4 ms·

Congress is no longer an organ capable of representing the people. The only interests capable of being heard in Congress are those represented by lobbyists. Eve

Congress is no longer an organ capable of representing the people. The only interests capable of being heard in Congress are those represented by lobbyists. Every time I hear someone who is directly involved discuss a grossly unfair legal issue like this, the answer always seems to be "We gave up on Congress a long time ago". These aren't necessarily interests with no money, they're just not interests with the most money. The only hope for fixing laws that aren't upsetting publicly-listed companies is that the case will get an activist judge who will take an extremely broad reading of the statute and establish that interpretation as precedent. From a strictly legal perspective, in many such cases, it's quite clear that the law forbids the activity, which is what leads to a lot of unsatisfactory rulings. I like the Constitution as much as the next guy, but we have to be honest with ourselves here and admit that the legislative arm is really not functioning anymore; they cannot fix the major problems that threaten innovation and small business. That whole branch needs to be rethought. Maybe it is just a matter of dividing into 300 states so that there can be more local representation (fewer constituents per rep).

phkahler 10y ago
The reason lobbyists are so effective is that they can influence a large number of representatives all in one place. An actual constituent can call his congressman, but that's a lot smaller influence. IMHO one solution to this is to keep them all in their home states and vote on issues remotely. Keep all communication public, and exclude influence from anyone outside their home state. This would force them to get their input from the people who elected them. On another note, every state should ban election advertising from anyone outside the state. There is little reason to allow outsiders to influence state elections. Hey, if you're going to get upset that maybe the russians influenced a US election, why not be upset when some national organization (including political parties) tries to influence a state election?
- eyeinthepyramid 10y ago
  > On another note, every state should ban election advertising from anyone outside the state How is this not a first amendment violation?
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> How is this not a first amendment violation? That is a key question. But how is it not outside interference in an election? OTOH, what if a candidate did some bad things in another state and someone just wanted to let you know? But the main thing is to eliminate corporate interference, and the notion of first amendment rights being applicable to corporations is long story. If we revoke the notion of corporate personhood that would help quite a bit. I agree with your concern, but I hope you can see the value in trying to find a workable solution along these lines. EDIT: changed "reasonable solution" to "workable solution" because we don't want politics involved finding "compromise".
    - LordKano 10y ago
      Even if it is interference, why should that be banned? If I live in a reliably blue or red state, it doesn't much matter what I do at election time. I'll go and play my role and cast my vote but as an individual, I can't change the outcome of my state. I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. If the Senators and Representatives are going to the nation's capital and passing laws that effect everyone, in every state, we should have a way to influence results outside of our own state of residence.
      - phkahler 10y ago
        >> I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. Oh. I'm not talking about presidential elections. That is a different story. But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. And that includes influence from national party organizations. Only people who live in a state should be doing that stuff (if any).
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. Eh, maybe there's a decent argument for that when it comes to their state reps or governors. But the federal government is a national government, and elections for the Senate or House are no less national than those to elect members of the Electoral College.
redm 10y ago
The House of Represantitves did pass reform; it was blocked by Harry Reid in the Senate. [1] [2] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-trolls-won-in-congress/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-t...

phkahler 10y ago

The reason lobbyists are so effective is that they can influence a large number of representatives all in one place. An actual constituent can call his congressman, but that's a lot smaller influence. IMHO one solution to this is to keep them all in their home states and vote on issues remotely. Keep all communication public, and exclude influence from anyone outside their home state. This would force them to get their input from the people who elected them. On another note, every state should ban election advertising from anyone outside the state. There is little reason to allow outsiders to influence state elections. Hey, if you're going to get upset that maybe the russians influenced a US election, why not be upset when some national organization (including political parties) tries to influence a state election?

eyeinthepyramid 10y ago
> On another note, every state should ban election advertising from anyone outside the state How is this not a first amendment violation?
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> How is this not a first amendment violation? That is a key question. But how is it not outside interference in an election? OTOH, what if a candidate did some bad things in another state and someone just wanted to let you know? But the main thing is to eliminate corporate interference, and the notion of first amendment rights being applicable to corporations is long story. If we revoke the notion of corporate personhood that would help quite a bit. I agree with your concern, but I hope you can see the value in trying to find a workable solution along these lines. EDIT: changed "reasonable solution" to "workable solution" because we don't want politics involved finding "compromise".
  - LordKano 10y ago
    Even if it is interference, why should that be banned? If I live in a reliably blue or red state, it doesn't much matter what I do at election time. I'll go and play my role and cast my vote but as an individual, I can't change the outcome of my state. I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. If the Senators and Representatives are going to the nation's capital and passing laws that effect everyone, in every state, we should have a way to influence results outside of our own state of residence.
    - phkahler 10y ago
      >> I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. Oh. I'm not talking about presidential elections. That is a different story. But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. And that includes influence from national party organizations. Only people who live in a state should be doing that stuff (if any).
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. Eh, maybe there's a decent argument for that when it comes to their state reps or governors. But the federal government is a national government, and elections for the Senate or House are no less national than those to elect members of the Electoral College.

redm 10y ago

The House of Represantitves did pass reform; it was blocked by Harry Reid in the Senate. [1] [2] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/9 [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-trolls-won-in-congress/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/how-the-patent-t...