4 ms·

The Reps need the money. More money means more ad campaigns and better chance to stay in power. The system is to blame I think. Not enough oversight or regulati

The Reps need the money. More money means more ad campaigns and better chance to stay in power. The system is to blame I think. Not enough oversight or regulation?

nikcub 16y ago
Yes but the loophole of funneling money through PAC's and other interest groups needs to be closed. If you want to get money to a rep but don't want to disclose it directly or have to comply with finance laws, atm all you need to do is register your own PAC I otherwise have no problem with funding and don't think public financing of campaigns is viable. As long as we know where the money is coming from, in theory there can be accountability.
praptak 16y ago
Lawrence Lessing on that: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?rel=emailNation http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?... TLDR: Congress as it is now is a money-to-law converter, minor changes won't fix that.
maxxxxx 16y ago
I don't think regulation will help (maybe a little). They will find other ways. The whole culture needs to change. As long as they can get away with blatantly unethical behavior nothing will change. Not sure how to achieve a cultural change though. The current system is very profitable for both parties. I think a third party or a press that reports facts and calls out blatant untruths may help.
spot 16y ago
It's called the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. It's best to have a two-pronged attack, both from the outside (change the rules so congress is less corrupt, appeal to justice and rationality) and from the inside (buy your own damn congressman).
anamax 16y ago
> Not enough oversight or regulation? More of the same is bound to work... When there are benefits to buying legislation, legislators will be bought. If you don't want govt to be corrupt, you can't ask it to run things. As they said in "WarGames" - the only way to win is to not play the game.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  Hrm -- this seems a little too... nihilistic? I mean, I agree, the system is highly flawed and quite possibly broken, but it's the system we live in. If we don't like the system, we can either withdraw from it completely, as you're advocating, or at least try to change it for the better. If you withdraw, it's only going to get worse.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    It seems Gandhi didn't think so.
    - anamax 16y ago
      What was Gandi's big success? He had four big campaigns. One was Hindu-Muslim unity. Another was to block the import (into India) of British textiles. The third was ending "untouchability". The fourth was to get the UK out of India. The latter succeeded, but since the UK couldn't afford to be in India and its PM at the time was an anti-Imperialist, it's unclear how much effect Gandi had. As to the others .... However, he does get good press.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If we don't like the system, we can either withdraw from it completely, as you're advocating Reread what I wrote. I didn't advocate withdrawing from the system, I advocated reducing the system. If you don't let govt pick winners and losers, you don't have to worry about how it does so.

The Reps need the money. More money means more ad campaigns and better chance to stay in power. The system is to blame I think. Not enough oversight or regulation?

nikcub 16y ago

Yes but the loophole of funneling money through PAC's and other interest groups needs to be closed. If you want to get money to a rep but don't want to disclose it directly or have to comply with finance laws, atm all you need to do is register your own PAC I otherwise have no problem with funding and don't think public financing of campaigns is viable. As long as we know where the money is coming from, in theory there can be accountability.

praptak 16y ago

Lawrence Lessing on that: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?rel=emailNation http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back?... TLDR: Congress as it is now is a money-to-law converter, minor changes won't fix that.

maxxxxx 16y ago

I don't think regulation will help (maybe a little). They will find other ways. The whole culture needs to change. As long as they can get away with blatantly unethical behavior nothing will change. Not sure how to achieve a cultural change though. The current system is very profitable for both parties. I think a third party or a press that reports facts and calls out blatant untruths may help.

spot 16y ago

It's called the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. It's best to have a two-pronged attack, both from the outside (change the rules so congress is less corrupt, appeal to justice and rationality) and from the inside (buy your own damn congressman).

anamax 16y ago

> Not enough oversight or regulation? More of the same is bound to work... When there are benefits to buying legislation, legislators will be bought. If you don't want govt to be corrupt, you can't ask it to run things. As they said in "WarGames" - the only way to win is to not play the game.

jordan0day 16y ago
Hrm -- this seems a little too... nihilistic? I mean, I agree, the system is highly flawed and quite possibly broken, but it's the system we live in. If we don't like the system, we can either withdraw from it completely, as you're advocating, or at least try to change it for the better. If you withdraw, it's only going to get worse.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  It seems Gandhi didn't think so.
  - anamax 16y ago
    What was Gandi's big success? He had four big campaigns. One was Hindu-Muslim unity. Another was to block the import (into India) of British textiles. The third was ending "untouchability". The fourth was to get the UK out of India. The latter succeeded, but since the UK couldn't afford to be in India and its PM at the time was an anti-Imperialist, it's unclear how much effect Gandi had. As to the others .... However, he does get good press.
- anamax 16y ago
  > If we don't like the system, we can either withdraw from it completely, as you're advocating Reread what I wrote. I didn't advocate withdrawing from the system, I advocated reducing the system. If you don't let govt pick winners and losers, you don't have to worry about how it does so.