3 ms·

How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme

by mnm1 7y ago

How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardly an unusual situation as most of our problems have similar solutions.

Larrikin 7y ago
Then only billionaires will win office. The old rule of a low monetary cap per house hold was the start of a good system. I'd say extend that further into a slightly higher cap overall but make it all political donations and not just per candidate. Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.
- spookybones 7y ago
  I agree with this answer.
- mnm1 7y ago
  The cap would also apply to how much one can donate to one's own campaign and it would be extremely limited, close to zero (or zero), and the same for every candidate.
caseysoftware 7y ago
Because "banning donations" sounds like a great idea to reduce corruption, it's irrelevant. If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues, and vendors in their district and encourage them to support the other guy. You let them know you have a job open for someone exactly like them that opens up whenever they need. You get them a home loan at a fantastic rate not available on the open market. You make a call to your alma mater and recommend their kid or niece get into that amazing university with a great scholarship. * Those are all real situations in the last ~10-15 years. None of them involved donating to a politician.
- mnm1 7y ago
  Why would a politician do any of these things for you if you can't transfer any money to them? They won't. Not for your single, measly vote.

by mnm1 7y ago

Larrikin 7y ago

Then only billionaires will win office. The old rule of a low monetary cap per house hold was the start of a good system. I'd say extend that further into a slightly higher cap overall but make it all political donations and not just per candidate. Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.

spookybones 7y ago
I agree with this answer.
mnm1 7y ago
The cap would also apply to how much one can donate to one's own campaign and it would be extremely limited, close to zero (or zero), and the same for every candidate.

caseysoftware 7y ago

Because "banning donations" sounds like a great idea to reduce corruption, it's irrelevant. If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues, and vendors in their district and encourage them to support the other guy. You let them know you have a job open for someone exactly like them that opens up whenever they need. You get them a home loan at a fantastic rate not available on the open market. You make a call to your alma mater and recommend their kid or niece get into that amazing university with a great scholarship. * Those are all real situations in the last ~10-15 years. None of them involved donating to a politician.

mnm1 7y ago
Why would a politician do any of these things for you if you can't transfer any money to them? They won't. Not for your single, measly vote.