4 ms·

The elephant in the room here is campaign financing. As long as a person* with great wealth can outweigh the desires of the majority of people we will get the g

The elephant in the room here is campaign financing. As long as a person* with great wealth can outweigh the desires of the majority of people we will get the government that we deserve. *By person I mean a legal person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

anamax 17y ago
> The elephant in the room here is campaign financing. As long as a person* with great wealth can outweigh the desires of the majority of people we will get the government that we deserve. The fix, making it impossible for ordinary people to contribute useful amounts of money to political causes in which they believe, makes things worse. Note that we didn't actually have rich people buying elections before the various campaign finance restrictions. Out of fear of a then-imaginary problem, we set up a system where the problem actually occurs. Malice or incompetence - either way, it's not much of a recommendation.
- logicalmind 17y ago
  I don't think that ordinary people are the problem. If by ordinary people you mean natural persons* . In the US government, the elected officials should represent the will of the people who elected them. The problem is that special interests find that money is better spent through lobbying. This allows them to buy votes and even write laws. A massive amount of money is spent lobbying: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php This money obviously has an effect. Ordinary people aren't creating lobbying groups. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
  - anamax 17y ago
    > I don't think that ordinary people are the problem. I didn't say that they were. I said that they were the ones adversely affected by campaign finance restrictions. The rubes think that that's an accident and that it could be fixed. The cynics think that that was the goal and know that it won't. The realists know that it was inevitable. > The problem is that special interests find that money is better spent through lobbying. That's because "we" keep voting for folks who set up programs "to do good". That always fails because regulatory capture always happens. Either we're insane or we want to be fleeced. The only way to stop being fleeced is to insist that govt stop doing things.
- rms 17y ago
  We could also outlaw corporate personhood.
  - rms 17y ago
    I think this is about as much of a third rail as exists in human civilization. The corporations would never allow us to outlaw corporate personhood.

anamax 17y ago

> The elephant in the room here is campaign financing. As long as a person* with great wealth can outweigh the desires of the majority of people we will get the government that we deserve. The fix, making it impossible for ordinary people to contribute useful amounts of money to political causes in which they believe, makes things worse. Note that we didn't actually have rich people buying elections before the various campaign finance restrictions. Out of fear of a then-imaginary problem, we set up a system where the problem actually occurs. Malice or incompetence - either way, it's not much of a recommendation.

logicalmind 17y ago
I don't think that ordinary people are the problem. If by ordinary people you mean natural persons* . In the US government, the elected officials should represent the will of the people who elected them. The problem is that special interests find that money is better spent through lobbying. This allows them to buy votes and even write laws. A massive amount of money is spent lobbying: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php This money obviously has an effect. Ordinary people aren't creating lobbying groups. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
- anamax 17y ago
  > I don't think that ordinary people are the problem. I didn't say that they were. I said that they were the ones adversely affected by campaign finance restrictions. The rubes think that that's an accident and that it could be fixed. The cynics think that that was the goal and know that it won't. The realists know that it was inevitable. > The problem is that special interests find that money is better spent through lobbying. That's because "we" keep voting for folks who set up programs "to do good". That always fails because regulatory capture always happens. Either we're insane or we want to be fleeced. The only way to stop being fleeced is to insist that govt stop doing things.
rms 17y ago
We could also outlaw corporate personhood.
- rms 17y ago
  I think this is about as much of a third rail as exists in human civilization. The corporations would never allow us to outlaw corporate personhood.