Plan for better politicians: Finance Reform, Term Limits
Presumably, if corporations can find loopholes to fund candidate campaigns, those candidates are beholden to those corporations, and will be in their pocket.
Congressional Term Limits: Politicians won't think about their long term career or angering base, but make the decisions that would presumably in line with what they think is best for the country. Less political games to get a vote.
Congressional Term Limits: Politicians won't think about their long term career or angering base, but make the decisions that would presumably in line with what they think is best for the country. Less political games to get a vote.
Comments (39)
Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.
Spending money on a candidate is an act.
A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though.
Okay, so besides the semantics.. maybe let's just say.. is it a freedom to put one's money into a candidate one likes.. even it makes that politician liable to pander to such backers?
Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidates advocating policies that are in favor of campaign donors with the biggest donors getting the lion's share of benefits. It's not that money translates into votes; real people have to cast the ballot. That being the case, expect an alignment of interests between the people who actually voted and the campaign donors.
Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government.
Yep. Public elections perhaps? How would that work? Would that be limiting in the other way?
Why do people have a perception that politicians are corrupt in terms of monied interests? What would help this perception or reality?
You must be lending an ear to the losing side.
One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike.
So the point of limiting monetary contributions would not just be to prevent corruption (though it might help) but also to allow ideas that aren't popular with rich people the same chance as those ideas that are.
This would seem to be entirely in keeping with the actual reason we want "free" speech, and so would be a measure to make (political) speech more free, not less.
I'm not sure about that.. Look at US Democratic Party.. Moderate Democrats like Hillary and Biden have a perception problem with their stated liberal goals, and their backers, etc..I want to even say, it is those type of perception problems that lead people to (falsely and stupidly) go with someone like Trump who they think can't be bought.. (except by Russia and anybody that gives him a compliment hehe).
Sure, I don't disagree. Just wanted to point out that even if one were to disagree, and argue that there really isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that e.g. Biden or Pelosi are beholden to their backers, you can still make an argument. Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless.
Yeah, I agree with that.. It is the end result of exactly the perceptions people have that will happen if candidates are backed by these interests..
So what is the solution? Public elections?
It amazes me that "working class" voters would vote for Trump.. a spoiled rich kid..
Every time I bring Trump's corruption, someone points to Democrats being "just as corrupt" and that politicians are all corrupt, and that the Washington insiders just didn't like Trump cause he wasn't an insider. I can't emphasize the hand on face emoji enough.
Yes, because politics has brought us to a glorious place right now...
A public election fund would help. Doesn't at all eliminate the problem of lobbying and post-political careers, but it at least makes the actual election finance independent.
You would still have to require parties to have a certain minimum amount of members and backing to weed out insincere applications, but that's something administrations already do in other areas.
I'm not sure what a past debate that didn't work out has to do with it still not being worth debate now.
True. I think we mix democracy with free markets. Rich people and corporate entities being able to back a candidate through soft money is not the same as "democracy". The same goes for career politicians. It's like a monopoly. In theory, someone can compete but it's very hard when they are already entrenched with the party and "brand". So again, free market strategy and democratic strategy are not the same, and often they are confused.
Not sure what you mean. Term limits in Congress will equalize the playing field for who gets leadership position, motivate people to vote for the interest of the people rather than just the base, allow for new ideas, and is simply more democratic. If you don't like the person, you know they won't be there long anyways. I think the term limits should be 8 years (4 terms) for House, and 12 years (2 terms) for Senate.
Edit:
I rather the it be 4 years (2 terms) for the House and 6 years (1 term) for the Senate, but I'm sure people will think there needs to be the motivation for another shot at the position. I just think this will weed out ambition over actually doing it to help the country. I think the drawbacks of the "chaos" of always changing hands, is minimal compared to the current impact of the stagnation of career politicians and constantly having to pander to the base in decisions.
Cue current dysfunctional Congress...
So are you waiting for me to say, "Go on..."?
The proposal you make is like such a small step. It's as if we were in a battleship on the morning before a naval battle debating what to have for breakfast. You are part of the problem just for making such a suggestion.
I'm the kind of person who thinks even advocacy for gay rights or ending racism is a waste of time. If you really think something like the lack of term limits for some elected positions is a problem worth discussing I don't know where you've been sticking your head for the last 40 years.
All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics
If the only way to show your love for someone is to give fae a flower, chocolates, smile affectionately then give a flower, chocolates, smile affectionately you must.
I'm all for spending your own money how you like, but when it comes to politics it creates an inequity in the power of people's votes. Everyone's votes should count exactly the same. Introducing money into politics tips the scales in favor of the wealthy, thereby diminishing the power of everyone else's vote. A candidates voice shouldn't be amplified because they have money backing them. Their voice should be amplified when they compete in the arena of free ideas and win.
So the president isn't Congress.. But if anything, that is a great reason why we need term limits.
Um, the battleship is cracking and sinking. Term limits on Congress is actually a pretty massive structural change. The goal is to take away the downsides of always thinking about next primary/election cycle and becoming seen as "entrenched" as an insider. So many people are turned off by the whole system because of "insiders" who are out of touch.
I understand and can sympathize with that notion. However, look at the partisanship it causes to think about election cycles. Repubs are scared to even condemn the extreme wing and compromise for fear of losing primaries to an upstart.
So you voted for McCain over Obama? Because that was a race where one had far more experience than the other. I'm guessing you didn't because the will of the Party is more important than being consistent. Ever see 1984?
I think the problem lies in the idea that only lawyers and soldiers have the experience to govern its citizens.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree, to an extent.
The politicians already decide how citizens are educated.
Making Administration, Debate, and Logic required courses can expand the pool of available viable citizens that can run for office, instead of being limited to only Harvard and Yale graduates.
Besides, what qualifies as experience and no experience for governing citizens? Does being a lobbyist give the necessary experience? What about donating to political campaigns in order to manipulate the politician?
Like I said, that you didn't read correctly, the problem is assuming that lawyers and soldiers are the only ones qualified to govern others.
Oh, and Obama did run on his "outsider" status in Washington.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/obama-cleared-way-for-todays-outsider-candidates.amp.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-who-once-stood-as-party-outsider-now-works-to-strengthen-democrats/2016/04/25/340b3b0a-0589-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html
1) Obama had been a sitting US senator, thus had experience in government
2) Therefore your erroneous reference to "...no experience..." is at best mistaken
3) Since Obama had experience he could not (by definition) claim to be superior to McCain because he had no experience (like POTUS 45 did)
4) You do bring up an interesting separate issue: many insiders, like George W Bush, claim outsider status. I agree it is psychologically interesting, perhaps we can start another thread on that topic.