4 ms·

One of the simplest I've heard is a limit on how much any one person can donate to a politician's campaign in any form. And only individual voters can donate. N

One of the simplest I've heard is a limit on how much any one person can donate to a politician's campaign in any form. And only individual voters can donate. No corporations. Make it a high-end felony to forge that. Make banks track it. That would be a start. In this case, it would've blocked Intuit from buying a politician mentioned in the HN comments. That might have prevented opposition by that politician. Amplify this to all other sectors. Note: Main technique I see big companies using is offering jobs or something to politicians afterwards like the defense contractors do for Pentagon contract-issuers. There would need to be a strategy for making that illegal or limiting what they could make from who they benefit. Also, paying them the most from taxes so they know who they work for.

pillowkusis 10y ago
Individual people already have a limit: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php That said, allowing only individual entities to donate would be an improvement. But money would still find its way through, in unlimited amounts, through 1. SuperPACs, which are not allowed to communicate with a candidate, technically, but can receieve an infinite amount of money to further interests that are functionally identical to the candidate's interests (i.e. running pro-candidate ads), and 2. Lobbying. TurboTax can still spend millions to hire people to engage with politicians and bribe/convince them to see it TurboTax's way.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Both solved by only allowing politicians in office to receive money directly from individuals at the rate limit and of course their pay checks. SuperPAC's can't give them money. Lobbyists can't give them money. That eliminates large part of the incentive. There's other to tackle such as advertising. One way to do that might be that any paid advertisements for or against a politician must be paid for by the politician's registered donations. Corporate media might then try to offer extra due to their bias or for favors. That's an unknown right now, though, given they currently do it in exchange for the ad revenue that would go down a lot.
  - Paul-ish 10y ago
    If I write a blog post gushing about some politician or attacking another, is that considered an ad or contribution?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Only if they paid you to do it. Keeping records of that stuff has side benefit of spotting whose full of shit. In any case, there might be an exception for blog authors who aren't celebrities because they won't have the effect of a corporate, media campaign. Huge difference between paid ads everywhere vs some bloggers talking. What you describe is already happening against major candidates but didn't change the election. Those paying to win got furthest with one winning. Hence my focus on cutting the pay or payments.
      - Paul-ish 10y ago
        Yeah, but what if someone unrelated to the candidates paid me to blog for or against a candidate?
cortesoft 10y ago
Ok, I will not donate to a political candidate. I will, however, make an ad that talks about how horrible the opponent to my candidate is. Ok, then. Let's block political advertising. Ok, we will make direct mailers that say bad things about the other candidate. Ok, we aren't allowed to send mailers. That means you can't start a grass roots campaign on an issue you care about, though. I am not sure how you regulate your way out of this one.
- sjy 10y ago
  Perhaps you could consider the regulatory schemes in place in Canada, the UK and EU? Many countries have reduced the influence of money on politics without bringing an end to freedom of speech. The US is a clear outlier.

pillowkusis 10y ago

Individual people already have a limit: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php That said, allowing only individual entities to donate would be an improvement. But money would still find its way through, in unlimited amounts, through 1. SuperPACs, which are not allowed to communicate with a candidate, technically, but can receieve an infinite amount of money to further interests that are functionally identical to the candidate's interests (i.e. running pro-candidate ads), and 2. Lobbying. TurboTax can still spend millions to hire people to engage with politicians and bribe/convince them to see it TurboTax's way.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Both solved by only allowing politicians in office to receive money directly from individuals at the rate limit and of course their pay checks. SuperPAC's can't give them money. Lobbyists can't give them money. That eliminates large part of the incentive. There's other to tackle such as advertising. One way to do that might be that any paid advertisements for or against a politician must be paid for by the politician's registered donations. Corporate media might then try to offer extra due to their bias or for favors. That's an unknown right now, though, given they currently do it in exchange for the ad revenue that would go down a lot.
- Paul-ish 10y ago
  If I write a blog post gushing about some politician or attacking another, is that considered an ad or contribution?
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Only if they paid you to do it. Keeping records of that stuff has side benefit of spotting whose full of shit. In any case, there might be an exception for blog authors who aren't celebrities because they won't have the effect of a corporate, media campaign. Huge difference between paid ads everywhere vs some bloggers talking. What you describe is already happening against major candidates but didn't change the election. Those paying to win got furthest with one winning. Hence my focus on cutting the pay or payments.
    - Paul-ish 10y ago
      Yeah, but what if someone unrelated to the candidates paid me to blog for or against a candidate?

cortesoft 10y ago

Ok, I will not donate to a political candidate. I will, however, make an ad that talks about how horrible the opponent to my candidate is. Ok, then. Let's block political advertising. Ok, we will make direct mailers that say bad things about the other candidate. Ok, we aren't allowed to send mailers. That means you can't start a grass roots campaign on an issue you care about, though. I am not sure how you regulate your way out of this one.

sjy 10y ago
Perhaps you could consider the regulatory schemes in place in Canada, the UK and EU? Many countries have reduced the influence of money on politics without bringing an end to freedom of speech. The US is a clear outlier.