4 ms·

California and Washington are two examples of why I disagree: Both have direct initiative and referendum by the people and both reserve the "power of the purse"

California and Washington are two examples of why I disagree: Both have direct initiative and referendum by the people and both reserve the "power of the purse" to the people, in addition to the legislature, through those methods. In both states, moreso in California than Washington, popular initiatives that have passed overwhelmingly have shown that We The People are horrible at money. Washington's mandatory-$30-car-registration (that didn't last long, but long enough and with lingering consequences), imposed statewide, flattened the Puget Sound region's public transportation and road systems (ohai, toll roads). California's Proposition 13, well, we know what that did to the state budget. I happen to be one of the people who thinks that government can be and is a force for good, when used appropriately. Ham-handed direct democracy through "bumper sticker" campaigns--like this would turn into--is no way to govern. "Defund the NSA" could be up there right alongside "abolish the EPA." We elect people to represent us, we need to be more resilient about voting out people who don't represent us at a common level.

david927 12y ago
Congress' approval rating is around 13%; no one is happy with the system. No one. There are 15 lobbyists for each and every congressperson for the finance industry alone. Each one of those lobbyists is backing a huge amount of money to make sure that they get their way. The result is plutocracy, and the average American is fucked pretty hard. we need to be more resilient about voting out people Are you serious? That hasn't worked. Every time they're replaced by people who promise change and don't deliver. Then they're voted out and it goes on and on. It's like the old joke, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then stop doing that." If you want money out of politics, if you want to feel less like the catcher and more like the pitcher, I've just told you how to do it. You're getting fucked. Let's be clear. The question is, do you want to do something about it?
- techsupporter 12y ago
  I want to do something about it, but considering your method requires a Constitutional amendment just as much as my method, let's go for the simpler and more compatible one: - Only a natural person is a "person" for the purposes of influencing elections, voting on questions placed before the people (including, but not limited to, the election of representatives and Electors to the Electoral College), and when determining the applicability of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. - Entities created by force of law are not natural persons and the binding together of multiple natural persons to create, run, manage, or dissolve such an entity does not give said entity the status of a natural person. - The expenditure, or not, of money or the interaction with our economic system is not speech.
  - david927 12y ago
    That's great. We're not disagreeing. I just happen to think that covers a few holes on the sieve. You won't, with that, rid politics of money; you won't, with just that, restore real power to people.

david927 12y ago

Congress' approval rating is around 13%; no one is happy with the system. No one. There are 15 lobbyists for each and every congressperson for the finance industry alone. Each one of those lobbyists is backing a huge amount of money to make sure that they get their way. The result is plutocracy, and the average American is fucked pretty hard. we need to be more resilient about voting out people Are you serious? That hasn't worked. Every time they're replaced by people who promise change and don't deliver. Then they're voted out and it goes on and on. It's like the old joke, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then stop doing that." If you want money out of politics, if you want to feel less like the catcher and more like the pitcher, I've just told you how to do it. You're getting fucked. Let's be clear. The question is, do you want to do something about it?

techsupporter 12y ago
I want to do something about it, but considering your method requires a Constitutional amendment just as much as my method, let's go for the simpler and more compatible one: - Only a natural person is a "person" for the purposes of influencing elections, voting on questions placed before the people (including, but not limited to, the election of representatives and Electors to the Electoral College), and when determining the applicability of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. - Entities created by force of law are not natural persons and the binding together of multiple natural persons to create, run, manage, or dissolve such an entity does not give said entity the status of a natural person. - The expenditure, or not, of money or the interaction with our economic system is not speech.
- david927 12y ago
  That's great. We're not disagreeing. I just happen to think that covers a few holes on the sieve. You won't, with that, rid politics of money; you won't, with just that, restore real power to people.