Remember how a democracy is supposed to work? We vote for congress members and governors and presidents and such, and they all understand that if they do a lousy job and fail to represent the interests of their constituents, they will get voted out and replaced by someone who promises to be more responsive and competent.
And how does our so-called democracy actually work? Corporations, industry groups and gazillionaires donate billions of dollars in campaign money to politicians to persuade them to protect their interests. The politicians all understand that if they fail to represent those interests they will have to scramble for campaign funding and favorable media coverage, and probably get voted out and replaced by someone more willing to play ball.
On the other hand, as long as they represent those corporate interests, the money will keep flowing and they can spend lots of money on campaign ads bragging about what a great job they’ve done for their constituents. And if their corporatism is too obvious or their opponent too strong, they will get voted out and make millions of dollars as a lobbyist, speaker or pundit while their benefactors go to work on winning over their replacement.
In other words, our elected officials have an incentive to favor the people who help them buy votes over the ones who actually cast them. The majority may decide who enacts policy, but a very small minority dictates what that policy ultimately is.
True, not all politicians are corrupt, and some of the honest ones are able to win elections. But not enough of them. The governing majority in both houses of Congress is a combination of rabidly pro-corporate Republicans, conservative Democrats, and squishy Democrats (many of them, like Reid and Baucus, in positions of power) who repeatedly cave and compromise with the Republicans. The President himself appears to be a conservative Democrat masquerading as a squishy one.
The end result of this corporate governing majority is that truly progressive legislation on healthcare, climate change, union organizing, financial reform and not-disemboweling-Social-Security is all but unthinkable, and we get stalling, fig leaves, excuses and spin instead of positive change.
Would things be worse if the Republicans were in charge again? Absolutely. Does that mean that what Obama and the Democrats have done is good enough to make America functional again? Absolutely not.
This is why we need to do everything we can to support the Fair Elections Now Act. It may not be perfect and it may not have a majority yet, but it’s got lots of co-sponsors in both houses, and if real campaign finance reform is going to pass Congress anytime soon this is the form it’s going to take. Please do whatever you can to help make America a democracy again.



136 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
That is the cause notice the effect our Capitalists Free Market Leaders who own our politicians are lousy at running the economy.
First we bailout the Banks and now WallStreet wants our Social Security.
You would think bankers had never heard the word Ponzai Scheme before.
I so want to play poker with Bush, Obama, Rahm and the top 50 biggest CEO’s listed on the Dow.
It sounds to me like the real winners here are Big Media and the advertising agencies, because no matter what happens they get rich off of everybody’s campaigns.
I wonder what they lobby for, and from what perspective?
That ad is not bad.
The ‘trustable’ is a rapidly shrinking class of public servants, and I include the press. This complicates matters. And without being convinced that we (they) can trust someone, anyone….
The Fair Elections Now Act actually mandates some media discounts, so I reckon they can’t be too thrilled about it.
Speaking of the media, one of the things I had to leave on the cutting room floor was pointing out that our news media is corrupted in pretty much the exact same way as our campaign finance system.
Also, if you have two publicly financed candidates facing off against each other, they’re less likely to try to insanely outspend each other.
We need fines for crimes to be based on income. Lets face it Cindy McCain can boost enough drugs to get my entire old highschool stoned but she never went to jail. Rudy’s campaign chair can throw a party with a half Kilo of Coke but he does less time than some guys do with 1 tenth that amount.
The Bankers just who has gone to jail?
Since we can never put the rich in jail we should make legal fees proportionate to income.
How’s that work? There’s a 20% discount rate from the lowest going rate. How is that determined? Is there a cap too? Can’t they just raise rates for all campaigns?
This seems easily gamed. No?
MURKA=toast
ELI!
and good eve all………..sad what happened here
Is this a likely outcome, what are the incentives that would result in this preliminary outcome?
FYI, I’m asking because I don’t know all the details, the summary isn’t particularly illustrative, and I’m trying to figure out if the impact of such a thing would be nominal or substantive.
Switzerland has that law……..a zillionaire there just got a speeding ticket foe 17,000 bux…i shit you not!
It looks like it’s 20% from the lowest *broadcast* rates, not campaign rates. So I think they’d have to raise their rates on *everybody*.
Which I suppose is a sacrifice they’d be willing to make…
KELLY!
Now that would be fantastic news.
I also think there would be the bonus that elected officials might actually have time to put a little effort into the work they were elected to do. Now all effort is on money. Of course, for many of the crew there now, having more time to write bad laws sounds ominous…
oopsie
it was closer to 300K
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/record-speeding-fine-dents-swiss-bank-account/
Imagine instead of cutting Social Security Gov Arnold in California gets a speeding ticket in his Hummer based on his millions.
Everyone pays pay $ 100 I think for speeding tickets even if they don’t have a job and their assets are the car they live in.
Arnold lets say between income and assets is worth $100 million lets say $100,000 income assets combined is the cut off after that every $100,000 after that the fine doubles.
$100,000 goes into $1 hundred Million how many times?
Laws must have a deterrent effect lets see the GOP argue they want to be weak on crime. I want that fight.
I will totally support campaign reforms, many types.
But there is a lesson that liberals/progressives refuse to learn from gay people;
It takes a long time whether there is money or not, and how you win is by ASSERTION! Just being out and asserting rights rather than waiting for them has been the winning ticket for gay people.
That’s the civil rights movement lesson; black people didn’t achieve by political money gains, and neither did gays.
me likey
Even if everything worked perfectly we still wouldn’t live in a Democracy. Our form of government is a Democratic Republic and of course you outlined the obvious weakness of representative government. Back in the days of the formation of our union, it made sense of course because there were no telephones and traveling just twenty miles or so took a full day. These days it’s hopelessly outdated and a more direct form of democracy is now possible. The problem of course is that for the past two hundred years or so, the people in power have worked hard to make it almost impossible to make any real changes in the power structure or make more responsive those who wield it.
I thought it was Finland but still I think this issue is a winner politically I would rather have us argue this and leave the GOP arguing to cut Social Security.
I want to force Rush to go Gault.
the staus is QUO
see my link at 16
and will remain QUO
One of the intriguing things that came out of the campaign finance panel at Netroots Nation was that a *lot* of congresscritters are very frustrated at having to spend so much time on fundraising and not having enough time for legislating or walking their district.
The burning question is whether a majority of them are more concerned with doing their job than keeping it.
Yep – and the key to that is the Senate. Outmoded House of Lords.
People do know that Senate comes from the latin – “senex” old man, right? The same root for “senile.”
I saw it:)
True, but the way it’s *supposed* to work is that the people we elect work on our behalf to protect our best interests because they don’t want to lose their awesome jobs.
But instead they work against our best interests because *that’s* how they keep their awesome jobs, and even if they go too far and get voted out, they end up with even *more* awesome jobs.
So when is Obama going to get Prison reform the rich buy justice just ask Jon McCain how much Clout he had to use to get his wife Cindy free.
But African Americans heck anybody charged with the Death Penalty in Texas is guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
Not only that but in many states they take away a Felon’s right to vote but notice they still tax felon’s. No Taxation Without Representation! What happened to Strict Construction Scalia!
I’d also like to do away with Campaign Contributions Without Representation.
McCain wants to kick illegals out but will he return the Census money those illegals brought to his state federal money is granted based on population so are House Reps.
Nice One! :)
No kidding. Why Should the Democrats Care if they Lose?
In all seriousness, is this even possible? You and I are in Congressman Phil Blank’s district, and we have different prerogatives, perhaps minor, or perhaps radical. What is Congressman Phil Blank to do? It’s a crapshoot what will make us both happy, perhaps it’s not even possible, but it’s a sure thing that we’re both susceptible to the cognitive conditioning of advertising. Where would you put your effort?
Let’s start with a few steps that won’t require major changes in the Constitution. For example:
1) Public financing of elections. Free and equal media time/space to each candidate who qualifies for the ballot. ALL campaign contributions are outlawed, even one’s own money.
2) Outlaw paid lobbying. Period
3) Public service should be just that-public service. We pay these guys more than enough to live on and making money shouldn’t be a motive in serving. These people should have to give up.
a)receiving gifts from anybody but immediate family members while in office
b)give up all financial holdings, stocks, bonds, etc.
c)this should apply to all judges as well.
4) A public holiday during which to vote. Everybody is off except poll workers NO EXCEPTIONS!
5) Required government class in grades 6-12. Must complete satisfactorily to graduate and to be allowed to register to vote. Free remedial classes should be available to all.
We can discuss other things of course but I believe these steps could go a long way.
I’d like to think that Congressman Blank will use his best judgment to try to figure out what’s best for our interests, and one of us will probably be unhappy. But my point is that he would at least be *trying* to work for our benefit rather than saying “Who cares, I’m just gonna do whatever Wellpoint tells me.”
Fair enough. Seems mighty unfair of us to foist that responsibility onto Mr. Blank. What kind of person would willingly sign up for such an impossible job?
Someone like bmaz would probably have to weigh in on whether any of this is constitutionally feasible, but as long as we’re spitballing, I would really love to see the revolving door jammed shut (banning all paid lobbying would certainly help, but there are plenty of cushy non-lobbying jobs too) and some way to prevent blatant conflicts of interest where spouses or other family members are working for the industries the congresscritters are supposed to be reining in.
Lieberman’s wife is a healthcare lobbyist, and Bayh’s wife is some kind of bigshot at Wellpoint – how the hell can we expect either of them to be remotely impartial on healthcare reform?
I didn’t know that but it is apprapos.
A much better person than the ones we have signing up for it now.
Good evening Eli!
Evening, egreg!
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
Well be clean when their work is done
Well be eternally free yes and eternally young
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free
Again, if they want to SERVE, they should have to give up ALL other financial interests and that should include spouses. Of course you can’t rout out all corruption but a few common sense steps to get the money out of the equation can only help at this point. I know if I was a farmer and all 500 acres I had planted was suffering from some kind of blight, I would be ecstatic, though not completely satisfied if I managed to confine that blight to ten or twenty acres. At this moment, everything we own is blighted.
EDIT: Until holding office isn’t a for profit, money making venture, we’re screwed. I’m not saying they should do it for free or even that we should cut their salary but the fact is that the base pay of a freshman congressman is better than three times the most I’ve ever made in a single year. If they can’t make it on that, they shouldn’t be in charge of my money!
Okay, but what are the benefits and pitfalls of being a politician? That will show us what the incentives are to becoming one. Then once we know the incentives we can reasonably broadly assert the types of profiles that pursue those kinds of incentives. Once we can do that, then we’ll be able to know whether or not a “better person” is a reasonable possible outcome given the constraints. That should then give us some indication of the depth of the problem, and thus the character of the possible remedies.
We’re of course assuming there’s a problem to begin with, which I suspect we would agree there is.
Agreed plus everyone even farm workers get the minimum wage and overtime plus everyone should get 1 tenth the paid vacation Congress and the President get Reagan and Bush alone will boost that curve!
No immigrants doing farm work then Citizens should all make the minimum wage!
Try enforcing the bribery laws?
In this vein, I’d be content that their assets and investments go into a secret trust upon entering office, so that they have a harder time using their office as a market manipulation tool (Evan Bayh I’m looking at you).
Power, Money, Women If i understood the book King of the Mountain right.
What are the detractions?
My first cut would be that the three main – not necessarily mutually exclusive – motives would be:
1. Money.
2. Power & Perks.
3 To do good. (Bearing in mind that some people’s idea of “good” is our idea of “evil” or “batshit insane”)
I’d like to think that good campaign finance reform could weaken #1 – sure, you could still make money as a politician, but there would be easier ways.
2 & 3 will probably always be motives, but both would be a lot less corrupted by money.
The power-seekers would have to be at least somewhat in touch with their constituents in order to retain their power, so even if they’re assholes they could still be a reluctant force for good.
And the do-gooders would be less corruptible, i.e., “I don’t like it, but I have to play ball a little if I want to stay in office and make a difference in the world.”
And want to encourage participation? Make it so your voting holiday is paid only if you present a voting receipt to your payroll department. Go vote, then go grill, drink beer, whatever. I see the makings of a great American holiday.
Alpha Males, Alpha Females and the occasional Chimp or Hand Puppet Dick was Bush’s Alpha hand up his butt doing the talking.
Again off the top of my head: Hard work (at least in theory), dealing with people, increased scrutiny of your past and your public life, having to watch what you say All The Time, begging for money.
Make it so they don’t get access to it until they’ve been out of office for five years and I could go along with that. I’m not asking people to give up their personal wealth, just to not be able to use their office to increase it.
Here’s Congress vacation schedule.
If you want 1/10th of it, which would be 8 days out of 81 days, 30 of which are the dreaded August in-district work period, go for it.
I intend to be quite vocal in this August work period as it coincides with the CO primaries. Those critters will anguish every moment of it this year I’m thinking.
Everything they have to do to get power. However much like Gorillas once a person gets power they change and become more Alpha given the reports on Rahm’s behavior I suspect he is Obama’s puppet master.
Almost forgot to ask: What would this look like, practically speaking? How could this method be used to effect progressive change on, say, healthcare, financial, or climate reform? Or are you saying something else?
All Leaders in the book seemed to try to rewrite or distance themselves from their pasts.
Rahm doesn’t need to be. Obama has always been DLC all the way.
30 paid vacation days I don’t care if its – 20 in a Chicago Winter!
Exactly. And how/where are progressive/liberals being assertive? virtually nada.
But notice Rahm since day one has leaked and disagreed with the White House in such a way everyone knew who was doing it a true Alpha can’t tolerate a person publicly floating him.
Sure leaks happen in all White House’s but they normally try to be Anonymous.
We are getting the message out despite the media. why do you think the Public Option polled better than the GOP plan of do nothing or Obamacare?
Why do you think Ending the Wars is so popular with voters? The Media dropped coverage on the wars to do Missing White Women stories.
Why do you think people are boycotting BP?
That’s what Rahm is there for. He’s like a fusable link. He’s there for people to blame and detest and to give Obama cover. At least that’s the way I see it.
Too late for that.
Well, for instance right now I’d say the top issue is unemployment benefits. It’s very similar to the “Bonus Army” except for in a 21st century mode.
So if I could wave a magic wand, I would have all the unemployed folks in cities with Federal Reserve Banks-
1st District–Boston
2nd District–New York
3rd District–Philadelphia
4th District–Cleveland
5th District–Richmond
6th District–Atlanta
7th District–Chicago
8th District–St. Louis
9th District–Minneapolis
10th District–Kansas City
11th District–Dallas
12th District–San Francisco
Show up and not let any of the cash transfers in or out of the banks until the promise of the Full Employment Act as amended was carried out.
Frederick Douglas said, “Agitate, agitate, agitate.” John Jay Chapman who wrote the book Practical Agitation said, “If an agitator is not reviled, he is a quack.”
We live in a corporate kleptocracy. We will die in one if we do not fight it with all that we have and are.
Too many of the critters get elected and settle in for life. They think if they can just not anger anyone they’ll never have work another day. And it appears they are right. I have always been opposed to term limits for various reasons but it’s something that looks better all the time.
Language counts – if you’re saying elected progressives/liberals are doing nada, you’re right.
But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s up to you and me to assert.
We’ll also die in one even if we fight it with all that we have & are.
Still wearing your rose-colored glasses, I see…? Aloha, ecahn and ya’ll…! ;-)
Well we bump right up against that old saying, presumably taken to heart by economists, that in the long run we’re all dead.
Better to do something than nothing IMO.
On Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5ob9B9yD4
Okay, I think I’m getting you now.
I guess I am just a pessimist, as I really fail to see how any of this is possible. In order to enact any of these changes you need the support of those you are trying to reign in (politicians). Just look at the public option issue. We are at a point where politicians are, generally speaking, immune to public pressure. Look at the incumbency rate.
Politicians do not give a shit what anyone thinks because they know that, come election time, all they have to do is buy commercials, get the talking points out to MSNBC, Fox, etc., and the public will obey. Just like we obey when they tell us what to eat, wear, think, love, hate, etc.
& CTuttle,
I’m back in forecasting mode, which is so much more comforting than activist mode because it allows one to step back & be objective about what is happening around one & what one can do about it.
I have observed lefty activism closely in past several years & have concluded that there is not enough org & $$ behind it to make any diff.
(Reserve right to change my mind if I receive evidence to the contrary.)
I have also almost finished reading Lenin’s Tomb by Resnick & observed that the U.S. is nowhere near the edge that the USSR was when that population woke up to reality. Besides, the U.S. has no Gorby nor Yeltsin. As flawed as they were, U.S. pols fall so far short.
That’s my biggest worry, that you need to get a majority of incumbents (and a supermajority of Senate incumbents) to vote for something that reduces their job security.
The surprising number of co-sponsors gives me hope, but I’d be a lot hopier if there were some Republicans (I believe Walter Jones was one of the sponsors of the House bill, but I’m pretty sure he’s out now).
Or in other words, It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. The fact is that very soon, I’m going to have absolutely nothing left to lose. The true definition of “freedom”
I didn’t intend to imply there is no activism. In fact I and a number of my friends, neighbors and associates have for years been doing grassroots communication and some local demonstrations. And I imagine everyone posting here does some of the same. In fact I think there is more strength in the grassroots than any political person imagines.
What I was addressing was Kelly’s point that you have to be visible, assertive and confrontational. I respectfully believe to this point we are still too timid and there are not enough Big Marches, Demonstrations, effective Boycotts demands for Media attention and appearances etc.
Depending on what mood what one’s in.
We must be confrontational. In their faces.
Ok scapegoat vs puppet master or maybe both I can see your point and I admit not enough facts are known to argue my point more.
Darth also seemed to be both though I’m thinking of changing my vote.
I can agree with that:)
I won’t disagree with your facts or your opinions that comprise your forecast.
BUT!
Forecasts have chances of being correct and aren’t ever 100%. So I’ll take your pessimism just as cheerfully as I take my activism.
It takes all types
Yes. See #76 #80
Demi, eCHAN Hi I gotta go but always nice to see you both :)
Ironically, we actually had passed local/state legislation to enact public financed elections here on the Big Isle…!
Finally, it is being ‘budgeted’ for and our upcoming county council race is only publicly financed…! ;-)
Big Island launching publicly funding elections
I just think that you’re implying disparity where there is very little. There’s an important reason why Obama chose Emanuel apart from any other reason, real or imagined and that’s that they have very similar philosophies, if different styles.
If you remember, it turns out DQ is nuts. And doesn’t accomplish anything real. So your activism analogy is not very comforting or convincing.
Yep – gotcha.
Thank you, Kell, I needed that Big Time!
How did it happen that you guys wound up with such a bigoted governor? I’m not disparaging the voters there but I’m very curious how that came about in your state.
Things! Nice to see you too. We’ll talk later, I want to know how your move and your new job is what and it’s going.
While the number of cosponsors can be seen as encouraging news, remember that the Audit the Fed bill had over 300 cosponsors. Why, if I were the suspicious type, I might think that some Congress people cosponsor bills they knew had no chance of passage just so they would have something to campaign on.
Me too. I thought it was groovy in the Islands. Proves I don’t know shit.
Your pessimism may comfort you, as it doesn’t comfort me, as my activism doesn’t comfort you but does comfort me.
Economics is primarily about utility, right?
And as Peg noted above, it’s about dying on your feet or your knees. I’m fine with my choice as much as you are with yours.
I agree there is reason for pessimism but I don’t think the answer is to throw up our hands in despair because it seems overwhelming. Maybe if I was financially secure, I could afford to be more pessimistic and sedentary about it but as it is, nobody else is going to fight for my own security and very few people are willing to help me in that fight. Giving up is not an option for me or for millions of others. If I give up, I starve and that’s just the way it is. If you’ve never been there then maybe you don’t know what real hunger is but that’s what I’m reduced to: scratching for my very survival. Quit if you must. I can’t.
Or I suppose it could end up passing after getting riddled with loopholes.
I think a big part of what the Public Campaign and Common Cause people are trying to do is raise awareness of it so that it becomes a campaign issue. Force politicians to explain and defend why they won’t vote to clean up the system. I think the disgust at the corporate capture of government is bipartisan at the voter level, even if it isn’t at the officeholder level.
Oh, you nailed something there, kiddo. Financial security does buy one something that poh folks don’t have, but they wouldn’t know it, would they? Won’t see you in the am, as I have a trip to the mountains to take. You take care, now.
Yep. Over two thirds of registered voters are Democrats and a good many of them are more Progressive on average than just about anywhere else. It makes me scratch my head.
When you had a whole slew of bad Dino Gov’s in a row… Well, ya gotta shake it up some…! I even voted for her in her first gubernatorial run…! Worked hard to try and oust her in second go-around tho…! ;-)
It’s difficult to worry about some one else when you can’t pay your rent, buy food or afford to have the bee keeper come by.
On the lead up to the war on Iraq we had a good bit of success in organizing demonstrations and marches and getting media coverage. A fair amount in the Atlanta papers and one brought the NBC TV evening news cameras in……. and a little other national coverage. Our hook was being close to the Ranger training base in a state where the military is like the Vatican to Catholics.
Frankly I think it is harder to find people to unite on economic issues and also against their traditional political party. There is not the same passion.as we could mobilize against the war.
Though unfortunately a rather uninspiring or unglamorous topic, I don’t think any other reform is more important or necessary to reclaim our government. Thanks, Eli, for seriously focusing on this.
You have a wonderful ability to unerringly describe the national scene or subject at hand, as you’ve done again with this post.
And with this comment: The burning question is whether a majority of [Members of Congress] are more concerned with doing their job than keeping it.
And this comment: And the do-gooders would be less corruptible, i.e., “I don’t like it, but I have to play ball a little if I want to stay in office and make a difference in the world.”
I’d like to “nominate” you to be the official FDL strategist and sloganeer for any future coordinated campaign FDL (hopefully) undertakes to help promote the Fair Elections Now legislation, and similar measures.
I happen to remember the exact date that legislation was introduced in the Senate – March 31, 2009. And there it’s sat, ever since, referred and back-burnered in committee. I think the House may have held a hearing or two, but little, if any, action is being brought to bear on this reform from the top down. It’s up to us to bring pressure to bear from the bottom up (think Audit the Fed).
Here’s some of what Senator Durbin said the day he introduced the legislation:
*heh* We have an inordinately large population of real DFH’s here..! Trust me…! ;-)
I’m not going to go there and I’m not being disparaging of anybody. I’m just saying that I don’t have the luxury of giving up. I might as well put a gun to my head.
Please make that another post – or several.
And now she’s entrenched. Silly goose. :)
No. Don’t you dare go there. I am in a way fucking worse mood then you are tonight. Trust me.
Girlfriend. I mean it.
You know who your friends are, and who will do what to help you and nobody is giving up on you either.
Margaret & Kelly C.,
Activism & forecasting are two different skills. Not sure how they’re best combined but am sure they are better used together than one in opposition to the other. So I consider my contribution, pessimistic as it is, as realistic, and am basically presenting the conclusion that lefty activism has failed, and for simple financial reasons, and asking what could possibly come next.
Amen to that. We’re here.
Thank you. I totally agree that our corrupt campaign finance system is the root of much evil. Fixing it certainly does not guarantee that all our other problems will finally be solved, but not fixing it surely guarantees that they will not.
Sure they are separate things; thought I stipulated to that, including that I didn’t disagree with your forecast or opinions that lead you to such a forecast.
I’m just saying there’s a chance you’re wrong, because there’s no way your forecast is 100% possible. Just like the weatherman, you got odds working. And I’m playing on the short end.
Believe me, I already have. Media is my *other* bete noire.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/27/welcome-to-my-nightmare (my first-ever post at FDL, in fact)
http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/25/elephant-pimples
There’s probably more, but those are the two that stick out in my memory.
I’ve been using opensecrets and a few other sites to debunk the occasional wingnut email that washes over the transom. I like to think it makes a dent, but when I keep getting the same crap from the same people, I begin to wonder. Be that as it may, I continue flogging the (apparently) dead horse. As a practical matter, eviscerating these wingnut claims (“Obama is a Socialist,” for example) is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Why these boneheads can’t get it is literally beyond my comprehension.
Maybe I’m just tired. I sure didn’t set out to annoy anyone. Just to impress upon some that this has for me become less of an esoteric philosophical exercise and has become one of great and immediate import to my very ability to continue existing. In light of the fact that the system we are discussing trying to change is directly responsible for the state I’m in and my continued inability to modify that state. I’m sorry if I’ve stepped on toes. Laters.
There’s always going to be 20-30% who are completely unreachable.
Whether Fair Elections Now has any real chance of passage I couldn’t say, though it sounds worthy of support.
But we DO have some control over the incumbency rate, if enough of us feel that drastic action is required. We may not be able to get the representation we want, but we have a pretty good chance of being able to evict a lot of the representation we don’t want – simply by voting for the major-party challenger against ANY incumbent, because in a great many contests swinging just a few percent of the vote to the opposing party can change the outcome.
That would at least help break the incumbency gridlock in Congress. Whether doing so would change the dynamic sufficiently to give us a shot at reclaiming our government (by then working at the primary level to get better newly-minted candidates next time around) I can’t say: I just don’t have any problem experimenting with such approaches because I place no value whatsoever on our current government (hence have no qualms about tinkering with it in the hope that something at least marginally better may result).
“What about the GOOD incumbents?” you may ask – and I have some sympathy with that concern (I still value Kucinich, for example: he may have caved on the health-care bill at the end, but only after skillfully-herded ‘progressives’ threatened to mount a primary challenge to him if he didn’t). But in general that’s a dangerous road to go down, since polls seem to indicate that most people consider their own House and Senate representatives to be a cut above the others (hence would not tend to support eviction by their votes).
If progressives are more discriminating than that (itself a dangerous assumption in my experience), then perhaps we could salvage a FEW in the Kucinich mold and just work on getting rid of the rest. Still haven’t heard a peep out of Jane as to whether she’d be comfortable hosting anything of that ilk here, though.
As Durbin stated…
Made ever more insane by the Citizen’s United Scotus Abomination…! 8-(
I don’t think you stepped on any toes.
I’m just trying to figure out if I should come to visit Texas, or Colorado. Things be heatin’ up and nasty here. Just bad news all around.
They will soon be raptured and we won’t have to worry about them. :)
Why play the short end? Why not deal directly with reality? Sure forecasts can be wrong, but as there is so much evidence that lefty efforts have failed, what, exactly, is the purpose of doing the same thing over & over again with the same failed result?
I always enjoy your fonts, M’dear…! Hot flashs and all…! ;-)
If I believed that, I’d be happier.
Hot flashes? Plz explain.
Don’t think lefty efforts have failed. We will always be around and things shift back and forth in politics very rapidly. Even Lindsay Graham said that the Tea Party movement wouldn’t last because they had no direction. People will grow tired of all this stuff and the left will be ready – fingers crossed.
In my forecasts, depression plays a big part in changing the objective reality of our corrupted political process. It could be for better or worse, but one thing is clear I do not think most of the current crop of politicians will survive it.
In jest, M’dear…! No slight intended…! *g*
C’mon upstairs…!
Because.
Because 31 years ago I was sleeping on the street, and then 29 years ago I was running around Europe on a scholarship.
If I’d accepted being beaten down, accepted reality, I’d've gotten nowhere. I’ve never accepted boundaries or limitations, and as much frustration as there’s been, those boundaries and limitations have always been ground down, not me.
You’ll perhaps say, yes, that’s micro, not macro, with which I’ll agree.
But seeing a concomitant rise in worthiness of gay folks in general, DESPITE money and dedicated legislators and groups, because they’ve really come and gone into the veal pen, I don’t see any reason to quit doing what I’ve been doing, and also I don’t see any reason to quit MODIFYING what I’ve been doing as the years have past.
Which has been to get loud, and throw elbows and be sharp and rude. As well as gracious and playful. That’s a role musicians in particular can play there, and I’m going to keep doing that.
“Fingers crossed” is precisely the problem I have with these kinds of arguments. I still try to live in the reality based world, which is the emotional comfort of forecasting. The emotional discomfort of forecasting is that, often, the signs or precursors, or evidence, of change in the direction you would like to see is NOT available.
Fair enough. My personal experience, which I’ve engaged in vigorously, is women on Wall St. I ended up with a fairly long end of a stick, but observe that not much has changed in the years since I started at Goldman Sachs in 1976. To be sure, there were only 24 professional women there then but the ‘progress’ in the intervening 35 years is pretty shitty.
Obama and his band of whores in the Senate will never allow election finance reform although they might endorse it. Even if it became law the Roberts Court would overturn it. Its a diversion. Boycott the legacy parties!
Woodrow Wilson said in 1913 – “If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States they are going to own it.” Paul Krugman says : “there are such men and they do”. Corporatism has far too much money and power in this country.
I was thinking today: Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man go to heaven. The repugs are always wanting to save souls, think we should take the Lord’s word literally and raise taxes in order to save their souls from damnation.It might even help the reduce the deficit which the repugs are so worried about? NOT!!
The congress passed electtion finance reform and was overtuned by the Supreme Court. In this case it is the conservative court that puts our democracy in danger , by giving personhood to corporations with unlimited ability to make campaign contributios. The court was wrong and their mistake in judgement puts our nation in jeopardy.
The “Scandinavian income based fine system” originated in Scandinavia, but it is for many decades now, in one form or another, practiced throughout continental Europe.
Here in Germany for example it works like this: the court sentences to “days worth of fine,” somewhere between 5 and 360 days according to the offense and the circumstances.
For example a first time DUI will normally get between 30 and 90 days of fine, lets say 60.
The worth of the fine is fixed at 1/30 of the monthly income of the convicted, with a minimum of one euro and a maximum of 30,000 euro.
So our DUI guy pays exactly two months of income (unless he makes more then 900k or less than 30 euro a month).
“Would things be worse if the Republicans were in charge again? Absolutely.”
Do you have some sort of crystal ball Eli? This statement is hubris. What would the state of progessives have been had Republicans won the 2008 election? I contend that we would have been much closer to revolution.
And do remember that this has never been a democracy. Read Article V of our Constitution and note that every Congress for the past century, by some accounts, has been in violation.
“Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will.” ~ Frederick Douglass
The above statement about Article V is true. It’s an error to say we live in a “democracy”. Our form of government is actually a republic, wherein we elect representatives to our law bodies in our stead. A true democracy would be much as those small villages in New England where all the town folk get together every week or two to vote on policy and law.
The framers adopted many of the principles from those of the Iroquois Nation. To have a true democracy would be unwieldy, to say the least. And, as long as we have a representative government, there is room and possibility for corruption, since that’s apparently endemic to human nature.
That doesn’t mean we can’t hold our reps to a high standard, but it also means ourselves becoming involved in the oversight process. It’s not enough to bitch online. We have to GO to our city council meetings, and yes, sit through all their boring policy discussions. We have to go to county commission mtgs, the legislature, etc. No matter how onerous the task and process is. if we witness the goings on, it’s harder for them to hide what they do.
A show of hands from those who actually show up at government meetings… to me, that’s as important as voting.