirit of good faith and respect with which they are intended.
Re:What can be done about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what? I don't care about $50-$100 contributions either. I don't think those cause any problems.
I just don't care that individuals and small companies donate these piddling amounts. I don't think that warps the process at all. $100 won't buy any meaningful access. Sure, individual contributions may add up to millions, but who gets paid off in return?
I do care that Mega-Corp X donates $100,000 and Big-Union Y donates $200,000, though. I can use this information to monitor voting records and if I detect a sell out, I can try and work against this. Ultimately, with an involved populace, accepting big contributions could work against candidates.
What do you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2)
Donors should have access to politicians -- just like the rest of the citizenry. When donors are given special access, I think that is unacceptable.
Perhaps we should allow unlimited, anonymous contributions.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
What *is* wrong is that corporations can donate to political parties at all. Here in the UK, it is often discussed that all political parties should be funded by the state - political parties cannot advertise on TV or radio over here, so there's less costs involved with campaigns. I support that, because I'd rather that politics wasn't bought.
But, while the status quo is the way it is... yes, I thoroughly agree that companies who donate a large amount of money to a political party get some benefit from that. Why not?
not many options here (Score:2, Insightful)
Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way this isn't a flamebait, just political opinion
Re:Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Not every politician is 'for sale.' But the ones that are get a lot of press on Slashdot.
3. What American hypocrisy do you speak of? You just sound bitter. It's not my fault they took away all your guns.
By the way this isn't a flamebait, just political opinion
Yeah right.
Re:Democracy? (Score:3, Funny)
Hah. They're the same thing buddy.
Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
Lucky Senator Hatch (Score:2, Funny)
"Developersdevelopersdevelopersdevelopers!"
not new (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not new. Remember that before their company self-destructed, Enron executives had repeatedly met with Dick Cheney while the Bush administration's energy policy was being drafted. Details of those meetings still haven't been disclosed, and Cheney refuses to do so, using the defence that forcing politicians to disclose the details of such meetings would stifle politicians from doing their job.
What he actually means by this, of course, is that if politicians aren't allowed to keep their backroom deals with corporations secret, then they won't be able to have secret backroom deals with corporations anymore. Having to behave like honest politicians is clearly unacceptable to the likes of Cheney and Bush.
Not to point out the obvious (Score:2, Interesting)
Do I agree with it? No. Do I think it's right? No. But in a society where the acquisition of wealth and power are your primary goals, and things like charity, scholarship, helping others, doing the right thing, etc. are back burnered...what do you really expect? Those organizations are doing exactly what they're expected to do. I'm afraid we need more than a few laws to fix this one.
You cant fight this (Score:2)
This just happens to be the 'dark' side of it.. Political power purchase.
You are not Microsoft. (Score:2, Funny)
If something by Microsoft is going to kill X idea, then a company or smaller companies that support that idea should also speak to the politicians.
This is how it works. I'm sorry, you do not count as much as an entity representing thousands of people.
Re:You are not Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Smaller companies often do not have the money, because of larger companies, to buy themselves politicians. Microsoft may support thousands of people, but this country contains MILLIONS of people and there's no reason a company that supports only thousands should have enough sway to negatively affect the MILLIONS it doesn't support.
Re:You are not Microsoft. (Score:2)
Yeah, but MS isn't the most accurate representative for its shareholders and employees. If only there were a way to take this power from MS, and give each citizen of the United States of America a way to represent him or her self.
Hmm.... A way to allow every citizen to choose how they're represented at the state and federal level.... Nope, can't think of anything.
Re:You are not Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, BS. There's no reason to believe that Microsoft really "represents" the interests of the people it employs. It represents the interest of the top management, or -- if you are really magnaminous -- of the shareholders. Each of those Microsoft employees and investors has exactly the same right to vote (and to donate time, energy, or money) as I do -- but they have no greater right just because they work for Microsoft or own its stock.
It'd be nice if we'd all remember that corporations are not people -- not even the oft-misquoted Taney decisions say that they are -- and they have fewer rights than the individual. Or at least, they do under the theory of government to which we allegedly subscribe.
Re:You are not Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
You make the fatal assumption that those in charge of the business cares about its employees as much as their own interests.
It could be combatted the Swiss way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Suddenly, campaigning gets cheap! No more competition by who can afford the most attack ads during the 6pm news slot.
Then again, Swiss democracy is 500 years older than American democracy. I suppose it could take a while for the U.S., and Canada for that matter, to catch up... *sigh*... (I'm Canadian, but lived in Switzerland for 6 years).
Re:It could be combatted the Swiss way... (Score:2)
No it couldn't... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other point I'd raise is: Do we want to be Switzerland? On the serious side, Switzerland failed to ask itself hard questions about its involvement in WWII, a war that it is of questionable honor to sit out, and far more questionable to remain neutral and even profit through laundering Nazi gold.
On the lighter side it the old joke: What has 500 years of Swiss peace brought us? The cuckoo clock.
Re:It could be combatted the Swiss way... (Score:5, Insightful)
These solutions can't really be called "European" in the sense of the European Union: Switzerland isn't a member.
The Swiss (if I may generalise horribly) would see leveraging your wealth to get to voters to be a violation of free speech. You are, by merit of money alone, able to drown out others and dominate discussions. I'd be surprised if that same case couldn't be made in the U.S.
As for women and the vote, the earliest referenda on that were held although the Swiss voted in a referendum about giving women the vote as early as 1914 (if I recall correctly), it was simply, democratically, rejected. Discussions started in 1885 on the topic.
Things tend to move a little slowly over there... usually a good thing, I think.
2 cents (Score:4, Insightful)
Even our President has interests in oil companies at home and abroad. I'm not saying Bush is doing anything wrong, but the potential for abuse is huge.
Politians are supposed to be public servants, yet we have Senators like Kerry (who is BTW running for President in 2004) who have upwards of 600 million in the bank and god only knows how much much in stocks in these companies. They care more about big business than they do us. That's not servicing the public, thats ripping the public off.
All politians are guilty of it too. You can't point at the Dems or the Republicans for this. Both are doing it.
Busines, big or small, needs to stay the hell out of politics and work on their business model for a change. Stop trying to pass legislation when your business model starts to fail (RIAA MPAA). Stop passing laws that benefit businesses to the detriment of the people. Just flat out stop the fucking insanity!!
Politicians wonder why people don't trust them. This is exactly why.
Re:2 cents (Score:3, Insightful)
Businesses represent other people - namely their stockholders and (in some areas) their employees.
If you are going to deny the right to businesses, how about zillionaire Hollywood actresses whose only qualification is big b00bs?
How about trade unions?
How about pro or anti abortion groups?
How about the NRA?
How about the trial lawyers? If businesses don't balance the influence of trial lawyers, pretty soon we won't have any businesses operating in our country!
I think the whole approach to dealing with campaign financing is idiotic. We are restricting the rights of various parts of our society to speak their position (through advertising or direct contributions), with the limits arbitrarily set depending on what deals can be cut in congress. This is corruption way beyond what corporations or trial lawyers can buy!
WAKE UP, FOLKS! The purpose of campaign finance reform is to keep incumbents in office! It works well. Since the post-Watergate campaign "reforms", incumbency has been greatly strengthened. It is rare that a challenger wins in a national political race. The new reforms will make it even harder.
The way to combat those forces who you think have too much power is to organize to achieve equivalent power, not to arbitrarily create complex restrictions.
I wonder how many of those who complain about the power of big corporations actually contribute to organizations which counter them? After all, there are many anti-corporate groups which have vast power - the environmentalist groups being the most significant (the trial lawyers are more powerful, but they just want to take the money, not change policy in any other way).
Don't support major political parties (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't support major political parties (Score:3, Funny)
Sometimes the Simpsons is so accurate it's scary.
Re:Don't support major political parties (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, here are the problems I have with this idea:
Look at it another way (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying "pay for access" is right, but on the other hand, who should politicians listen to? Someone who controls an industry and affects millions of people (like Microsoft) or Joe L33t who has no perspective beyond his own limited world?
It's kind of like when you advertise a job and get hundreds of resumes back that look basically the same. Personally, anyone who has misspelled words goes straight into the trash can to thin the herd. That may sound unfair to people who send resumes, but you have to use SOME method of thinning since you can't interview hundreds of people.
Politicians need some sort of method to thin the herd of people who give advice. I really think that's at the root of this, rather than simplistic corruption that many make this out to be. They have to choose SOMEBODY to talk to, so they might as well choose people who have been good to them in the past. In other words, it's loyalty at work, not bribery.
The day governement ceased to look at joe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look at it another way (Score:3, Funny)
Just kidding... I hope.
Interesting that it focusses so much on the Repubs (Score:5, Insightful)
Please take not of who has the most lopsided and largest donations. Notice the movie studios at #1 and #3? Care about fair use at all?
I'm certainly not trying to make the Repubs out to be the good guys, but the Dems aren't going to save you from big money influence.
Real election reform [lp.org]
Re:Interesting that it focusses so much on the Rep (Score:2, Interesting)
You know though, the thing that scares me most about that list, is the companies or organizations that are listed as "on the fence". Those are the companies that don't really care who is in power - they are hedging their bets to ensure that they can get the support of whoever ends up winning.
That's rediculous (Score:3, Informative)
No one is doing it more than anyone else, and to presume so is detrimental to our progress.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:/. IS 1 MILLION (Score:4, Funny)
Re:/. IS 1 MILLION (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it is a nice idea. To let *foreign* countries have a say in what the U.S. does in the future, instead of the other way round :)
Campaign Finance Reform (Score:2, Insightful)
CFR is probably probably one of the biggest jokes that our government has fooled most of us into believing. CFR isn't going to change ANYTHING! Both the DNC and the GOP have set up 'third party' organizations to funnel their money to. All CFR is doing is opening as many loopholes as it closes so that the money flow is even less visible to the public than it is now.
And the media moguls who hail CFR as a good and necessary thing are the biggest hypocrites in this deal. You don't think all those commercial spots are free, do you?
What about the media? (Score:2, Insightful)
More info at opensecrets.org (Score:2)
Don't vote? Don't bitch. (Score:2, Insightful)
My favorite moment of political naivete from the original poster had to be this, however:
"How can we fight this? Write letters to the companies saying we won't buy their products because of their undue influence? You think the politicians will actually listen if we write them instead?"
You think the companies will listen any more than the corporations will?
Writing letters stating that you won't buy products doesn't mean a thing if you're at CompUSA tomorrow continuing to buy the products. NO ONE CARES about your letters. They only care about your money. And until you can find a way to actually release yourselves from the corporate teat, you will have no voice.
No voice. None.
There is no war on terror. There is no "government by the people, for the people." There are no elections. There is no "Homeland Security."
There is only money.
I am more suprised about the price. (Score:2)
Ah but thank god for democracy. Once the voter learns about this they will surely elect better leaders next time. :P
Oh and for the american bashers/defenders if you want a real laugh follow the dutch political circus for the last year. Makes america look like kindergarden. At least americans betray the voter for good old cash. Over here they are just plain incompetent.
It's much broader than just Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
This sort of behavior is so pervasive I don't think you could organize an effective boycott without being willing to starve to death. The only way it's likely to change is if we force the laws that allow this to be changed.
"How can we fight this?" (Score:2)
welcome to the lethargic US of A! and good luck!
its not just corporations that do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, I have to read this thread full of knee jerk us/republican/bush/cheney bashing that gets modded up as insightful. Think a little before you bitch. Corporations do this, but guess what, you can too. I know bush doesnt have time to have dinner at my place to discuss my views on the environment, but if I were to join the Sierra club it would help, no? Okay, go ahead and mod me down now cause I didn't slam bush...
How to fight back? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey Cauce! (Score:2)
Bought a good senator lately? What, no you say?? You need to. This grass roots thing isn't owning your own senator. Buy your US congressperson today!
cluge
You want to curtail extenal influence in politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I know that's not going to happen so what I personally advocate is no limits but *FULL* disclosure of who gave the funds.
Corporations aren't citizens (Score:3, Interesting)
This feels a bit impolite, I'm not American so perhaps I shouldn't mix in these discussions, but whatever :).
I think it should be like this: you are allowed to put money into campaigns if you are allowed to vote. Otherwise, the election is none of your business. Corporations are not allowed to vote.
Of course, corporations will then give money to individuals, who can give it to campaigns, etc. Outlaw that too.
Then, you get the problem that rich citizens will have more influence than poor citizens. That isn't right, they are equal, one isn't better than the other. So put a low cap on the allowed contributions (I believe that is already in place, though it could be lower).
In case the facts are actually of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the "Microsoft donated money on the condition that they be seated next to... " that's flat out bogus. It isn't in the article and probably just originated in the fevered brain of the poster. Here's the paragraph from the actual article.
When Microsoft Corp., a $100,000-plus donor to Republicans, planned to attend the party's major fund-raising gala in 2000, it asked to be seated next to "Sen. (Paul) Coverdell or leadership, Commerce Committee or Judiciary Committee," according to a GOP memo. At the time, the company was battling a major antitrust case that threatened to break the company into two. The memo added Microsoft did not want to sit with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major critic.
Note the LACK of the demand or a threat to pull their money. Frankly, if I were invited to a dinner, I'd rather not spend my time sitting next to a preson who was organizing a lawsuit against me.
work locally (Score:3)
Another wild card is the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]. This was covered on slashdot before, it's an extremely interesting concept and just might work.
There are several "constitutional counties" now, primarily in some northern states like michigan and montana. In those areas local constitutional activists have created-by law-UN free zones, put the feds on notice to follow their own laws, and helped beat back radical corporate/greenie land grabs and loss of jobs and property rights. And yes, at the very tippy top levels, a lot of the green movement is controlled by the same corporations they rant against. For a clue, watch the sponsors of any random pbs feel-good nature show. You'll see the same globalist fatcats who want to own all the food and water and natural resources. There's ties with some of the more public enviro orgs, but they keep that stuff sorta hidden from the rank and file members, can't upset their memes on those issues.
No links handy, this is just a short post, but a lot of this info is a google away.
The best democracy money can buy. (Score:4, Insightful)
As sad as this is, it is not a new thing. I recently have been reading Greg Palast's [gregpalast.com] book The Best Democracy Money can Buy [amazon.com]. A fascinating reading.
Greg Palast is an investigative reporter that researches and goes deep into various issues (he broke the news on the Florida ballot cleaning in 2000). The book covers a number of interesting topics from Enron and its alliances to the government and how they got preferential treatment and how they used this in the US and abroad to their advantage.
A few months ago, someone told me `Remember: all governments lie', which I figured, seems pretty acurrate, but not much to debate over dinner in that topic. I think there is a tacit agreement that governments lie.
The shocking news came from reading Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets [amazon.com] book in which he details how five consecutive adminisrtrations lied to congress, and lie to the american people about what they were doing in Vietnam. An interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg in Salon (here [salon.com]) gives a quick overview of the book. For those who do not know, Daniel took some secret documents from the government in the 70's and got them published by the New York Times. The documents exposed the lies from the five administrations. Although the government tried to stop the publication of the documents (known from then on as "The Pentagon Papers", google found this [gwu.edu] which gives you some context, as well as the history around the event).
So anyways, the short story is that democracy needs to be revamped with new technology. Hundreds of years ago it was perfectly possible to elect a leader/representative, trust him to do what he promised on behalf of the voters and revisit the issue on an upcoming election.
But today's leader's loyalty is not to the voters, but to those who allow them to get the votes, people with enough funds to drive the agenda in any direction they please. Greg Palast's book points out that the current administration unlike previous administrations no longer has to deal with external lobbysts, the lobby now has got offices right in the White House (he goes on detail about the Enron's hand-picked policy makers and those who reverted Clinton's decisions regarding Enron's involvement in California).
With the technology available today, democracy could be referendum-based, through electronic voting on key issues.
Miguel.
Reform Proposal (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Only registered voters in a particular region can contribute to candidates, campaigns or parties in that region (country, district, state, nation).
2) There are no limits to contributions, but they must be from registered voters.
3) Corporations and unions are not registered voters, and cannot contribute to any candidate or party. Only individual human beings can register to vote.
4) Corporations and unions may not direct or command any employee, member or executive to contribute to any political organization or campaign.
5) Registered voters may join an association of other registered voters for the purpose of pooling funds.
You know what the real problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have yet to understand how it is that a two-party system can be touted as a model democracy? Being a Canadian it is unfathomable for me that every person in a country as large as the U.S. could either be a Democrat or Republican. Granted you have the Green Party, some Independents, and the "miscellaneous" parties in the U.S. but both are treated as fringe elements with only the Democratic party and GOP considered mainstream.
I think it's the two party system that is the fundamental problem. We saw it during the last election where Ralph Nader wasn't allowed in the debates for no other reason other than that it would have showed a different/fresh point of view that did NOT conform to either the Democratic/Republican agenda. Both parties are so well bought out by industry that neither one could afford to allow Nader to speak. The sooner people realize that both the Democrats and Republicans share a mutual agenda that is formed and funded by the same set of corporations, foreign governments, and interest groups the sooner they will understand that the two-party system is only a pretext for a ONE-party system.
The fact is that it's a lot easier to pay off two political camps on a regular basis than it is three, four, or more. The two party system is a way to ensure the illusion of diversity while making sure bribery is as easy as (American) pie. Paying off the Democratic party to put aside its convictions on a Republican bill/resolution (or vice versa) is a lot easier than paying off several parties at once.
Given the current state of politics in the U.S. there is very little hope for campaign finance reform laws that will outlaw the shameless "donations" both parties so heavily rely on. Asking the gremlins in congress/senate to ratify such laws would be like you asking your employer to stop giving you such large bonuses to help the company- it ain't never gonna happen.
The challenge is to have more political parties that do NOT toe the line. There is strength in numbers and the more we have the less merry "donaters" will be.
Re:You know what the real problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
* It's illegal for a US party or candidate to accept political contributions from overseas.
* Multiple parties don't matter much unless they're so fractured that it takes many to form a majority coalition.
* Parties and candidates NEED money because most voters don't go out of their way to educate themselves, hence the emphasis on TV and radio ads. Blame the voters for that one.
* The Green Parties remain fringe parties because most people don't agree with their agenda. Sorry, their brand of socialism just isn't very popular.
* The Reform Party disintegrated on its own accord, being split by wacko personalities such as the paranoid protectionist Perot and the tactless, part-time-Governor/part-time-XFL-announcer Ventura.
* The Socialist Party and Communist Party likewise don't get that many recruits outside of college campuses, and that's not because of money. They weren't very popular even when the Soviet government was funneling money to them and in return getting recruits for the KGB, either.
* The Libertarian party is on the fringe because most people don't like their agenda; most prefer
* The Constitution Party is similar, except that it's limited to New York, if memory serves.
See, we have many political parties... but the ones on the fringes are often there for a REASON -- their lack of appeal. Telling people that you're going to axe their favorite social programs or that they have no right to their property and instead confiscatory taxation is the Right Way to Go just doesn't fly here. If there were another party that were reasonable enough to actually represent a large number of people, they might have had a case to be in a debate... but Nader and his Greens clearly didn't.
Re:You know what the real problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
* It's illegal for a US party or candidate to accept political contributions from overseas.
This didn't stop Clinton. Even though he was scrutinized, he ended up getting away with it.
Plus many international corporations have a US office that they can use to get around this little inconvenience.
* Multiple parties don't matter much unless they're so fractured that it takes many to form a majority coalition.
Under a parlimentary system, yes. However, in the US system, strong third parties would keep eachother in line, IMO, because of plurality voting. A party that has its members do unpopular things could be threatened with a complete loss of power.
Realistically, it is hard to say exactly what would happen if we had more than two powerful parties in modern times, since it has been almost a century since a third party candidate has had a realistic shot at being President.
* Parties and candidates NEED money because most voters don't go out of their way to educate themselves, hence the emphasis on TV and radio ads. Blame the voters for that one.
This is debatable. I (perhaps optimistically) believe that if these trashy TV and radio ads were cut back, voters would begin to educate themselves again. In other words, the very presence of these ads (which are all marketing and mudslinging, they contain little substance) is what causes American voters to have no motivation to educate themselves.
* The Green Parties remain fringe parties because most people don't agree with their agenda. Sorry, their brand of socialism just isn't very popular.
Most people don't even KNOW the agenda of the Green Party beyond the perception that they are "more liberal" than the Democrats, or that they are just "Communists with another name."
The Democrats would like it very much to stay that way. They even go so far as to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore losing.
* The Reform Party disintegrated on its own accord, being split by wacko personalities such as the paranoid protectionist Perot and the tactless, part-time-Governor/part-time-XFL-announcer Ventura.
The reform party had some problems, agreed. However, Perot proved that MONEY is one of the most important factors in getting noticed. The only reason the reform party did so well in 1992
was because Perot was pretty much able to buy himself into the debates.
As for Governor Ventura, there is a wide range of opinions on him. Since I'm not a resident of Minnesota, I can't say very much, except for the fact that at least he has the fortitude to stand up against the Republicrats.
* The Socialist Party and Communist Party likewise don't get that many recruits outside of college campuses, and that's not because of money. They weren't very popular even when the Soviet government was funneling money to them and in return getting recruits for the KGB, either.
Of course these parties aren't very popular. After all, most Americans have been taught from birth to hate all commies unconditionally. It doesn't matter what the platforms or people in the parties are like, people will continue to associate the terms "communist" and "socialist" with the Soviet Union for years to come.
* The Libertarian party is on the fringe because most people don't like their agenda; most prefer
* The Constitution Party is similar, except that it's limited to New York, if memory serves.
Again, as with most third parties, most people don't even really know what the Libertarian or Constitution parties are about. A lot of people are under the false impression that Libertarians are anarchists.
Of course, there are some "interesting" personalities in third parties. This is because many of the people running as third party candidates aren't completely polished and faked, like the Republicrat candidates are.
At first thought, it is a little strange to see the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor of California posing with his Ferret. He doesn't seem very much like a politician.
Then if you think about it a bit more, it is more strange to vote for some PR-designed, party controlled, Republicrat drone who has next to nothing in common with a normal person.
Of course third party platforms also appear a bit shocking at first, because they call for an ACTUAL change rather than the status-quo that Republicrats maintain.
It is no surprise that this scares voters. They've been trained by the Republicrats to resist huge change like those proposed by the Libertarian, Constitution, or Green Parties...
When the Libertarian party calls for the removal of a Federal Agency, the first reaction is to believe the lie spouted by Republicrats, that they can not live without the Federal Government "protecting" them. They fail to see the reality that the Federal Government has grown, and continues to grow, far beyond Constitutional levels. In the process it wastes BILLIONS of dollars every year.
The true platform of the Republicrats,is to increase the personal wealth and power of the top members. To do so, they will continue to step all over the Constitution, make their votes available to the top bidder, and ignore the real needs of the public.
Corruption and Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
"Thankfully this has now been approved, so I am taking the liberty of enclosing an invoice for the additional upgrade," Sembler added in one of dozens of fund-raising memos the political parties turned over to a court hearing the first legal challenge of the nation's new campaign finance law.
Many people (myself included) believe in capitalism because they believe that economics has proven it to be an efficient system. Economics assumes a level playing field. When that field is unleveled, capitalism is not efficient (or, if you prefer, it is not capitalism).
If one accepts free market economics, it is reasonable to believe that it is in the public interest to pursue wealth. If, however, it is practical to use acquired wealth to unlevel the playing field and as a result acquire more wealth than was expended, this belief is not reasonable.
The US chose capitalism because it is believed, under the tenets of free market economics, to be efficient and in the public interest. If that prerequisite assumption is invalid, then the conclusion is invalid. If the US ceases to target efficient economic growth, then it will decline relative to its potential.
We used to have a name for this. (Score:5, Insightful)
That was before the dark time, before the Supreme Court decided that bribery was protected by the first amendment.
Re:I'm fine with it; if it can be openly criticize (Score:2)
The corruption is so pervasive that when anyone is caught doing it, it isn't a big deal. Instead, they just say, "Look, this is the way the game is played, everyone else is doing it."
So, what can we do? Does it even help to know about these shady dealings?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Dark Grey Suit with bad tie: $1295
Per plate dinner: $500
Being able to sit next to the guy who keeps my company out of the boiler and slip him a "special" christmas perk:
Priceless!
Re:Get a clue (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Way worse in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, according to the World Bank's Corruption Index [worldbank.org], Canada scores a 9.2, making it the 5th least corrupt country in the world; compare to the US's 7.5, making it the 16th least.
Re:Doing something about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Fascism n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
New College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Copyright 1969, Houghton Mifflen.
There is an essay that is currently being hosted at: http://brutusworks.com/politics/bribe_bazaar.htm
his thinking since the essay was written and is now trying to set up a web site
(BreakTheLink.org) that can be used to coordinate the efforts of volunteers
willing to fight. This is how: For fascism to thrive, there has to be a monetary
link between corporations and politicians. Breaking this link is the key to
recovering our Republic. There are two paths that can be taken to fight political
bribery. First, there are 24 states (and the District of Columbia) that have
provisions for direct citizen democracy in their constitutions. A citizen initiative
something like the following pursued in these states would be very useful (language
for Florida):
We The Citizens of Florida hold that those elected to represent and govern
the entire body politic within Florida cannot accept bribes from individuals
or organizations with special interests from within said body politic without
accruing the taint of dishonor and the burden of bias; and further, that the
offering of bribes to elected representatives in order to influence the specific
ends of said individuals or organizations, or the accepting of said bribes by
said elected representatives constitutes Treason to the remaining constituents
of said body politic and shall be punished as such under the felony laws of
the State of Florida. For the purposes of this Amendment, the following expressions
shall have the indicated definitions and may be used in the singular or plural.
Bribe means: Anything given or serving to persuade or induce. Bribery
means: the act or practice of giving or accepting a bribe. For the purposes
of this Amendment a bribe does not include information or media necessary to
transmit information as long as said media has a monetary value less than $100.
Treason means: the betrayal of a trust or confidence; a breach of
faith; treachery. For the purposes of this Amendment, a charge of bribery shall
be construed in two parts: the first part shall be a question of the fact of
a transfer of money or other value from an individual or special interest group
to a public official. All parties shall be presumed innocent of said charge
of monetary or other value transfer until proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The second part of a bribery charge concerns the fact of whether a proven
transfer of money or other value is influencing and thus an act of Bribery and
Treason. the burden of proof for a public official or individual or special
interest group accused of bribery shall lie with the accused to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that money or value accepted is not influencing.
It needs work, I know, but you get the idea. The second possible approach is described in the essay referenced above.
Re:Money Doesn't Always Win Elections (Score:3, Funny)
If money wins elections, why aren't Steve Forbes and Ross Perot building their presidential libraries now?
Because their goofiness outweighs their monetary advantage over the poorer millionaires.
For now, the ballot box is still secret. We can still use it. We still do. We are not all fools. Thank God, and may god truly bless America. Please? God? Are you listening?
BEEP. We're sorry, but the number you have dialed has been disconnected. No further information is available for 1-800-DEAR-GOD.