How To Fix American Politics

[Moonlight Graham]

This will fix a massive number of problems in the U.S., including both foreign and domestic problems. It's pretty simple:

- Change the law so that the only entities that are legally allowed to donate to political parties/candidates are individual people. No corporations, no Super PACs, no unions etc, just citizens. Currently, because of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, corporations (considered "people" with "free speech rights") can donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

- Set political donation limits to that which would be reasonably affordable to virtually every US voting citizen, even the poor or working class, helping to give every citizen equal worth to politicians, not just the large wealthy donors. This limit would be somewhere around $50 per citizen (just a ballpark figure). If necessary, allow the government to match each contribution.

- Ban all lobbying from profit-making entities.

Make this the same in Canada too.

[TimG]

It is not clear why a Canadian feels the need to comment on "fixing" the US system.

The fact is corporations are not materially different from unions, churches or your favorite NGOs and there is no rational reason to treat them differently when it comes to speech.

I also find your rant ironic since this election - more than any before - proves that money cannot ensure a positive outcome. Trump is only a contender because he put his own money up and managed to defeat many more well financed candidates by appealing to voters.

BTW: what is your obsession with 'profit making entities'? non-profits frequently are fronts for people who hope to make a profit on government regulations (this is particularly true of environmental NGOs). If you want to ban lobbying you need to ban all lobbying.

Edited October 3, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

What would really fix it is outlawing in-camera lobbying of public officials.

Lobby all you want but just not in secret.

Edited October 3, 2016 by eyeball

[The_Squid]

What would really fix it is outlawing in-camera lobbying of public officials.

Lobby all you want but just not in secret.

I like that idea... But the crooked ones would find ways around it.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is not clear why a Canadian feels the need to comment on "fixing" the US system.

Well, an example: Did the US financial/housing crash around 2008 affect me financially as well, and every other country in the world? Yes, big-time. The US has a huge impact on the fortunes of the global population, so I care about that.

I also find your rant ironic since this election - more than any before - proves that money cannot ensure a positive outcome. Trump is only a contender because he put his own money up and managed to defeat many more well financed candidates by appealing to voters.

Trump is a billionaire. So yes, money matters. And if you think money in politics only has an effect during election season, that's not accurate. At the very least, it gets you access. Corporations don't donate ridiculous sums to campaigns because it has no effect on their bottom line. Why do corporations donate to both major parties at the same time? For shits and giggles? Wake up and smell the money my friend!

The fact is corporations are not materially different from unions, churches or your favorite NGOs and there is no rational reason to treat them differently when it comes to speech.

BTW: what is your obsession with 'profit making entities'? non-profits frequently are fronts for people who hope to make a profit on government regulations (this is particularly true of environmental NGOs). If you want to ban lobbying you need to ban all lobbying.

Then ban all lobbying from non-citizens, including NGOs etc. The reason I'm so "obsessed" with private businesses (more specially, the people that run them) is because they wish to profit themselves. They largely don't care about anyone or anything but themselves. At least charities/NGOs, churches etc have some kind of interests geared towards a larger social cause other than themselves.

[TimG]

Trump is a billionaire. So yes, money matters.

Money matters because advertising costs money. It is not possible to have a fair election unless candidates can raise the money they need to promote themselves. Trump was already a well known name so he had it easy. The fact that he was a billionaire is secondary.

Why do corporations donate to both major parties at the same time?

Because if they don't their business could be adversely affected by regulations passed to placate some other donors. If you want to reduce the amount of money in politics you have to reduce the stakes by reducing the ability of government to hand out favours with regulations. You don't do it by simply banning donations because motivated people will always find a way.

The reason I'm so "obsessed" with private businesses (more specially, the people that run them) is because they wish to profit themselves.

Businesses provide services and goods that people need. Most people work for corporations which means their income depends on these companies making a profit. Most pension plans (personal and group) invest in companies and depend on them making a profit in order to fund their retirement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking a profit. I certainly have more respect for the profit motive than I do for the motives and people behind many NGOs which are often based on irrational ideologies. Edited October 3, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Because if they don't their business could be adversely affected by regulations passed to placate some other donors.

Yes, so that's why I said the only people allowed to donate should be citizens and the max donating should be a number everyone can afford.

If you want to reduce the amount of money in politics you have to reduce the stakes by reducing the ability of government to hand out favours with regulations. You don't do it by simply banning donations because motivated people will always find a way.

How would you propose to do that then?

Businesses provide services and goods that people need. Most people work for corporations which means their income depends on these companies making a profit. Most pension plans (personal and group) invest in companies and depend on them making a profit in order to fund their retirement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking a profit. I certainly have more respect for the profit motive than I do for the motives and people behind many NGOs which are often based on irrational ideologies.

I have absolutely no problem with businesses making a profit. I'm pro-capitalist. But a democracy is for the people, not businesses. Government of the people, by the people, for the people Lincoln famously said. The people want jobs and profitable companies and a growing economy, so businesses should be treated fairly to ensure this. A CEO should have as much political power as the average joe, in an ideal democracy. 1 person, 1 vote, 1 unit of power. Impossible to achieve in reality, but that is the ideal that should be sought. The people should control the country and be the recipients of the benefits of its policies. Mr CEO or Ms Majority Shareholder shouldn't have the system tilted wildly in their favor.

[Moonlight Graham]

Btw, i have no problem banning NGOs etc from lobbying if it means a better system for the general populace.

[TimG]

Yes, so that's why I said the only people allowed to donate should be citizens and the max donating should be a number everyone can afford.

And that would only tilt the odds in favour of candidates like Trump who are already well known names and don't need to pay for advertising. There are adverse consequences with any model. The Canadian model with limits of $1500 works for Canada but we only have one name to choose for each election. In the US they vote for any number of public officials at each election and I find it hard to believe that everyone of those pols could raise enough to be competitive from individual donations.

How would you propose to do that then?

I would like to see every bill subject to a 'pork analysis' by the auditor general which would publish the groups that stand to benefit from the changes in the law. Provisions that have no connection to the bill would be prohibited. Egregious attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of particular groups would be flagged and publicized by the AG. My hope is the independent analysis and public scrutiny would make it much harder for politicians to include such provisions in the first place.

But a democracy is for the people, not businesses.

There is no difference between a business and a political party or a church. All are collections of people. Edited October 3, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

I like that idea... But the crooked ones would find ways around it.

Throw them in jail then.

[bush_cheney2004]

Lots of foreigners think they know what would "fix" problems in the United States, but America didn't get to be the biggest dog on the block by listening to foreigners. Quite the opposite in fact. The smartest foreigners just become Americans and join the party.

[GostHacked]

It is not clear why a Canadian feels the need to comment on "fixing" the US system.

Not sure why the US needs to Fix things like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, ect ect ect.

[GostHacked]

Btw, i have no problem banning NGOs etc from lobbying if it means a better system for the general populace.

One that could be banned, or should be is the Clinton Foundation.

[Moonlight Graham]

And that would only tilt the odds in favour of candidates like Trump who are already well known names and don't need to pay for advertising.

It works like that anyways. Clinton, Trump, George W. Bush, Al Gore etc, these guys only got a shot because of a brand name. Trump doesn't need to pay for advertising because he says such ridiculous things that the news covers him for free. But he still needs to pay to travel and stump etc.

There are adverse consequences with any model. The Canadian model with limits of $1500 works for Canada but we only have one name to choose for each election. In the US they vote for any number of public officials at each election and I find it hard to believe that everyone of those pols could raise enough to be competitive from individual donations.

The money spend on campaigning right now in the US is absolutely outrageous from a historical perspective. What is a better way to get money out of politics? Letting corporations and the rich donate massive sums as it is now is only tilting the system towards their interests and they have benefited wonderfully.

I would like to see every bill subject to a 'pork analysis' by the auditor general which would publish the groups that stand to benefit from the changes in the law. Provisions that have no connection to the bill would be prohibited. Egregious attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of particular groups would be flagged and publicized by the AG. My hope is the independent analysis and public scrutiny would make it much harder for politicians to include such provisions in the first place.

I would like to see that too.

There is no difference between a business and a political party or a church. All are collections of people.

I define "the people" as individuals who can vote, Lincoln would probably agree.