4 ms·

> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out

> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take the money out of politics - radically, entirely. I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the core problem, in the US.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.
- bigiain 13y ago
  I fear that perhaps the money problem is at the other end of the process. The money required to "get the votes" isn't the only monetary consideration. Once you get voted in, all of a sudden you've got control over a – for all intents and purposes – unlimited money tap. This encourages the sort of people who think "skimming a little bit off the top" of the government provided money flow (aka "stealing from the taxpayer") is OK, to enter the political arena for self-serving reasons. I don't know how much this is a real problem – there's a good argument that "enlightened self interest" is perhaps the best motivator for politicians, but I know where I live (Sydney, Australia) our local state government is currently involved in many many scandals where politicians have been caught using their positions to create great wealth for themselves and their family/friends under extremely suspicious circumstances (mysterious real estate deals in areas which subsequently get significant changes in legal status, planning permission given to industries with no public consultation followed by executive level jobs or board positions when responsible politicians leave office). In an "ideal world", people seeking political power for personal self-interest would be excluded in favour of people with purely altruistic intentions. Unfortunately that's about as practical as appointing me as Emperor of the Universe.
- griffordson 13y ago
  Maybe you've already heard Lessig's arguments on the subject, but if you have not, you should give 18 minutes to his recent TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
- northwest 13y ago
  Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's just plain stupidity. How can we allow that? We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this: Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions. And let that be the only allowed form of communication with the voter. It's a sane pull versus an insane push approach. And it would take a lot of money out of politics, which can then be spent for intelligent things like research, for example.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Because of the constitution. Suppose you are running for President, I support you, and I am rich. I rent a billboard and hang paper on it saying 'northwest for President!!' Well, the other candidate (southeast) is not happy about that, but under the first amendment there is no question that I have the right to publish my opinion that everyone should vote for you. So southeast reasonably argues that it is unfair for her to be prevented from renting a billboard, which is true. And so it goes. This is a simplistic example, but that's basically what the famous Citizens United case was about - did a wealthy third party have the right to publish something designed to influence an election (in that case, by saying negative things about Hilary Clinton)? The first amendment says pretty clearly that Congress cannot make any law that limits the freedom of the press, and so people who want to use their money to publish election messages have to be allowed to do it. As a European I agree that it's far from ideal, but that's something you have to accept if you want the freedoms of the first amendment as it is written.
  - true_religion 13y ago
    > It's just plain stupidity. Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm? If you take away the ability of wealth to actually influence the world, then all you can do when you're rich is buy increasingly banal toys.
    - 13y ago
- puppetmaster3 13y ago
  Votes are rigged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E There was HBO special on vote machine maker (the corp name get changed often). Since votes are rigged, it's not democracy. The congress popularity is < 10%, now you know how they get reelected.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.

bigiain 13y ago
I fear that perhaps the money problem is at the other end of the process. The money required to "get the votes" isn't the only monetary consideration. Once you get voted in, all of a sudden you've got control over a – for all intents and purposes – unlimited money tap. This encourages the sort of people who think "skimming a little bit off the top" of the government provided money flow (aka "stealing from the taxpayer") is OK, to enter the political arena for self-serving reasons. I don't know how much this is a real problem – there's a good argument that "enlightened self interest" is perhaps the best motivator for politicians, but I know where I live (Sydney, Australia) our local state government is currently involved in many many scandals where politicians have been caught using their positions to create great wealth for themselves and their family/friends under extremely suspicious circumstances (mysterious real estate deals in areas which subsequently get significant changes in legal status, planning permission given to industries with no public consultation followed by executive level jobs or board positions when responsible politicians leave office). In an "ideal world", people seeking political power for personal self-interest would be excluded in favour of people with purely altruistic intentions. Unfortunately that's about as practical as appointing me as Emperor of the Universe.
griffordson 13y ago
Maybe you've already heard Lessig's arguments on the subject, but if you have not, you should give 18 minutes to his recent TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
northwest 13y ago
Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's just plain stupidity. How can we allow that? We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this: Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions. And let that be the only allowed form of communication with the voter. It's a sane pull versus an insane push approach. And it would take a lot of money out of politics, which can then be spent for intelligent things like research, for example.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Because of the constitution. Suppose you are running for President, I support you, and I am rich. I rent a billboard and hang paper on it saying 'northwest for President!!' Well, the other candidate (southeast) is not happy about that, but under the first amendment there is no question that I have the right to publish my opinion that everyone should vote for you. So southeast reasonably argues that it is unfair for her to be prevented from renting a billboard, which is true. And so it goes. This is a simplistic example, but that's basically what the famous Citizens United case was about - did a wealthy third party have the right to publish something designed to influence an election (in that case, by saying negative things about Hilary Clinton)? The first amendment says pretty clearly that Congress cannot make any law that limits the freedom of the press, and so people who want to use their money to publish election messages have to be allowed to do it. As a European I agree that it's far from ideal, but that's something you have to accept if you want the freedoms of the first amendment as it is written.
- true_religion 13y ago
  > It's just plain stupidity. Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm? If you take away the ability of wealth to actually influence the world, then all you can do when you're rich is buy increasingly banal toys.
  - 13y ago
puppetmaster3 13y ago
Votes are rigged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbbK9E There was HBO special on vote machine maker (the corp name get changed often). Since votes are rigged, it's not democracy. The congress popularity is < 10%, now you know how they get reelected.