Tweet
Photo by DavidDMuir
Attention Democrats: If you want to campaign on something that appeals to American voters across the political spectrum, how about this?
From a MoveOn poll of 9600 likely voters in 18 battleground states and districts:
1) How important is it … that a candidate for Congress … commits to reduce the influence corporations have over elections?
Very or Somewhat Important: Democrats 90 (70+20)%, Independents 75 (53+22)%, Republicans 72 (44+28)%, Overall 79 (56+23)%.
2) How important is it … that a candidate for Congress … commits to reduce the influence lobbyists have over the way laws are written?
Very or Somewhat Important: Democrats 91 (73+18)%, Independents 89 (68+21)%, Republicans 87 (63+24)%, Overall 89 (68+21)%.
3) Are you more likely … or less likely … to support a candidate for Congress … if that candidate commits to limit the influence that large corporations have over how the government runs?
More Likely/Less Likely: Democrats 75/8%, Independents 59/10%, Republicans 53/14%, Overall 62/11%
4) Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? One: Corporate lobbyists have too much influence over members of Congress. Two: Members of Congress are influenced more by voters than by corporate lobbyists.
Lobbyists/Voters: Democrats 85/13%, Independents 82/14%, Republicans 81/16%, Overall 83/14%
There are ten more questions at the link, and the responses continue a general theme of distaste for this institutionalized corruption, and an awareness that both parties have enabled it. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe that large corporations and their lobbyists have more control over our government than they do, and want to see candidates who will give us our government back.
It’s a slam-dunk no-brainer of an issue, opposed only by the moneyed interests who benefit from the status quo. And therein lies the catch-22: We can’t pass real campaign finance reform because our politicians are in thrall to lobbyists and big-money campaign donors… because we can’t pass real campaign finance reform.
It sure would be a great way for a progressive challenger to get a leg up and turn an incumbent’s cash advantage against them, though. I’m just saying.
76 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
That would be ROMANOFF!
Eli!
Kelly!
Eli!
What an ugly mess. Never have so many needed so much from so disreputable a bunch as these.
So what is the substitute for money?
There probably isn’t a substitute for money, but public money is a halfway decent substitute for corporate money.
It ain’t shame, that’s for sure. Shame used to work on public figures.
What is this “shame” of which you speak?
Ask Sharron Angle. I think she has a few ideas on that topic.
ELI!
But that’s not a bi partisan issue. The voters want it but the politicians and corporations don’t. Guess who wins?
Just how many chickens *does* it take to buy a senator?
I am thankful several times I day that I don’t live in Nevada. Imagine having to make that choice.
Margaret!
Sure, but that’s not a partisan divide. It’s a people-vs.power-and-money divide.
Charlie Rangel’s self-serving riff in Congress today was sure an eeeeuuuuw moment. I’d be angrier at him if I didn’t think he was truly pathetic.
Dignity? Buddy, you sold out your dignity long ago.
I’m not ready to cross that road.
Spew Alert, please!
Aloha, Eli…!
My Big Isle is trying Public Financing on for size this cycle…! ;-)
LOL
How many chickenhawks does it take to appease one?
Great article.
Good grief, how to resolve though????
That’s where I get buggered up. There’s no apparent way out. If we could get all Dems to refuse to vote in the next election, that would work…but it will never happen. There is too much fear, and way too much Obama-love still going on.
I slept thru most of it, but the bit I heard was amazing. LOL This is our Congress at work in 2010. Refusing to gracefully leave at age 80, despite the fact that he has all but been proven guilty, and he knows it! They don’t live to serve, they serve to live….off our hard earned tax dollars.
It’s so hard to pass anything when its only constituency is the American people…
Work to accomplish what?
Those questions are very familiar. I believe I was a participant in that poll via telephone, although the automated voice didn’t identify itself as originating from MoveOn…
I got the impression that they commissioned it but did not conduct it. Or maybe neither, and they just chose to promote it for their anticorruption initiative.
It was pretty bad, alright. “Yeah, there’s that little $26 Billion package to help out the states, but what about meeeeee?” Gag.
Pretty sure I was one of the respondents. I did wonder about who was backing it, and why.
Eli, this is a good campaign issue except people seem to think the bad stuff only refers to other Congress critters and not to theirs so they send the same old people back to DC.
Good post, BTW.
Thanks. I did kinda wonder how some of them might be defining “special-interest money”.
good eve ELI
me likey
http://www.actblue.com/page/boehnertv
good eve sadly
I can see it now: congressperson Pureheart running on still another no-corruption ticket, being elected and schiving the issue immediately. Kinda sounds like Senator Obama. After all, this is like asking an hyena to swear off being an hyena. I think these initiatives should start at the State level. The States do have some power over how their federal elected officials are elected.
That’s always a concern, and we’ve certainly been played by fake progressives before – I call it Rootstrapping. But our chances are still better with a bunch of congresscritters who promised reform than a bunch who didn’t.
And I’m very much in favor of state and local public financing initiatives to build up a bench of pro-reform candidates, but they don’t have any control over the financing at the federal level.
It Is the Same Old Story… “Money Talks Bullshit Walks”! Until we get true “Public Financing” in All elections we will suffer to the Corporate Boot Heel!
I don’t think the rest of us have any idea how awful it looks to African-American Democrats that Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked Ethics Office chair, the odious Porter Goss, has gone after only African-American Congressmembers. Charlie’s speech will resonate in the places he needs it to, I imagine.
What kind of fucking retarded shit is this? Are you from the Professional Left or something???
The same is true of DADT and (even more so) ENDA, which are supported by huge majorities of the American people but feared by Democratic officeholders at the very highest levels. I don’t know why.
Ask Mr. Soros if I’m on the payroll.
How come nobody ever asks me those questions. I get the persistent surveys about shampoo.
Drug-test that man!
I don’t want shampoo having undue influence on our government either.
That is the question, isn’t it – why? I fail to understand since we handed them everything and they hide like scared children.
He ain’t paid me lately; can’t afford the franking.
Porter CIA Goss?
Glennzilla quoted David Frum, of all people (on the Robert Gibbs bullshit):
Except he’s only half right. *Both* parties fear the GOP base, and both parties hate the Dem base.
oh i am a proud professional liberal
exactomundo,they love the teh stoopits!
Jeebus, couldn’t Olbermann find someone in addition to Michael Moore instead of making Bobby Gibbs’ complaint all about the two of them? I mean, there’s David Sirota, Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher — any one of whom would have had something intelligent to say without it sounding like Olbermann was whining about Bobby being mean to him alone….
off to snack…nite,nite
Yes. Nancy chose Porter Goss to run the Congressional Ethics office.
Go figure — he’s only identified black Democrats to prosecute.
Way to go, Dems. If they did something intelligent, I’d faint.
set up,much
Pity me, and slide many cocktails down the FDL bar – the press is calling it for Bennet with 65% of precincts in.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Eli, I think the States can have control of election finances, even at the federal level. They control many of the aspects of the federal election: who can vote in primaries, when primaries are held, who can appear on a ballot. The tick is to get some state rep, say like NTOdd, to introduce legislation specifying from where election funds can derive.
*hands k-man a Stoli gimlet and ice pack*
Thanks newtie
*applies directly to forehead*
This is a good survey. Much of the other red/blue BS like guns and abortion that divides the country has been hyped by Republicans over years just so they could increase the power of their corporate backers. Hopefully people are wising up.
They can control the nuts & bolts of the voting, but only the FEC has jurisdiction over federal campaign funds.
Mike Moore cited that very same Frum quote to KO…! ;-)
Yeah, it is surprising that so many R’s and I’s see the corrupting influence of money.
Ack…..dont put the gimlet on your….nevermind. Here’s another one.
LOL!
Bless you. I am now in the “bargaining phase”:
“Please let the AP/Media have egg on their face for projecting/declaring a winner before all the votes are counted.”
Heh – just got done watching the KO – Michael Moore discussion with Moore’s quote of Frum. I agree with the re-interpretation of it: both parties fear the rightie base, and both parties loathe, detest and despise the leftwing base.
I was somewhat disappointed (but somewhat not surprised) that Moore was so restrained in commentary. Moore & Olbermann seemed to me to fall over themselves praising Gibbs and saying what a “great” guy he is – thanks heaps, Messers Prof Left! Suck up to the man.
Plus then Moore did the pom-pom waving for the Dems, of all things, stating baldly that, of course, Dem voters would turn out to vote in droves for the Dems, no matter what! Gee, uh, Michael: that would be: maybe not.
But both Moore & KO pointed out that, if nothing else, the Dems & BHO were definitely loosing the Indies, who would probably sit out the election in total disgust at how much BHO has renigged on his campaign promises. Ya think???? KO’s ‘special comment’ was alright… neither great or terrible, but at least he hit on some salient points.
Sigh. And so: on it goes… another crappy day for the left, following closely onto the disgusting sacking of Shirley Sherrod bc of what Breitbart said. ugh
LOL Exactly!
Moore had certainly showed more restraint than one normally expects, but, as you had noted, they both hammered home the ‘salient points’…! ;-)
If dem voters had made it known that they absolutely would not vote for dem critters in 2010 unless they got a P.O., real FinReg, etc, etc…….that might have impinged upon Obama/Congress to give us what we wanted, and they campaigned on. Seems the only thing they worry about is money and power. If they really thought we’d let them be voted out of office, they may have acted right.
I don’t see how we the people have any other control over what’s happening. We can vote in new people, but it will just be the same shit different person. This is a structual, pervasive corruption issue. It’s not like sending letters to Obama and Congress is going to do anything. What we want is the least of their worries as long as they figure we’ll keep voting…….which most of us will because the option is too horrible.
I don’t see a real solution! That was just a fantasy idea of what might have worked.
Exactly. Folks keep trying to get me to vote for Boxer again. I know she’s better than alot, but I don’t know. She doesn’t interest me at all. She is weak, and tired sounding, and been there too long. We need strong, energetic new blood, with ideals running through their veins. Real crusaders that wants to accomplish big things. Hope springs eternal!
Does “Bipartisan” mean neither party will support it?
A few years ago I happened to see a legislative bill on the web and its suggested edits, which were offered by a ‘think tank’. It’s how bills are written; it’s not always and only nefarious, self-serving, or money-grubbing.
The ACLU lobbies Congress, as do other political, nonpartisan groups. Isn’t it smart and also appropriate to show an informed and interested group, like the ACLU if a FISA bill is being written, the language and solicit suggestions? Many lobbies are well-intentioned, and I think we are well-served by the process if money and quid pro quo aren’t part of it.
You can’t expect sausage-making to be kosher.
Sure, I can live with lobbying if it’s not backed by millions of dollars of campaign contributions or the promise of a cushy post-government job (or for a family member). Let the corporations plead their case on the merits, to politicians who aren’t in their pockets.
Democracy polls well. But the Oligarchy is opposed. So we, the non-billionaires, will remain unrepresented because the Oligarchy owns our political institutions and our media.
What ever shall we do?
We don’t seem to know. But we do know that no combination of Democrats and Republicans will save us. So we can AT LEAST withdraw our support from them.
The bastards don’t own the government. They just own the Democrats and Republicans. Whatever else you do, make sure you boycott the legacy parties.
This is your brain.
This is your brain on pundits.
Any questions?
The survey relies on melodramatic questions for Y/N, as though the intrinsic issues are simplistic.
Sponsorship based advertising is what enables lobbying and political capture and the loss of our representation but we now have an alternative in the internet that can be made much stronger- see below. Citizenship means that we have a share of the power or a voice if we choose to exercise it and with that we will never suffer for not having a share of the wealth or being subjugated over our base needs.
1. There is no shortage of bandwidth that requires premium (a little for too much) think as there an ocean of unlit dark fiber that is installed and just waiting to be switched.
2. For those willing to look wireless phone providers are not actually necessary and this hold even with out resorting to technology like wireless mesh. We can and should disintermediate the telcos.
3. Commercial speech is valuable but it has practically no value in comparison to political speech. Commercial speech might be a special case but at best it is a special case that cannot be allowed to interfere with the general case hence these companies regardless of what they are selling must be considered communications companies. This can hold even for software. In the case of a telco they must be a dumb pipe although they might serve as a sort exchange (see below.)
4. Contrary to the size of Google’s installations search itself is not resource intensive and is efficient to the point of not needing ad revenue to function, some expect it to soon run on a charity sized budget. Either way its clear that ads are not essential to its function. At the same time its clear that search itself makes demand based advertising obsolete. People find high quality product information on the other side of user initiated searches and after much comparison they make purchases, but they may do so ad free and include word of mouth or even familiarity with freely given samples.
5. Simple subcriptions (they might be called ISP fees) could easily grant us monthly unlimited anywhere anytime access to the universe of apps, content and services that the ‘cloud’ services model is unleashing. This can be done ad free with strong privacy and protection for anonymous speech. It can be done redundantly across the globe and the internet tends to work on a highest common denominator model such spreading would be expected. Development tools and services could well be provided for free in exchange for a non exclusive right to post the work indefinitely less the share owed to the developer. Regardless of what an end user was looking at the developer would be paid out of the subscription based on the time spent on the item. All content even games can now be offered in this way through streaming.
6. The corporate charter was intended to provide a benefit to society first and foremost. Its been a perversion to assume the first responsibility is to the ‘owners.’ It easy to question the value of proverbially disconnected stock holders once a firm gets past the venture stage and easy to seem stock holders as being like credit cards that can’t be paid off. There is no reason the tax code could not convert the world’s big corporations into wholly employee owned ventures. Employees hire/fire the board and the board hires/fires the managers and neither can own stock. An occasional founder might hang around but outside the venture stage, stock issuance would go to employees only and also be their retirement plan with no vesting issue as shares would issue continually over a career.
Your complaints about the Democrats are not without merit. But, believe me, not voting and allowing this no-nothing brand of Republicanism to triumph, would be a catastrophe.
All you can do is boycott and strike. If you don’t go to work, you’re not paid, and your wages aren’t withheld by the government. If that’s not an option, there’s always hope.
I agree with you! It’s a conundrum.
It’s very important to keep the conflict going between heteros and homos. Blacks and whites. Immigrants and native born. Christians and Muslems. Men and Women. Democrats and Republicans.
A united working class would overthrow the mother fuckers. They know that even if we don’t.