Slashdot Mirror
Plotting a Coup In the Internet Age
chrb writes "The Guardian is reporting on the attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US. The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence."
Anyone else think of him first?
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Not unlike what happened hereinto US.
Can we finally close this legal loophole? There's no reason why lawmakers should be allowed to take money from non-US citizens, and particularly from other countries. Only US Citizens can vote in elections; there's no reason why other countries and non-citizens should be able to influence how citizens vote, or dictate our foreign policy.
moox. for a new generation.
attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US.
That's called politics.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
If this happens then they will just setup a US shell corporation for a few hundred bucks in Nevada or whatever to channel the money through. Or in the case of Canadian elections a company funneled the money through children and relatives to bypass the maximum donation per person. At least with it out in the open we can easily see who (politicians that is) is accepted what from whom.
The headline is misleading. Doesn't look like the internet has anything to do with it.
An outright ban on lobbying would be nice in any case.
We are all God's parents.
Though I completely agree with you it's not "people" but "companies" purchasing lobbying every minute of every day here in the US. Our country has been for sale to industries and individual companies for quite a while. The politicians don't care who writes the checks as along as they clear. It's just a sad state of affairs.
If your foreign policy involves invading their country and killing thousands of innocent people (or funding others to do it instead), then why shouldn't they have a say?
...involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US.
"Credibility is a condition of persuasion. Before you can make a man do as you say, you must make him believe what you say." ~ Daniel Lerner
You killed your credibility the moment you made it public, guys. Fail.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
yah! Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
"Vote with your wallet" should be reserved for consumer activities.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There is a term for a government that bans lobbying. Its called a dictatorship.
I know we're supposed to hate corporations, lobbyists, etc, but I wish that people would stop and think about what they're saying.
Except that if you ban campaign contributions outright, the winners of your elections will be the candidates with the most money.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
use gnu-plot and gnu-coup
Such a thing might be nice if we had a sane foreign policy or sustainable economic policy but they don't. "Our" country thinks nothing of financially supporting an unpopular dictator (because heaven forbid we have a "communist" third world country!), bombing third world nations into submission, destroying economies because they produce "drugs", and giving aid to corrupt regimes.
Until we fix this situation and focus on having a limited, sustainable and sane government, I don't blame foreign countries from trying to appease us.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There is a term for people that use hyperbole. They are called pedophile, commie picko, nazis.
I know we're suppose to hate liberals, brown people, etc, but I wish that people would stop and think about what they're saying.
The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence
How is this unique? History has been dotted with bloodless revolutions, The Glorious Revolution in England, the mostly-peaceful resistance to the 1991 soviet coup attempt, resistance to the salt laws in India, etc.
Heck, the majority of successful revolutions have been bloodless. Those that involve wars and the such usually have to fight another war or conflict to solidify the victory. Had the American Revolution been bloodless chances are the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Whereas now the winner is the candidate backed by the organization with the most money. I'm not sure how this is better.
Right; I'm not saying to ban lobbying, simply, ban lobbying by those who can't vote in our country. To bring up the old Nazi defense, how would things have turned out in WW2 if the Nazis had dumped a bunch of money into US lobbying to win support for Germany in the war? Or at least delayed it until they'd occupied Britain and Sweden?
That's an extreme point of view, but on a smaller scale, Israel dumps a huge amount of money into our political system, and in return they get $100 for every $1 they spend on lobbying in terms of foreign aid, $15 billion dollars worth of "military aid money", in addition to discounts on US military hardware and preferential treatment on military equipment sales to the US government.
We do help out a lot of smaller countries financially and send aid, but it is nowhere near what we send to Israel, and Israel's funding on lobbying reflects that. The whitehouse has been mum on this whole flotilla disaster so far, and while they've been more vocal lately, it's generally very muted response in general.
There's no reason why you can't have lobbying, it's a good system that definitely gets abused, but in a two party system you definitely need lobbying so that special interest groups like PETA, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, Gun Control, NRA, Socialized Medicine-ites, "Hands off my Medicare!"-ers and every other group out there can have their say in Washington. By no means end lobbying outright.... just limit it to domestic and foreign policy that is actually beneficial to our country, not policies that are detrimental to the USA.
moox. for a new generation.
How would you enforce that? How can you verify that none of the people who go around distributing fliers and organizing campaigns and all the ways money is spent in electing a politician have not received money from someone out of the country?
You know, it's not only the money that gets deposited in a bank account that counts.
So US has the best lobbyists. What a surprise. Finally, a product made in the U.S.A.
Table-ized A.I.
You americans don't live in a vacuum. What you do affects the whole world. If a politician drives forward an issue that would greatly benefit me (As this is Slashdot, lets say that he opposes ACTA. Other examples could include him supporting tighter weapons treaties, green values or whatnot) I think that it is entirely reasonable that I can send him a donation even if I can't vote for him.
You don't live in a vacuum and many issues are international these days. When a politician makes a decision, he has some moral responsibility towards all the people who his decision affects, not only the ones that were able to vote for him. As such, it is reasonable that all those people can support him.
just limit it to domestic and foreign policy that is actually beneficial to our country, not policies that are detrimental to the USA.
And who decides if a policy being lobbied for is actually beneficial to our country before it can be lobbied for?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
There is a term for a government that accepts money as a form of lobbying. It's called a Plutocracy.
OOH, EDGY!
Dear Sir/Madame
I am the crown prince of Ras al-Khaimah and I need your help! I have recently been exiled from my country and am planning a bloodless coup to return to power. If you help me by mentioning me in your blog or Twitter account, I will send you the sum of $1,000,000 (one million) zeny that is in the royal coffers when I am returned to power!
I eagerly await your reply.
Other countries just cap expenditures, campaign advertising, etc. I think this is the entire point... America has a broken political system where its perfectly acceptable to buy an elected official and rather than look to the rest of the world for how to solve this they just declare that they are already living in the best of all possible worlds.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
So you'd limit lobbying to organizations powerful enough to directly support a candidate, such as TV stations, newspapers, and organizations who can open their own TV stations and newspapers?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
You don't understand. Lobbying is merely the expression of a group's desires to their representatives. If you outlaw lobbying, you either outlaw expressing your desires to your representatives on a collective basis or on an individual basis. Neither is good for democracy. We are free to assemble and organize in this country. Which freedom do you want to give up?
After all, I am strangely colored.
Because quite frankly, it's irrelevant what they say.
If it is in our best national interest to invade another country, then their lobbying and say should have no part of the equation. All that should matter is the military, political, and economics considerations.
It sounds cold, but the poor bastards that get killed are really meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
This smells awfully like a setup for this campaign... http://www.gtspirit.com/2010/06/04/interview-wrc-rally-driver-sheikh-khalid-al-qassimi/ aldo read the comment by "Mike Wlodychak"...
Why do they always have to resort to non-violence why can't they just kick their ass.
As I said in another post, other countries have already solved this problem.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The lobbiysts?
Hey, keep it down, or not only will US corporations gain personhood... which they already have... but if they can't grease congress, they'll grant them citizenship so they can!
The Admin and the Engineer
Dear Sir,
I am the ousted prince of an Arab Emerite, in possession of $22 million US dollars, and need your assistance in transfering those funds into another account. If you help me, a payment of $220,000 US dollars will be transferred to you for you5r help.
If you are interested, please visit http://www.scams-r-us.com/.
Sincerely,
Sheikh Khalid, Crown Prince of Ras al-Khaimah
I am officially gone from
I bet nobody in that country notices the coup. Damn paywalls.
K.
I don't think that's necessary. I believe it's been shown in studies that there is a basic threshold for monetary expenditures in elections: below that, and your message doesn't reach the whole electorate well enough. but beyond that point, more money doesn't help.
we will never keep money out of politics. there is just too many ways to give gifts, favors, contributions, bribes, you name it.
However, we CAN make political survival not dependent on private money. the answer is public campaign financing to adequate levels for well qualified candidates, coupled with free access to the airwaves for set amounts of time for well qualified candidates. I wouldn't even be opposed to some legislated mandate for airtime/space in any media outlet owned by a public corporation.
if that were done, private money may still buy favor to some degree, but at least clean politicians wouldn't be handicapped compared to ones that are happily bought and paid for.
Other countries just cap expenditures, campaign advertising, etc. I think this is the entire point... America has a broken political system where its perfectly acceptable to buy an elected official and rather than look to the rest of the world for how to solve this they just declare that they are already living in the best of all possible worlds.
Other countries just drive the bribery underground and suffer the consequences. What those other countries need is legalization! Think of all the tax dollars that are going uncollected! Think of how many bribery-lords are being created! Think of the children! Legalize bribery now!
The freedom to back a lobbying effort with cash. We're talking about two different scenarios here:
1) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public."
2) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public. And here's a check for a hundred thousand dollars."
You really don't see a problem with this?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
It sounds cold, but the poor bastards that get killed are really meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
And for that matter, so are you.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
I think you're twisting what I'm saying here. Otherwise known as trolling. I am saying to limit lobbying from international entities. Only allow domestic dollars and companies to lobby our government. In practice domestic entities are typically looking for some sort of gain.
I'm sure the Chinese or Russians wouldn't like it very much if I started paying their party leaders to enact policies that awarded me (not a Chinese or Russian citizen) lots and lots of contracts for military hardware, sold me the state-owned mineral rights to oil fields and gold and precious gem mines at 10% of the actual value, and then export those raw goods duty (export tax) free to the USA where their prices are much higher. The Russians lose money on that deal, the Chinese loose money on that deal, but I come out way, way ahead. How much would it cost to keep my loyal politicians in support of my raping of their lands, despite public outcry and my willful ignorance of environmental law? Not nearly as much as the money I'm making.
Surely the Russians and Chinese in that instance would not approve of my foreign money influencing their politics that way? Would you allow that sort of abuse of our government on our watch? Let the domestic lobbyists do what they will, at least when they're abusing our government, the majority of the money stays in the country. Right now we're exporting literally billions, tens of billions of dollars in hard currency in addition to military hardware based on private international lobbying efforts. The cost:benefit ratio in these situations is very, very high, that is, unless you're a politician facing a difficult reelection.
moox. for a new generation.
This looks more an internal power struggle. Why should any other country be involved?
The article says the champaign claims that UAE "a rogue state and gateway for Iran", while it's conveniently forgotten that before 2003 there was already Al-Qaeda money in transit there.
The sheik-whatever seems to be playing the US fears towards Iran too, that's very convenient.
Most worrying, is the fact the presence of "regime change" referring to the attempt of that sheik's return, while expecting support from the US (since he's sympathetic to that country). Sounds familiar?
Nowhere in the article I could see the wishes of UAE's people being considered. But that's a minor detail, it seems.
No he does not. Hence the hyperbole joke.
we will never keep money out of politics. there is just too many ways to give gifts, favors, contributions, bribes, you name it.
There we go again. Existence proofs only work if the people you're talking to as willing to look at the proof. Listen up Americans, there's plenty of other civilized countries around the world that send politicians to jail for taking gifts, favors, contributions and bribes. Wake up and demand accountability.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Or better yet, "If you can't vote for them, you can't contribute to their campaign. If you could vote for them, you can contribute _a limited amount of money_ to their campaign." Thus for a federal office, you have to be a registered voter somewhere in the US to contribute to a candidate running for that office; for a state office, a registered voter somewhere in the state; for a town or city office, a registered voter in the town or city. This would also help with the situation where every other commercial on TV for the month or two prior to the election is an ad for a political candidate -- less money should lead to fewer such commercials.
I would love to see some studies backing your claims but alas it is Sunday and I am on the run. To the point, we ban gifts, bribes, quid pro quo not because we think by doing so that we would eliminate them without doubt but we have decided they influence elections unfairly. The price of running a campaign has grown 10x in some area in a period of less than 8 years, the only thing that is good for is the TV stations running the ADs and the PR firms running them. The voter in some races contributes less than half of what corporations do now, something is very wrong.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
You're missing the point of lobbying, which was to combat bribery:
1) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public." Later that night a hundred thousand dollars in cash is transferred.
2) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public. And here's a check for a hundred thousand dollars."
Your scenario 1 isn't realistic because large oil companies is happy to pay the hundred thousand dollars, and the politician is happy to received the hundred thousand dollars regardless of whether it's legal or not. Outlawing it will simply make it underground.
Your statement makes no logical sense. Any form of government could ban lobbying for any number of reasons.
There's a term for government that is run by the majority population. It's called a democracy, and if it's people choose, they can ban lobbying. And if that doesn't work, they can bring it back.
A country run by lobbyists paid by the rich is called a plutocracy, and while not quite as bad as some dictatorships, is still highly undesirable if you have any interest in equality before the law. I'd say paid lobbyists distort the government that's supposed to represent the will of the majority of americans, since lobbyist access is wealth dependent.
Historicism is bullshit, you don't get material, technological or political progress without the vast majority of folks contributing to society. Empires wane not when leaders make mistakes but when the system is rigged so when leaders make mistakes there is no mechanism to reliably removed them or make them pay for their crimes. The United States is fine till we can't fire those people who would presume to call themselves our bosses, than we are fucked.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
But there is already a way that those groups and all others, including those not affiliated with an organization, can have their say in Washington. That's by voting in order to elect representatives. The only reason why voting is so broken is because we have a very high (around 90%) incumbency rate at the federal level and once in office, to whom will the politician listen? The voter who is 90+% likely to re-elect him, or the lobbyist who gives him cold hard cash? The answer to that seems rather obvious. If you want voting to once again be something better than "the lesser of two evils" you need to eliminate lobbying as a necessary first step. The necessary second step would be to allocate an amount of public money for candidates' campaigns, a very generous amount that is adjusted yearly for inflation, and then outlaw as bribery all other financial contributions to a candidate or his/her campaign.
...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?
-- Matthew Parris
Then and only then does the vote start to mean something again. Since the people vastly outnumber the corporations and their owners, and the corporations do not get to inject their superior concentrated wealth into the political system, you end up with a vote that means more and a system that tends to represent the people better than it represents the corporations. It's not a matter of taking the money out of politics, for (as others have pointed out) that's not feasible; it's about making the money meaningless by having a large amount of it available for all candidates. Even a very large amount would cost us far less than what we now finance because of special interests and others with clout.
I would be in favor of this being done in such a way that the "minor parties" would have an equal ability to put their candidates onto ballots and to finance campaigns. Only when a real diversity of political philosophies all have an equally viable chance at winning elections can you have real choice for the people. Among many other things, that would imply a replacement of the two-party dupoloy with the recognition that the domination of politics by two parties is equivalent to the negative effects for customers caused by an economic duopoly, with or without collusion. Only when the people have real choice can the powers-that-be claim true legitimacy.
Right now it isn't the throne, but the power behind the throne that is important. Matthew Paris said:
Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life -- no, not even politics -- more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
Right now that is how politics works. "Fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited." Fifty, or maybe fifty thousand or more people would like to hold public office. Only the fellows of the requisite opinion, as evidenced by party affiliation and loyalty/orthodoxy, were invited to receive campaign contributions. Those with the cash to contribute have that cash because they benefit from the status quo, and could benefit more from a stronger version of it (caused by proceeding further along the course it has been on). Now you inherit a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that wants to become more so. Nowhere in this do you have free choice for the governed, only for those to whom the governed has surrendered his power.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
While it's true that money spent on lobbying can have a large impact, Israel is hardly the prime example of this. A far better example is that of Saudi Arabia, a far richer country that has succeeded through lobbying and the cultivation of connections with people like the Bush family in deflecting serious criticism of its awful human rights record and support for Islamic extremism. In the case of Israel there are several additional factors: (a) the very strong moral case for supporting Israel; (b) the fact that Israel is far more representative of American values of freedom, democracy, and transparency than any other state in the Middle East; (c) the significant return that the US gets on its investment in the form of military technology and intelligence; (d) the fact that Israel is a much more genuine ally than the Arab countries, for whom alliance with the US, when it occurs, is a matter of convenience.
That the US has not been a more vocal critic of Israel's interdiction of the jihad flottila reflects an understanding of what is really going on: the flottila was not bringing critically needed aid to Gaza and the people involved were not neutral humanitarians but jihadists and their dupes.
If you think that the purpose of the flottilla was to bring humanitarian aid, consider the following facts: (a) the blockade does not and never has affected critical supplies such as food and medicine; (b) Israel offered to accept the flottilla's cargo, inspect it for contraband (weapons, explosives, and other supplies of military use to Hamas), and pass it on to Gaza by truck if the flottila would dock at Ashdod. The entire dispute is about whether the flottilla would be able to dock and unload unsupervised, not whether aid could be given to Gaza; (c) once Israel seized the ships, it unloaded the cargo, inspected it, and moved it by truck to Gaza; (d) the cargo has not been distributed in Gaza because Hamas has refused to permit it. Evidently they don't think that there is such a humanitarian crisis, or they do, but they don't care as much about the people of Gaza as Israel does; (e) the Egyptian government opened its crossing into Gaza shortly after the seizure of the flottilla. If there were an urgent need for aid, we would expect Free Gaza and other organizations to have taken advantage of this opportunity to move supplies into Gaza. Did they? No. The Egyptian Red Cross moved a modest amount of supplies (mostly tents and things like that) into Gaza. That's it. No rush to move those urgently needed supplies via Egypt. (f) Al-Fatah, the mainline Palestinian organization, the one in actual control of Judea and Samaria and nominal control of the entire Palestinian government, has stated that there is no humanitarian crisis and no urgent need for supplies.
In short, the whole thing is a fraud, a stunt by jihadists and other rabid anti-Israel forces. It is mostly a publicity stunt, though at least one of the "humanitarians" has now bragged that one of their goals was to take Israeli soldiers hostage and that they briefly succeeded before the Israeli forces finally resorted to lethal force and freed the hostage. Fortunately, the US government, whose grasp of foreign affairs I sometimes wonder about, has got this one right and is not jumping on the anti-Semitic bandwagon.
Where did the new media angle come from?
did you finish reading my post?
the point is that you can minimize the damage money can do in politics. this will minimize corruption, since being corrupt then offers no advantage to campaigning and keeping your job. Nothing *eliminates* corruption. You can only minimize it. it's like the 'war on drugs' in that respect.
I believe many of those other countries have public financing as a very important part of their corruption reduction scheme. it's illegal to take bribes here too, it's just a lot harder to differentiate between what is a bribe and what is a "campaign contribution" or other such legally allowed transaction.
An outright ban on lobbying would be nice in any case.
Except for the fact that lobbying is protected explicitly by the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
i htink in the end that is where the world will head and slowly copyrights and patents will get smoothed to sanity whats going on now is the last steps of a dying model and its lawsuits and mass efforts at scamming the people everywhere once people had enough ....they will remove there ability forever.
i could see a non profit that has no affiliations to any for profits or subsidiaries that are for profits being able to lobby
that allows charities and real ones NOT the riaa ( a non profit that does shit for the for profit labels )
see that took 4 minutes a work to solve 50% of the worlds problems.
Next week ill solve world hunger and after that war.THen ill change my name to zephram chochran and build a warp engine.....
and you catch them being bribed as it wold be called you make it a hanging , lethal injection , electric chair offense. YEA then they are gonna have to give me a lot more then 100K and if they are willing to pass 10 million per person or more its gonna be hard to hide that when your audits come due. OH we lost ten million....just around election time..... and suddenly joe blow deposits it ....well Brian mulroney kept all his cash in 3 boxes and they bought him off with 300K OR more that we dont know of.....SO while doable its risky and the places you can hide cash are disappearing
Saudi Arabia already recieves plenty of money and goods exports from the US. I do agree with you on building close family ties with the Bush family. At least that's an indirect influence - nobody in the Bush family has direct influence on federal legislation anymore.
re: flotilla
You're very liberal with the use of the word jihadist
You are right that it is a publicity stunt. The flotilla is simply trying to shed light on the apartheid policy Israel has been enforcing for years. Bringing aid to the Palestinians is a fairly neutral way to raise international awareness and attempt to get the UN to take action on this. Apartheid didn't work in South Africa, and while the region is a giant mess, Apartheid isn't really solving any long term problems in Israel either. It's a poor band-aid creating a festering abscess. Both sides are at fault for many things, but keeping up this policy of Apartheid is dehumanizing and not acceptable.
/not Islamic, not Jewish, simply an outside observer
moox. for a new generation.
sheep thats all we need baaaaaaaa
a bribe is a bribe. Splitting hairs and calling it a "campaign contribution" is a symptom of a sick society. If you're a politician and you're receiving any incoming beyond what your position pays you, you're accepting bribes. The possibly permissible exception is if you own shares in a company, in which case you need to keep away from anything which may be a conflict of interest. And no, it doesn't matter if you set up a shell company to receive the payment, or it's your political party that is receiving the payment, or it's your wife or your friends that are receiving the payment.
Nothing *eliminates* corruption. You can only minimize it. it's like the 'war on drugs' in that respect.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Let's assume we ban campaign donations from foreign individuals -- can they give money to citizens who may be sympathetic to their cause? Or organizations formed inside the U.S.?
What about, say, BP, which, though of foreign origination, is a legally recognized entity inside the U.S.? Now that the Citizens United Ruling has come down, what kind of law will you pass to keep them from spending as money as they like getting people who are sympathetic to them elected this fall?
Even if you manage some way to fence out campaign donations flowing through citizens and businesses -- how will you keep them from spending huge amounts of money on PR firms? Without creating an highly regulated press and broadcast industry... and preserving internet freedoms?
I'm with you that these things are all real and significant problems, worthy of some serious thought about how to fix. I'm just trying to point out that even apparently simply fixes like the idea of banning foreign campaign contributions are harder than they might seem to implement. The problem of the power of money is a deep, deep topic.
Tweet, tweet.
Only US Citizens can vote in elections So why do they count non-citizens in the census?
It's not like Disney World should get an extra congressman just because they have a busy season of visitors, right?
The U.S should adopt election laws like the ones we have up here in Canada. Take a look at the Federal Accountability Act.
Here are some key points:
So you'd ban all foreign lobbying, not just what appears detrimental to the country? That makes more sense.
However, it is often incredibly difficult to separate domestic from foreign. In Check Point, for example, a foreign company (HQ in Israel), or a domestic company (shares traded on the NASDAQ, most share owners probably US entities)? What about IBM (HQ in the US and the majority of employees in other countries, shared publicly traded)?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Pausing my cynicism for a second, you might get candidates who, having been successful in private enterprise, have turned their mind to the public service. That might be a good thing. See for example Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Unpausing the cynicism, it may just result in payments being covert and jobs-for-the-boys being the order of the day, at least until the Other Rich White Guy gets in to power.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
moox. for a new generation.
The sad thing it's our precious First Amendment that is causing the problem. We can't restrict speech or expression and lobbying falls under that premise, whether with money, words or actions.
The only solution is another amendment to the Constitution, and I can only imagine the precarious slope that would entail. It's impossible for our Congress to write simple straight-forward bills or amendments anymore. It would end up being a 1000 page nightmare that they would debate for 4 years and never pass.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
So the US is sick because it isn't as corrupt as the rest of the world?
Yes, and there are people who follow the lead of Howard Hughes, and do exactly that: give the maximum to every candidate, no matter what their platform. That way, whoever wins, they'll be able to say, "I gave."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
i stopped reading after this.
do not read this line twice.
I just finished reading a fictional book with a similar plot. In summary, a defense contractor wishes to restart the cold and so hires a "perception management" (PM) consultant to whip up world hysteria against Russia via the internet by utilizing fake blogs & news reports.
You sound like a right wingnut. Next you'll be telling us the big oil lobby should be allowed to buy votes outright.
Why?
moox. for a new generation.
Neato Idea. That's awesome. Seriously, not trolling here. Plain. Fucking. Awesomeness. If I could choose between You and bottled lightning, I would choose you.
So we have established:
1) Your Awesome.
2) You clearly have more morality in your fingernail (any one of them) than any politician in Washington.
Now..... let's start...
We need to make it a crime to be "taking gifts, favors, contributions and bribes" if you hold political office.... Hmmmm....
Okay. I'll fire up my word processor of +10 Legal Lawyerin' and get to work on making the law and you get out there and explain to people what we are trying to accomplish and secure enough votes so we have a majority of the US and can get the law enacted.
Huh? What do you mean we can't do that? We're a democracy! WTF! Reprawhatsits?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. Representative Democracy. We elect those people and they are supposed to represent us. Wellll... it seems like a catch-22 here. They won't vote the law in, and we can't make the law ourselves..
Wait... We can get you elected and have you propose the law and change things right?
Let's take over a small state with enough like minded people and get you into the Senate. The people need your common sense and decency based approach to government and politics.
********************
a few years pass
********************
Senate: "The Senate floor will recognize the junior member QuantumG from the State of Complete-Awesomeness (we managed to rename Idaho or some shit)"
QuantumG: "I propose a law criminalizing the acceptance of any campaign contributions, material items, gifts, bribes, or sexual favors from willing pages in a completely non-homosexual manner"
Senate: (hushed) "We have a turd in the punchbowl.. repeat ... turd in the punchbowl"
*******************
Do you seriously wonder at all why most Americans are either a) Completely disillusioned and apathetic (the smart ones), or b) Raving fucking lunatics screaming at the top of their lungs about how the other side is evil, bruises fruit on sight, and beats small children?
Even the most idealistic and decent people will be tainted by government within the first few months and you can't get shit done till you have been in Washington for years. It's seniority and it is just a huge boys club up there. You wait, Al Franken will turn into Palpatine given enough time.
Wake Up?
I am awake. I also have no power to change a god damn thing. It does not matter who I vote for, it does not matter if the person I voted for is a good person either, nothing good will come from anything in government.
We have not been represented in forever. The last thing I really remember that was profoundly good and representative of our collective will (most of us) was civil rights. Back to bullshit as usual after that.
Those that have the power right now are only going to grant, or delegate, that power to like minded people willing to promulgate their views. You seem to think that if enough Buddhist Monks were to join the Yakuza that in a few years the Yakuza would be all peaceful, shiny, and happy and shit. No. You would have monks with tainted souls and bad Karma.
I just hope we don't turn into a police state within my lifetime so I don't have to get in better shape and start putting bullets through storm troopers heads. I am too old and tired at this point to start and participate in the inevitable revolution to come.
Yes, I am hopelessly cynical and disillusioned with government and politics, and deservedly so. It's a fucking circus, has been my whole life, and will continue to be one. It has only serviced the agendas of the powerful and influential (corporations) and consistently shafted the people. My disillusionmen
If Garry Trudeau had put this into Doonesbury ("Duke's PR Coup"), his readers might have accused him of going too far off the deep end.
You think you have a point.... but you really don't.
Petition does not mean offer money, or some other form of compensation. It means, in this context, "a written document signed by a large number of people demanding some form of action from a government or other authority".
No, it does not "explicitly" state anywhere that the act of proffering anything other than words is constitutionally protected behavior.
It was an interesting argument, but 60 seconds with a dictionary kind of tears your argument apart there.
Now of course, I am equating Lobbying "explicitly" with the act of proffering money in return for preferential representation in government. Just from observation alone, that would seem to be what is happening quite frequently. Perhaps we nee another word for such a disgusting practice, rightfully lamented, and wholly responsible for the hopeless state of affairs that is government.
Sounds a lot like the way politics is played in America. Looks like we just exported it.
lawmakers are supposed to be public servants; they should be payed from government coffers with funds collected from the citizenry. as soon as they're allowed to take money from whomever, they stop serving the public and start serving the guy who signs those checks; when that happens you have a situation where the guys with the most money get to buy the laws.
do not read this line twice.
This is more or less how Israel was formed, right? Except the propaganda blogs were so old-school low-tech that they were called the Old Testament.
I think the greater point is that corruption doesn't always look like corruption. Other countries have helped mitigate this problem, but I seriously doubt the public knows about even a fraction of how often this happens on a global scale. Especially given how many countries are not open books when it comes to these sort of things. Not to mention the rampant corruption organized crime helps create. While a bribe is always a bribe, a bride doesn't always look like one.
The companies that offer bribes also need to be punished for doing so. The US enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/) to combat this problem but few companies ever get more than a slap on the wrist and a wink & nod. Both sides need to realize that offering or accepting a bribe is something that can cost them more than just a few dollars (or whatever the currency).
Now for the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption
The global costs are quite large.
Nope, that would just be silly.... 100% public funds. Not a dime out of their own pockets could be spent towards the election.
Nope, that would just be silly.... 100% public funds. Not a dime out of their own pockets could be spent towards the election.
So I'm not allowed to endorse a candidate in my own publication? Or on my own Web page? That would kill freedom of speech.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
What would that actually achieve? Surely any foreign lobbyist would simply establish/find a US proxy to funnel the donations? Seems to me that other posters have made better suggestions -- ban lobbying altogether.
First Amendment, I'd like you to meet my friend, KarlIsNotMyName. KarlIsNotMyName, this is the First Amendment. Why don't you two get acquainted?
Seriously, I know that the term "lobbying" is associated with a lot of shady stuff, but at the core, the term's definition is just asking a legislator to vote a particular way. To redress your grievances, perhaps. I would like special interests to hold less of a disproportionate sway over American politics too, but the reason you can't just ban them out of existence is because they're not really special at all.
Exercising political influence is part of the definition of citizenship; some are just better at it. Better to the point of unfairness? Probably. But you still need to take a remedial course in civics before you start dropping ignorant, anti-democratic bullshit like "An outright ban on lobbying would be nice in any case."
Are you really such a clever-stupid dick in real life, or do you just play one on the Intertubes?
all smothering
in 2000, done through the courts and influence on the media. It was called Bush v. Gore.
It's legal for money to be spent on foreign lobbying to.
Another loophole to close.
a bribe is a bribe. Splitting hairs and calling it a "campaign contribution" is a symptom of a sick society. If you're a politician and you're receiving any incoming beyond what your position pays you, you're accepting bribes
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it.
Wow, you really have your head up your ass, don't you? Every other civilized country in the world has enacted anti-corruption laws which have loopholes.
And no, it doesn't matter if you set up a shell company to receive the payment, or it's your political party that is receiving the payment, or it's your wife or your friends that are receiving the payment.
So if I own a holding company, which in turns owns two other companies of mine, I am not allowed to receive any money from MY company.
And it's really nice to know that if someone I happen to know is running for political office, that means that I can't make any money, receive any gifts, win a prize in a raffle, etc.
Seriously, I'm not sure what kind of crack you smoked today, but it must be some pretty heavy shit if you think ANY of what you posted makes a lick of sense.
To bring up the old Nazi defense, how would things have turned out in WW2 if the Nazis had dumped a bunch of money into US lobbying to win support for Germany in the war?
They did. Didn't work out so hot for them.
but on a smaller scale, Israel dumps a huge amount of money into our political system,
Read your history... Israel is there because the Allies won the war. Of course we're in bed with them... we wouldn't want to be thought to be anti-Semitic, now would we? And THAT type of accusation holds a HELL of a lot more political clout than some cash floating around.
The whitehouse has been mum on this whole flotilla disaster so far
Because we have one of our ALLIES having a dispute with another one of our ALLIES. It's obvious you don't understand the complexities of our relationship with Turkey & Israel, so I'd suggest that instead of getting your opinions spoon-fed to you from your 24 hour news channel, you spend that time studying history and foreign politics.
If you REALLY want to fix the problems with lobbying, then change the rules so people aren't allowed to save places in line for other people.
By no means end lobbying outright.... just limit it to domestic and foreign policy
Uhhh what? Would you mind filling the rest of us in on what kind of policy is neither foreign nor domestic? And don't say religious, we already have that one excluded.
Besides, this little thing called the Constitution prevents any such limitations.
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
Fallacy spotted. Please contribute to the debate with real arguments, thank you.
Wow, you really have your head up your ass, don't you? Every other civilized country in the world has enacted anti-corruption laws which have loopholes.
I'd be delighted if you could actually show me those loopholes in european countries. We have our fair share of corrupt politician over here, but they don't use any loopholes. They falsify, and when they get caught, they (hopefully) go to jail. There is no intended loophole.
So if I own a holding company, which in turns owns two other companies of mine, I am not allowed to receive any money from MY company.
If the company is yours, there is no problem in you perceiving money from it. There is however a potential problem of conflict of interests that will have to be watched by an independent commission should you be elected.
The problem with many American people is that they're so proud of the U.S.A. that they will defend it tooth and nail, even in its utmost illogical and unjust aspects and feel threatened every time some guy points out the idiocy of some parts of their system. Every country has its defects, and some that are under the international spotlight have theirs more exposed than others. Get used to it.
Hate to break it to you but total 24 hour news viewership peaked at around 4 million people several years ago, over a third of whom live inside the beltline, and the remaining majority are either retired or working in journalism.
We have zero reason to be allied with Israel fifty years later and it's obvious our relations are fading quickly. The average citizen's age in Israel is barely 30 years old and most of their population was born in the 1980's. WW2 is rapidly becoming less of a distant memory and simply a piece of history. Israel in this day and age is more of a political liability these days than they are an ally.
I don't claim to have the solution and I am not proposing one. Seriously. That said, it is a lot more complex than simply limiting the money flow and "leveling" the playing field.
There are two very large problems with mucking around in campaign financing law.
1) People with an interest should be able to present a perspective. If a private individual or a group is going to be harmed by a law, it is pretty well enshrined that they have a right to express themselves. When you start trying to cut off money, especially money that is not handed directly to a candidate, you start to interfere with the ability of interested parties to spread their message. Maybe limits on speech are good, but realize that you are indeed limiting speech, and some of that speech might be speech you want. Is it really just to say for instance that groups should have limits to how much they can express for or against a law that is going to be enforced at gun point? This is serious stuff, you have to be weary about trying to limit discourse.
2) It shouldn't matter. An idiot with a lot of money is still an idiot. What does it say about the quality of a democracy when all it takes to win is to advertise more? If victory goes to whoever spends the most, there is a deeper and far more fundamental flaw in democracy than just too much money. You are not having citizens select good leaders any more. What you really have is just a game where the person who can raise the most money wins. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I am saying that it shines a big old spotlight on the weakness of a democracy when you need to perfectly balance the sides in terms of resources or else the idiot masses will vote for the one with more bling. Even if you balance out the candidates, it is a pretty safe assumption that your citizenry is being swayed on something inane rather than the quality of the leader.
I'm not saying I am not for laws regulating how much people can spend on speech. I am saying the fact that anyone thinks they are a good idea is a pretty good sign something is rotten in terms of our governing system.
I was going to mod you up, but instead I wanted to congratulate you on your post. This was, by far, the most entertaining and insightful anti-government rant I have read in a long time. No, this is not sarcasm, I'm dead serious. Yes, there are a few flaws in your argumentation, such as generalizing from specific cases. But overall, you nailed one of the issues that a representative democracy will always have: if you're an asshole, you can enact laws for the sole benefit of yourself. And to run, you kinda have to be an asshole to begin with.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Of course you can. It may be added to your candidates budget limit though. Its not likely to happen unless you are a major news outlet or TV station.
UK based so that is sort of the way it works here.
The rational person understands that changing the world is unlikely to succeed, and gives up. Thus the world is changed by the irrational.
You have enormous power. You are just afraid to exercise it.
Yes. Your figure is low by an order of magnitude, for an oil company contribution.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
> If your foreign policy involves invading their country and killing thousands of innocent people (or funding others to do it instead), then why shouldn't they have a say?
What if it's their idea to invade in the first place? For example, the USS Liberty Incident?
For the record, I don't exactly support Palestine, either. When everyone is throwing mud (and rocks, and bombs, ...), everybody has unclean hands.
the cost is largely about buying media time though. I'm saying make media give time for public campaigns. they use public airwaves or are owned publicly, they should be harnessed to provide a basic community service which is to inform the public.
a combination of that and public financing would both reduce the cost of campaigning and largely remove money from the equation.
first, again, I would point out that it is not "rules against bribery" that end corruption. We have "rules against bribery" too. other countries have very strict campaign rules and they include large doses of PUBLIC FINANCING. that's a key element.
here, we make politicians raise their own money to campaign. they have to raise it from somewhere. that's why it's complicated to figure out what is a "bribe" and what isn't here, because we FORCE our politicians to, as you would call it, "take bribes" legally. I'm promoting the end of it. I don't think you or your mods even understand what I'm talking about judging by your responses.
Nobody just "got rid of corruption" because they are so great and noble. it takes at the very least a structural change in the way elections are run to reduce corruption.
also, if you think corruption doesn't happen because you don't read about it, you're pretty naive. you may very well have lower rates of corruption, but please stop acting like the problem is nonexistent.
The purpose of democracy isn't to select good leaders, it's to limit the damage bad leaders can do and to get rid of them without that messy revolution business.
Also, when every special interest group can spread their message without limit, the voter ends up hearing thousands of messages, some of them true, some of them inaccurate, some of them outright lies. It's a bit like being in the middle of a huge crowd where everyone chants their own thing. How do you get your message through the noise? You shout, and he who shouts the loudest, reaches the most people.
The political system is simply too complex for people to make informed decisions. It's not that they are too stupid to understand it, it's simply that they don't have time to do the research into each candidate and issue. This gives rise to party-line voting and all the issues that has.
They aren't idiots, they are simply too busy with all the other things that demand their attention to study politics in-depth. The candidates with lots of bling catch their attention, and the size of the campaign suggests that these are the "major" candidates, so the people use their limited research time to choose between them.
Being swayed by inane things is another symptom of this same problem: when you don't really understand the thing you're looking at, you have no way of focusing your attention on relevant things, since you don't know what those might be. You'll end up looking what other people are focusing on, and whatever makes the most noise/shines prettiests/whatever.
Yes: people don't have enough time to pay sufficient attention to it.
Mind you, this problem could be fixed by having dedicated political journalists summarizing and abstracting politics from various points of view, but then you get the problem of corrupting these journalists...
And you could also fix it temporarily by enhancing the human brain with technology, connecting it to supercomputer-on-a-chip or something, but then the politicians do the same and the system gets even more complex to compensate.
Democracy worked in ancient Greece because slaves did all the work, so citizens could focus their attention to politics. It doesn't work well in the modern world, because we are the wage slaves and can only give an extremely shallow attention to politics. Yet every alternative to democracy is even worse, as history has demonstrated us time and again. So, I don't think that there's anything we can really do about this problem; it's inherent in popular democracy where everyone can vote, and popular democracy is the best political system of all known - and, I suspect, all possible - by a ridiculously large margin.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Outlawing it means you can jail the oil executives and the politicians when they're caught.
Well, seeing how US stayed out of the war until Japan attacked it, at which point it's doubtful any amount of money would had been sufficient to keep it from responding, I'd say: exactly as they did.
Then again, US sent quite a bit of war material to Britain even prior to that, so...
Many "special interests" are multinational these days. If multinationals can lobby, it won't take long for foreign interests to set up a branch in USA; if they can't, it'll be an officially separate proxy instead.
Also, who gets to decide what policy is beneficial? Has anyone ever actually outright admitted that the policy they're lobbying for is harmful?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Name one and provide evidence how the problem is solved there. I for one live in a european country where the problem certainly has not been "solved".
Ah, the usual propaganda:
(a) the blockade does not and never has affected critical supplies such as food and medicine;
Lie. Foods not on a very restricted and arbitrary list cannot be imported, the list changes so that NGOs attempting to provide aid can't keep track of what's allowed, and the total quantity allowed through is intentionally too small to feed the population. Yes, intentionally: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger", to quote the then-PM's advisor. While medicines are allowed, medical equipment isn't, and for that matter neither are fridges to store medicines that have to be refridgerated.
(b) Israel offered to accept the flottilla's cargo, inspect it for contraband (weapons, explosives, and other supplies of military use to Hamas), and pass it on to Gaza by truck if the flottila would dock at Ashdod.
Lie. "Supplies of military use to Hamas" in this case are defined to include wheelchairs, all other medical equipment, building supplies (remember that about a third of the houses were reduced to rubble in the Israeli bombing, along with a large proportion of the schools and hospitals), parts to repair Gaza's damaged sewage and water systems, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Basically anything that could be used to repair the damage the IDF intentionally inflicted and ease the suffering of the Gazan population is forbidden.
(c) once Israel seized the ships, it unloaded the cargo, inspected it, and moved it by truck to Gaza
Well, some of it anyway. Probably rather more than would've been allowed if Israel didn't need the good PR - they actually allowed some medical equipment in - but still not enough.
In the end it won't matter much anyway, at least from the perspective of the powerless masses at the bottom of the pyramid. Just like here in the US, it hardly matters who controls government, because the end result is the same every time: government expands in power and revenue, year after year. More borrowing, more spending, more corruption, more power over the people. Every single time.
When it's guaranteed that government only grows bigger over time, and history proves that no amount of effort will ever reverse the process, exactly what point is there in giving a damn?
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
Really every other civilized country has removed corruption? I'm betting India has a few words to say about not being a civilized country. Oh and China. There is also Russia. And I don't know, every fucking country in Europe.
Since you're obviously not American let me informed you that corruption is front page news here as well. The problem is that it is much harder to separate corruption from a legitimate contribution in the US system because of the way it is set up. I fully admit, the American system needs to be improved and I'll even go so far as to admit that we should take some clues from other countries. However to claim that other countries have eliminated corruption is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
Fallacy spotted. Please contribute to the debate with real arguments, thank you.
The proposed definition is very strict. Pointing out an example where it doesn't make sense is a fallacy?
I'd be delighted if you could actually show me those loopholes in european countries. We have our fair share of corrupt politician over here, but they don't use any loopholes. They falsify, and when they get caught, they (hopefully) go to jail. There is no intended loophole.
Could you clarify this? You're saying there are no legal ways for politicians in Europe to profit from their positions?
An outright ban on lobbying would be nice in any case.
Standing in front of your or someone else's representative and giving them an opinion allegedly representative of a group is called lobbying. You want to ban this?
If you want lobbying reform including full disclosure, that's cool with me. Personally I think that every conversation which occurs in a representative's office should be recorded and released on a "does not interfere with national security" basis. All unreleased recordings should at least be listed; if the list of participants is not a threat to national security, then at least that should be divulged. That way we know WHO is lobbying our reps, and about what, and for how much money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The proposed definition is very strict. Pointing out an example where it doesn't make sense is a fallacy?
It was not that strict, and common sense must apply when reading one's comment. The original poster meant gifts made directly or indirectly by external entities to one's direct relation circle. Gifts from friends are acceptable, except in case of conflicts of interest when said friend actually has a big company which he would like you to support.
Could you clarify this? You're saying there are no legal ways for politicians in Europe to profit from their positions?
Eeer. They have fixed salaries paid for by the state. That's what I call profit. Politics is a public matter, and should stay public, without any kind of intervention from the private sectors.
I'm french, so let's talk about France. In here, elected officials have salaries, just like any employed persons. Whenever the state calls for a private entity to execute any given project, it puts several them in competition, and must evaluate all of the offers and only choose the best one according to known criterions (ie, all of the competitors have access to them when the call is made).
If it turns out a deal has been handed because of relations and by bypassing the whole process, the elected officials in charge face legal prosecution, and the deal is broken, calling for a new call to offers.
In the case of law making, the gifts that companies can make to deputies are very reglemented, and as a matter of fact a law was passed some time ago to further limit them (there were before some small exceptions).
I don't get how a system based on lobbies and friendship between companies and politicians can be seen as anything positive, really. To me, this is just a system based on greed, which is certainly not in the interest of the people. A state that doesn't act in the interest of its people is in my eyes not a worthy state.
Every other civilized country in the world has done it.
Your statement proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that you sir are and most likely always will be an idiot. You lose.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
These are just a slight upgrade of old techniques. In the past the newspapers would be astroturfed, the opposition party (or group) funded surreptitiously, news reporters bought, officials in the ruling government bribed, agitators sent to labor union meetings, etc. The only new thing is they are using more electronic media. Which makes it easier to do.
See the overthrow of the Australian gov't by the US in the early 70's as an example.
It occurs to me that the "Tea Party" might be part of this pattern these days.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"I am awake. I also have no power to change a god damn thing. It does not matter who I vote for, it does not matter if the person I voted for is a good person either, nothing good will come from anything in government."
If you take a ridiculous view of government, as being either wholly good or wholly bad, of course there's no reason to do anything. But then that's a mentality that sees no difference between a regime that murders your family, and one that accepts campaign contributions. Things happen in shades, and we gradually work towards a better outcome. Welcome to human life.
We don't have laws because they're going to stop all crime. The point of a law -- any law -- is to reduce the crime & make it socially unacceptable. Otherwise, why bother making murder illegal? People still murder, right?
Regardless of who's actually in the right, this beats the hell out of tanks and combat troops.
Regards;
Can we finally close this legal loophole?
No, no, no, leave it wide open, and use it as a honey pot. And then we vote out the crooks who get caught taking the money. That's the way it's supposed to work. Closing one loophole just opens another. It's the old squeezing the balloon thing. Now if we can't use our brains and ignore the bling, then maybe we just aren't ready for majority rule.. We shouldn't try to cripple the system.. First off, you don't have anybody in office to properly rewrite the rules. If we did vote in such people, then we just proved we don't need to rewrite anything.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
They should be... and we should nail the people who sell their votes. Prison isn't necessary, just vote them out..
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Israel is run by a bunch of east European criminals.. They are NOT the sons of Abraham! They are frauds! And they must be expelled. This what Iran wants. This is what should happen..
Why are corporations giving to the candidates in the first place? Only recently did that become legal because not allowing it is a violation of free speach. I say we A) don't make corporations the same as "people" and B) remove the right for a corporation to give money to candidate. Then this pesky problem wont be a problem anymore.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
I agree with almost everything you have said and that has been more or less my position for a while. The only point where I take issue is on alternatives to democracy. I personally don't think that we have ever given them a fair shake. We have tried a few variants on the structure of democracy (parliamentarian, congressional, constitutional monarchy, even a little direct democracy) , and we have tried a few variants on authoritarian forms of government (military dictatorship, communism, monarchy, theocracy, plutocracy, etc). I contended that there is a vast region of unexplored government types that we have never given a real shot.
Consider for a moment a draft republic. Instead of deciding which politicians represent the people, you simply pull names out of a hat. If you get selected, you have to serve for a period of time. Once your time is up, you leave. Any attempt to stay in office or create a law to let you stay in office is considered treason and results in immediate banishment.
In such a system you would NEVER give one politician any real power. You would have no president. You would want as many hands on power as possible because anyone, from a genius to a retarded idiot, could be one of those hands. Only by diffusing power could you safely operate such a system. Unlike literally all other forms of government (democracy included), you would see the government try and spread out decision and making instead of concentrate it into the hands of a few.
As an added bonus, you could probably do away with political parties. With no way to influence who serves as a representative, the only way left corrupt a politician is direct bribery. There can be no promises to help them get re-elected or any of that silliness.
I'm not saying the idea is without flaws, but it is a non-democratic and non-authoritarian form of government that doesn't rely on utopian ideals. I am pretty sure that there are other forms of possible government that could fit the bill. It isn't going to happen in the US, but I would love to see other countries give it a try. How many failed developing nation democracies do we have to have before we realize that maybe democracy isn't the end all be all?
You do realise that your country is capitalist (i.e., that everything is driven by money, by design), right?
EDlll, I am going to go a head and completely agree with NeutronCowboy; this was a very entertaining and insightful post: Putting succinctly what i have felt and stated so many times before to friends,family, and anyone who would listen really. As i approach 30 however, and am a new father, I can't help but force myself to be optimistic about the eventual outcome of all-too-likely "Revolution" that we seem to be headed for. Yes our individual rights will be slowly eroded piecemeal one by one in favor of the privileged few. But (and this is the only shred of hope i am holding on to) there will come a time when American society will be so draconian, so in your-face biased, so "unfair", and so contrary to the original ideals this country was founded on that smart people such as yourself and the good people at /. (or whatever future incarnation like it) will organize enough to actually be effective in changing things. Your scenario evolving the junior Senator from Complete-Awesomeness is bound to fail. This system is set up so one person CAN'T make any kind of big shifts in culture. Thankfully so in my opinion.
However, 543 people can (just asked Florida), or 271 people (electoral colleges you know the people whose election vote actually counts are depending on the state not LEGALLY mandated to vote for the populous winner in that state.)
So yeah Senator Complete-Awesomeness or whatever will not, can not, should not be able to "fix" this problem, the same goes for the Presidential office. But you know who will? You, NeutronCowboy, me, Anonymous Cowards 1,2,and 3, and enough people running for office could. We Should. We, Almighty Control-Freak in the Sky willing, will someday. I just hope for my grandchildren's sake it's not too costly and bloody of a change.
You may be correct, but using Bloomberg as a good example is not something I agree with. You might as well use Jon Corzine. Bloomberg is an anti-freedom, hypocritical progressive who used the recession to push for a loosening of the mayoral term limit, making himself defacto dictator of NYC. He signed in the smoking and trans-fat bans. He is also currently involved in a-- you guessed it-- campaign finance scandal.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Why shouldn't foreigners be allowed to contribute money to campaigns? It seems like a great way to bring more money into the country!
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Exactly. I was talking to a bloke I work with about the recent UK elections, and before the campaigning started, they were saying that they were hoping to raise $40k to give them a good shot.
Imagine what $40k would get you in the US.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Your idea is all candidates have exactly equal funding, so they ideally win on the basis of ideas and character. What about third parties that voluntarily voice support for a candidate or issue? How do we deal with this? The Supreme Court recently ruled this is a protected matter of free speech. You may say just regulate it (although SCOTUS says that's unconstitutional), but even then, what are the unintended side-effects? You craft a law that keeps money from swamping the people, but then how do you that without stifling the people at the same time? This isn't as easy as it sounds.
He said citizens. Corporations aren't citizens.
ROFLMAO!
Iowa, a good dinner, and a handful of change?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
No, because it would look like possible corruption and would disguise the real corruption.
You'd refrain because of respect for the system your friend is trying to build and how it requires him to live to a higher standard than otherwise.
But nobody gets rid of it until they label it corruption.
It might be corruption that our other rules almost mandate, but it's still corruption. It's obvious where it's a citizen giving a cop a "gift" but grayer at the politician/corporation level.
When you don't call it corruption it raises the question "why get rid of it then?"
No, they've labeled all "gifts" as bribery, I think they meant.
In the USA bribery is part of the system. It doesn't stand out because you have to give politicians large campaign contributions.
If that was illegal, like giving a cop a gift when stopped for speeding, and covered in the papers as bribery/treason we wouldn't have eliminated corruption, just its hiding place.
Legally, corporations are people, they just can't vote. Look it up. It's sickening, but true.
moox. for a new generation.
tl;dr California and a few other states have the proposition system. Don't like something? Hate property taxes getting raised each year? Put it up on a petition, get enough people to sign it and the citizens will vote on it democratically. This is how that whole Prop 8 stuff was organized. The downside is that sometimes citizens do really dumb things, like fix property taxes so the state is no longer funded in relation to inflation, and can bankrupt the state. So vehicles do exist to push your agenda. Don't live in California? Run for office on a particular platform. You won't (likely) win, but it'll be on the agenda for the next election. If you're persistent, and you have popular support, you can change the laws in your area. See also: Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
moox. for a new generation.
it's interesting.
I think most people agree that there is too much "money in politics". but then talk about public financing to basically destroy that as a major problem, and wooooo boy, that's "socialism"!
cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.
Of course you can. It may be added to your candidates budget limit though. Its not likely to happen unless you are a major news outlet or TV station.
So I can spent money on really bad advertising, and that counts against the candidate I pretend to support? Neat!
The UK might be more honest, but if this system was available here I can see the "KKK for Obama" advertising.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I don't live in NYC, though for me the smoking & trans-fat bans are a positive. but I guess each to his own political viewpoint.
Just on the other thought, campaign finance scandals tend to result from the grey areas of the current system - an unambiguous system where outside contributions were banned would mean any such scandal would be a straight up corruption charge.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Better to have corporate/union/foreign-coup-plot-controlled politicians who serve the needs of their competing sponsors, rather than have politicians with no controls who will vote entirely for their own self-interest (i.e. people like the sheikh and his family who run their countries for personal profit).
This space intentionally left blank
You can make the law yourself and pass it with direct democracy in a state that has an initiative process (like California, for example). You would find, however, that there's no way to legislate a happy perfect world where everything works right... in fact, well-intended reforms often make things worse.
This space intentionally left blank
To bring up the old Nazi defense, how would things have turned out in WW2 if the Nazis had dumped a bunch of money into US lobbying to win support for Germany in the war? Or at least delayed it until they'd occupied Britain and Sweden?
Exactly as it did turn out. Who knows, maybe that's why it happened. The USA only belatedly declared war on Germany because Germany's ally Japan attacked the USA.
Anyhow, money loses to a sensational scandal every time. "Senator X votes for the terrorists!" can spread as a sort of viral campaign without much money and allow challenger Y to easily beat Senator X in the next election.
This space intentionally left blank
So you have a government consisting of people who have no skill nor possibly even will to rule. What will they do? Why, what humans who have to do something always do - half-ass it. And if some well-meaning member of the public offers his help in guiding these unwilling rulers - perhaps several of them, one after another, just to build up the experience mind you - why I think they'd be grateful to take the assistance!
Only by diffusing power can you safely operate any political system.
No, it wouldn't. Selecting many people pretty much guarantees that some of them are power-hungry assholes. Since the rest are just trying to coast through their enforced service, those few will have no trouble concentrating power into their hands.
So you promise them a lucrative position in your company instead.
It's fatally flawed. Sorry, but just no.
The cynic in me points out that such experiments tend to result in utter disaster, so this reads suspiciously like "you pay the price, and I'll copy any benefits".
Don't they usually fail because democracy fails - because a single dictator manages to get enough power to force through his half-cooked ideas which end up ruining the country? That's evidence for democracy, not against it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You can voice support for local law enforcement all you want - it's a lot different than handing an officer a $50 when you get pulled over for speeding.
So you have a government consisting of people who have no skill nor possibly even will to rule. What will they do? Why, what humans who have to do something always do - half-ass it.
Are you trying to imply that our current politicians are an extraordinary class of citizens? Are they an elite few with the intelligence to make wise decisions and lead? Haha... right.
The political system would be vastly improved if a few economist, engineers, and scientist got dragged into political service occasionally. The unending horde of lawyer/politicians is a good way to make sure your society has lots of laws, not that it will be just or effective.
And if some well-meaning member of the public offers his help in guiding these unwilling rulers - perhaps several of them, one after another, just to build up the experience mind you - why I think they'd be grateful to take the assistance!
Versus what? Career politicians who need to come crawling on their hands and knees begging for money every couple of years? I don't know about you, but my chances of telling a would be corrupting influence to make like a tree and fuck off is pretty dramatically improved by my not needing them to stay in power.
Simply staggering people moving in and out of the political system can offer the chance to mentor and learn from experience. Will some people half ass it? Eh, sure. That is probably another good reason to build a system that isn't dragged down by the failure of a few individuals.
No, it wouldn't. Selecting many people pretty much guarantees that some of them are power-hungry assholes. Since the rest are just trying to coast through their enforced service, those few will have no trouble concentrating power into their hands.
Unlike now where you MUST be a power hungry asshole to even think of running for office, much less actually accumulating the money and power to win? The only difference is that even if by some magic you manage to enthrall the other drafted suckers who care fuck all for your dreams of glory, lap up power in a system built to withstand individual fuck heads by giving no one power and doesn't even give you a chance to decide when you are going to get randomly selected for service (if ever), your service time is still over once it is over.
So you promise them a lucrative position in your company instead.
Um. You mean exactly like the way it is now? The only difference is that in the current system being in congress for a few years means you have built of connections. In the draft system your "connections" to politics vanish almost as soon as you are forced to leave it. This seems like an argument against the current system where a connected political is an asset to a corporation. Under the draft system, if you are buying up former politicians you are just a sucker buying up connectionless Joe-blow-citizens. I don't know about you, but as a corporation I would take a well connected former senator in the current system over some random engineer or plumber who has been booted by the system once his time is up.
Don't they usually fail because democracy fails - because a single dictator manages to get enough power to force through his half-cooked ideas which end up ruining the country? That's evidence for democracy, not against it.
Democracies tend to fail because democracies suck at preventing the accumulation of power in to the executive branch. Democracies also fail because winners of democratic elections tend to be far more likely to be sociopaths than the average citizen. The very sort of person who thinks that it is a good idea that they be the highest ruler in the land and is willing to trade the favors, make the promises, and say the things it takes to win that slot in a democracy is almost EXACTLY the WORST person you could ever select for such a slot! It is better than under a military dictatorship wher
Yeah, roads are socialist too and they probably don't bitch about those.
But without treating donations as bribes this public financing is just more donations - this time from a source they don't even have to be thankful to. It's only part of the solution.
Lobbyists are not legally allowed to offer money, or some other form of compensation.
There is another word for what you are talking about, it is called bribery. It is explicitly illegal in the U.S., Congressman and Senators have gone to jail for accepting bribes. While lobbyists frequently bribe politicians, they usually do so in ways that are hard to prove actual quid pro quo. In theory, all lobbyists do is petition (A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.) politicians on behalf of citizens. There are no ways to get rid of lobbyists that do not make it essentially impossible for a group of citizens to band together to present their wishes to politicians as a group.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
it's about diminishing returns. at some point, more money doesn't help that much. and the whole point is that they are not thankful for the money: they are who they are, not who they are paid to be. they are then beholden only to their constituency.