3 ms·

The Democracy Dollars plank doesn't say it will eliminate money in politics, so I don't think it goes far enough. Love the plank on eliminating the revolving d

The Democracy Dollars plank doesn't say it will eliminate money in politics, so I don't think it goes far enough. Love the plank on eliminating the revolving door however. We really need that. (cf. Sinema)

asdff 5y ago
I read that and I'm not sure how his points eliminate the revolving door. "Ban all legislators and anyone who works at a regulatory agency from working for a lobbying firm for a period of time after they leave office/their position." Won't change anything. Ajit Pai isn't working as a lobbiest yet he revolved right into his next gig. "Increase salaries for these individuals to make up for this limitation." Legislators as it is today are not hurting for cash. If they are truly corrupt they will try and make as much money as possible by abusing their position no matter what they are paid. "Provide these individuals with stipends for a period of time after they leave their positions to work in the public sector." They already get a pension after 5 years of service and once again, they will just take the very same jobs that are the root issue and have a stipend on top of it. Corruption is not for lack of money. It's from people lacking a moral compass seeing an opportunity and taking it.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  I think once you "get in" you end up working to stay in. Which is what lobbyists give you. Money for your campaigns. AlsoL if you don't take the money, they'll give it to a political competitor instead.
Traster 5y ago
I think that essentially, because of the supreme court's interpretation of money as speech, it would be very difficult to pass a law to get money out of politics without the SCOTUS overturning it. So at that point you need a constitutional ammendment or to pack/replace the supreme court. Both of these are incredibly ambitious things to do. So it's probably that this freedom bucks idea is a way of dis-empowering the private money in politics by making it compete with public money.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  Probably hopeless, but there could be an amendment. http://wolf-pac.com http://wolf-pac.com

asdff 5y ago

I read that and I'm not sure how his points eliminate the revolving door. "Ban all legislators and anyone who works at a regulatory agency from working for a lobbying firm for a period of time after they leave office/their position." Won't change anything. Ajit Pai isn't working as a lobbiest yet he revolved right into his next gig. "Increase salaries for these individuals to make up for this limitation." Legislators as it is today are not hurting for cash. If they are truly corrupt they will try and make as much money as possible by abusing their position no matter what they are paid. "Provide these individuals with stipends for a period of time after they leave their positions to work in the public sector." They already get a pension after 5 years of service and once again, they will just take the very same jobs that are the root issue and have a stipend on top of it. Corruption is not for lack of money. It's from people lacking a moral compass seeing an opportunity and taking it.

nielsbot 5y ago
I think once you "get in" you end up working to stay in. Which is what lobbyists give you. Money for your campaigns. AlsoL if you don't take the money, they'll give it to a political competitor instead.

Traster 5y ago

I think that essentially, because of the supreme court's interpretation of money as speech, it would be very difficult to pass a law to get money out of politics without the SCOTUS overturning it. So at that point you need a constitutional ammendment or to pack/replace the supreme court. Both of these are incredibly ambitious things to do. So it's probably that this freedom bucks idea is a way of dis-empowering the private money in politics by making it compete with public money.

nielsbot 5y ago
Probably hopeless, but there could be an amendment. http://wolf-pac.com http://wolf-pac.com