3 ms·

I don't know that I'd call it corrupt. I may be in the minority here.. I feel politicians ought to seek expert advice, and that's naturally going to come from

I don't know that I'd call it corrupt. I may be in the minority here.. I feel politicians ought to seek expert advice, and that's naturally going to come from lobbyists. "Lobbying" is a bad word these days. I don't know why. Our vote will kick lobbyists' butts any day. Barney Frank says so and I believe him, "If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district." [1] Without the vote, politicians are out of their favorite job. This was posted on HN awhile back, Frank's advice on how to deal with the Trump admin [2]. I think it bears repeating, particularly in the face of this net neutrality debate. [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t... [2] https://mic.com/articles/167878/barney-frank-heres-how-to-not-waste-your-time-pressuring-lawmakers#.zi7HkdrWv https://mic.com/articles/167878/barney-frank-heres-how-to-no...

nickpsecurity 9y ago
"I don't know that I'd call it corrupt. I may be in the minority here.. I feel politicians ought to seek expert advice, and that's naturally going to come from lobbyists." The politicians receive campaign money from these companies. They then do what's in these companies' interests even when it harms their voters they're responsible to. That's corruption. Here's a nice article with plenty of details I just found: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel...
- studentrob 9y ago
  > politicians receive campaign money from these companies I get that. I think the problem has more to do with the Citizens United + Speechnow court decisions [1] which decided that corporations are people, and therefore can donate as much as they like to super PACs that are not directly run by the candidate's team (as if that really matters). You're never going to completely remove money from politics. You don't want it to be an unpaid position, otherwise, only the ultra wealthy would be able to do it. And, you don't want it to be oversubsidized by corporations like it is now as a result of the CU decision. Regardless, the vote still beats the dollar. It becomes more difficult to get the word out as a smaller player, but we all still have the ability to vote, and that means something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_PACs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_P...
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    "I get that. I think the problem has more to do with the Citizens United + Speechnow court decisions [1] which decided that corporations are people, and therefore can donate as much as they like to super PACs that are not directly run by the candidate's team (as if that really matters)." Yeah, problems like that cause it. My solution is a combination of (a) only individual voters can donate money to political campaigns, (b) it's limited to a specific amount, and (c) any law passed on behalf of a donor against the stated interests of the constituency is nullified by default. I also want to attempt to bring back nullification of these corrupt laws in federal courts, up to Supreme Court. It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption. They're already supposed to fight that under checks-and-balances concept.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - studentrob 9y ago
      (a) and (b) used to be the norm. (c) is already the role of the people. We elect new representatives when we feel the old ones weren't enacting legislation we like. Judges don't decide whether laws are good or bad. They interpret and apply written law. The moment you allow a judge to determine whether a law is in the interests of the people is the moment you give full power to conservatives who are already chomping at the bit that we have an activist judiciary. > It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption Definitely not an ideal tool. Turning judges into politicians who bow to constituents will just make corruption worse. Judges must be independent. I don't know where you got this idea. It's not a good one.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        " I don't know where you got this idea. It's not a good one." The idea is that a law can't be applied if it's invalid. This already happens in contract law. It can happen with nullification. I'd argue a law passed due to a bribe is invalid and should be nullified by default. "you give full power to conservatives" They're already the ones writing these laws. They just convince or pay a handful of people in the states who are unaffordable to the masses. Convincing a judge or a jury of our peers might be easier. Almost all the gains of civil rights and against corrupt companies have started in the courts in past decade or so.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

"I don't know that I'd call it corrupt. I may be in the minority here.. I feel politicians ought to seek expert advice, and that's naturally going to come from lobbyists." The politicians receive campaign money from these companies. They then do what's in these companies' interests even when it harms their voters they're responsible to. That's corruption. Here's a nice article with plenty of details I just found: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel...

studentrob 9y ago
> politicians receive campaign money from these companies I get that. I think the problem has more to do with the Citizens United + Speechnow court decisions [1] which decided that corporations are people, and therefore can donate as much as they like to super PACs that are not directly run by the candidate's team (as if that really matters). You're never going to completely remove money from politics. You don't want it to be an unpaid position, otherwise, only the ultra wealthy would be able to do it. And, you don't want it to be oversubsidized by corporations like it is now as a result of the CU decision. Regardless, the vote still beats the dollar. It becomes more difficult to get the word out as a smaller player, but we all still have the ability to vote, and that means something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_PACs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_P...
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  "I get that. I think the problem has more to do with the Citizens United + Speechnow court decisions [1] which decided that corporations are people, and therefore can donate as much as they like to super PACs that are not directly run by the candidate's team (as if that really matters)." Yeah, problems like that cause it. My solution is a combination of (a) only individual voters can donate money to political campaigns, (b) it's limited to a specific amount, and (c) any law passed on behalf of a donor against the stated interests of the constituency is nullified by default. I also want to attempt to bring back nullification of these corrupt laws in federal courts, up to Supreme Court. It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption. They're already supposed to fight that under checks-and-balances concept.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - studentrob 9y ago
    (a) and (b) used to be the norm. (c) is already the role of the people. We elect new representatives when we feel the old ones weren't enacting legislation we like. Judges don't decide whether laws are good or bad. They interpret and apply written law. The moment you allow a judge to determine whether a law is in the interests of the people is the moment you give full power to conservatives who are already chomping at the bit that we have an activist judiciary. > It's a risky concept judges don't like but ideal tool to deal with laws passed by corruption Definitely not an ideal tool. Turning judges into politicians who bow to constituents will just make corruption worse. Judges must be independent. I don't know where you got this idea. It's not a good one.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      " I don't know where you got this idea. It's not a good one." The idea is that a law can't be applied if it's invalid. This already happens in contract law. It can happen with nullification. I'd argue a law passed due to a bribe is invalid and should be nullified by default. "you give full power to conservatives" They're already the ones writing these laws. They just convince or pay a handful of people in the states who are unaffordable to the masses. Convincing a judge or a jury of our peers might be easier. Almost all the gains of civil rights and against corrupt companies have started in the courts in past decade or so.