Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans
phantomfive writes Silicon Valley is making a mark in Washington as Google has recently replaced Goldman as the largest lobbyist, but until recently, most of the money from Silicon Valley went to democratic candidates. In 2014, that has changed, and Republicans are getting most of the money. Why the change? Gordon Crovitz suggests it's because Harry Reid blocked patent reform. Reid gets a large chunk of donations from trial lawyers, who oppose the reform.
Republicans will bring back peace and prosperity to our land... just like before..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.
Gotta be Harry Reid blocking patent reform.
Can't be Obamacare failures, loss of press freedom, lowest labor force participation in many decades, incompetence on Ebola, lack of plans for ISIS, overweening regulation, politicization of DoJ and IRS, extrajudicial killings of US citizens, crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM, increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.
Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.
Yes. Do this. But beware that the person you put in office in his stead is not the same. The GOP is feared by trial-lawyers, yes, but they have not said one whit about patent reform that I can see. Indeed, most of them, being reflexively pro-business, are all in favor of the same zany IP laws as democrats. If someone has some counterpoints, I'd love to hear them.
The pendulum is swinging back towards the gop. Money goes to the majority.
Let's just put that out there, with 2 years to do whatever they wanted with a supermajority, and then 6 years of controlling the senate and presidency, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has been destroyed, and the progressives keep trotting out the same "Blame Bush" canard while doing their best to sabotage the few remaining Democrats. All my party has left are the corporatists (Reid, Pelosi, etc) and a bunch of screaming tantrums demanding class warfare. At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win, just for being less dangerous and more honest about their extremism.
Democrat/republicans must keep congress as evenly divided as possible, lest one or the other absorb all the blame. So, what we have are people deciding between crazy and evil when they go to vote. And then, there's always the little wallflower that everyone ignores. Little do they know that if they give some water, it would grow into a tree to overshadow the weeds currently overrunning the place.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law. After that law is in place, anyone who formerly worked in the lobbying "industry", (and how odious to use that word in connection with lobbyists), would be forbidden forever from seeking public office or working for the government as either an employee or as a contractor.
It's time to outlaw the purchase of favourable legislation altogether. In fact, it's long past time to aggressively outlaw ANY circumvention of democracy. Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen - but I can dream...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
(Occasionally competing) Corporate interests run all the parties and it's just a matter of which ones you're voting for.
None of them give a flying fuck about YOU.
we say "oh yet another corrupt aftican country". But what do we say in the US?
The circle is simple: Harry Reid blocks patent reform. => Pharma companies get money => Pharma companies give a bit of the money they got more to Harry. Harry Happy, Pharma companies happy.
You should really give politicians money from taxpayers based on how many votes they got last time. This is how we do it in Germany.
I disagree with the thesis that silicon valley is in some way "swinging" toward the Republican party. It's more like the writing was on the wall which way the wind was blowing this midterm and the only way to have any influence or say on policy in Washington is via contributions. As in contributed == friend, didn't contribute == not friend. That's all it is. In 8 years (or whatever) when it's swinging the other direction again money will be flowing back the other direction. It's nothing more or less than that. Be on the good side of the people in power. It's the only way to get anything done. A lot of businesses actually contribute to both parties every election cycle, even if one is more heavily contributed to than the other. Just want to be on the good side for the next wind change.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Basically, if democrats refuse to listen to us - this is what they'll get.
I'm as liberal as people get, but that NSA thing pissed me off so bad that I consider voting Republican.
For those, who say that Republicans will not act on NSA either, I say this: Listen, elections is what in game theory considered a repeat game. In such situations it's often advantageous to enforce beneficial cooperation by employing fear of retaliation. And we're not bluffing this time...
"No Country for Old Men" tactics if you wish.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether
Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources and time, and sending a single person to have a single sit-down with that same legislator. We certainly wouldn't want to ask someone who already knows everyone involved, and who understands how the legislature works, to choose the best time and circumstance and context in which to bring up something important. No, that's far too sensible - it's much better if we make it AGAINST THE LAW for people to exercise the first amendment rights to assemble and talk to their government.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
How does employing a lobbyist to efficiently do what 10,000 of you would do separately equate to "buying" legislation any more than does 10,000 of you individually doing exactly the same thing? Are you suggesting that 10,000 of you shouldn't be allowed to talk to your representatives, or show support for their campaigns, or saying out loud (online, in a newspaper, or a media ad) that you think a given referendum, law, or politician is doing something wrong? Isn't that exactly the point of democracy? Or are you suggesting that campaigns and political expression should be conducted entirely with taxpayer dollars, no matter who the candidate is or how moonbat crazy they are? Personally, I'd like to choose whether and to whom my financial support goes to, when it comes to campaigns. You equate supporting campaigns with buying legislation, but propose no alternative. The only other options are to either force media companies to provide their services for free (government compulsion to support people who you may not actually support) to any old single-topic obsessive who wants to grind some political axe ("911 Truthers For Mars Exploration By Separated Twins!"), or to tell people they're not allowed to spend money to communicate about their politics - something the first amendment specifically protects from people like you, which is a good thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Absolute nonsense! Don't blame the guy offering the money. Go after the one who takes it. Then the offers will dry up. What you want is censorship.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law. After that law is in place, anyone who formerly worked in the lobbying "industry", (and how odious to use that word in connection with lobbyists), would be forbidden forever from seeking public office or working for the government as either an employee or as a contractor.
It's time to outlaw the purchase of favourable legislation altogether. In fact, it's long past time to aggressively outlaw ANY circumvention of democracy. Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen - but I can dream...
Outlawing lobbying would actually be bad for democracy overall. Lobbyists are a vehicle in which an interest communicates the needs of that interest to an elected official. That goes for businesses, unions, non-profit organizations, and the various groups that represent specific demographics such as minority representation groups like the NAACP. You may enjoy the fantasy of democracy functioning where elected officials act based on the will of the people, but mechanically that fantasy is impossible as without lobbyists government officials would be even less informed about the will and needs of the people than they already are.
There are issues with lobbying, sure. But lobbying in general is a good thing; it is a tool of democracy that enables communication between the State and the people. Like any tool, it can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The key is to create regulation that discourages inappropriate use, not throw out the tool entirely. And you can't outlaw lobbying from corporations, because the private sector is the engine of economic creation; it creates jobs for people and better products that improve people's lives etc. Again, yes, as a tool it can be misused, but removing the primary form of communication between the State and the economy is just a stupid idea.
So Silicon Valley (California) changes to Republicans because Harry Reid (D-Nevada) blocked patent reform. I suppose this means that Republicans are 100% in favor of patent reform, right? From what I can see both parties are split on this issue. Now there may be other reasons for Silicon Valley to be more Republican but patent reform is not one of them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.
2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.
So what you want to do is ban speech. These people, their job is to go talk. Literally, their job is to go talk. But since they talk to the wrong lizards, you want them banned. Go fuck yourself with a punji stick.
Both parties deserve credit for cooperation. Republicans and Democrats have been working together in the House to enact many reforms, not just patent reforms.
link.
The problem here is specifically Harry Reid, not the Democrat party in general. However, Democrats will not replace him on their own, and the only way to do that in this election cycle will be to vote a Republican majority into the Senate. Hence support for the Republican party when the actual target is only one Senator.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
To see all the people who have bought into the RNC talking point that "Democrat" is the adjective form of that word. What you're looking for is "Democratic."
I might go out on a limb and guess Rand Paul and some backbenchers in the House, but how many of them are "pro-market" that doesn't just stop at government regulation but acknowledges the anti-consumer/anti-competitive aspects of big business?
Usually any attempt to reign in big business results in "pro-market" responses about as complex as "Because Business."
I think the bigger concern should be the various artful forms of bribery that lobbyists use to buy legislation. Doesn't that bother you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Bribery? Be specific. Every last dollar contributed to campaigns is a matter of public record. Unless you're talking about stuff like that Democrat congressman caught with $90k of cash in his freezer as he got arrested for obvious political racketeering, or Chicago-type blatant pocket-stuffing. When a lobbyist sits down for dinner with a congressman or a senator, that's on the books, right down to what the steak cost. What are you referring to, specifically?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Silicon Valley Swings Both Ways...
The saddest thing here is that for most people, every time they get disenchanted with the Democrats or Republicans, so many of them switch to supporting Republicans or Democrats.
Which is best for clear throught: to take cocaine, or heroin?
Which is the path to a long healthy life: to shoot yourself in the head or stab yourself in the heart?
Which is more in the interests of America: Democrats or Republicans?
Depending on your preferences and values, you might actually have real, valid answers to these three questions. But you ought to also know that all these questions are absurd. Why do we still take that last one seriously?
Foundationally, lobbying is a good thing. It allows for a certain form of representation. What lobbying has turned into these days is disgusting. I know a lobbyist and know the difference between the two.
This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). While popular election of senators is sold as "the people's voice", that is already achieved by the House of Representatives as originally intended. And what really happens is senators get elected and stop representing their constituents as soon as wheels hit the runway in DC and come under the influence of lobbyists, and other congressmen offering them deals, committee positions, etc. If senators were once again commissioned by their state legislatures, the state could recall them when they stop representing the state's interests.
Instead, the existing power structures will cry about "muffling the voice of the people" if you repeal the 17th amendment, but in reality it would keep a leash on these supposed public servants who somehow end up staying in power for decades and becoming disproportionately richer at the end of their senatorial run by way of things like shady land deals that benefit them in roundabout ways (I'm looking at you Harry and Nancy; both have favored legislation that effectively increases the value of their land investments - shock!).
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
Regressive, reschmessive. Vote out the crappy incumbents.
Yes. Do this. But beware that the person you put in office in his stead is not the same. [...]
There's no realistic way to determine *what* a candidate will do once they're in office. The words don't matter, what they promise doesn't matter, fluffy nice adverts don't matter. The only metric we have that's in any way useful is what they've done *since being elected*.
Ask the meaningful questions: has your life improved over the last few years? Have you're kids gained or lost opportunities over the last few years? Has the standard of living risen over the last few years?
Once they realize that they have to actually *do* something during their term in order to get reelected, then we'll start seeing change.
Kick out the incumbents. Unless you can point to an *action* that they did that helps the lives of Americans, kick 'em out.
"if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".
Good luck to them. They deserve whatever comes of this now and in the future.
What's funny (or maybe not) is how the difference between the Republican Party & Democrat Party are is only a handful of polarizing issues. Both parties stand for the same level of regulation, spending, taxing. Both parties are anti-freedom, and both parties would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves.
Don't blame the guy offering the money. Go after the one who takes it. Then the offers will dry up.
nah, the offers won't dry up. It's like drug dealers and addicts. You can keep going after people even if they merely possessed a certain plant, but there's always more demand.
And no, that doesn't mean I'm advocating censorship (I'm not the OP/GP). Prohibition didn't work either.
I don't know what works. Maybe nothing works. Maybe this is just one of the things that make our system "the worst there is"... except for all the other ones.
Some selected examples of Republican opposition to monopolies; note that both Republicans and Democrats have opposed them at various times, but you asked for Republican examples, so here are some Republican examples:
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956
IBM Consent decree
http://news.cnet.com/40-year-o...
Richard Nixon, 1972
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Richard Nixon, 1973
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
Reagan, 1983
Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp.
http://scholar.google.com/scho...
Reagan, 1984
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
George W. Bush, 2001
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....
George W. Bush, 2007
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.
2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.
To misquote Ash: Republican? Democrat? I'm the one with the vote!
None of what you said matters - not of the republican words, not democratic promises, not adverts or sound-bites.
What matters is what they've *done* while in office. It's the only metric that matters.
Is your life better since the last election? Will your kids be better off or worse off when they leave the nest to go out on their own? Is the government giving you more freedoms or less?
You shouldn't care which party that is. Vote for change, not for words.
When they realize that they have to actually *do* something during their term in order to get re-elected, then we'll start to see some changes.
Make every single elected official list their top 5 corporate sponsors next to their name on the ballot.
Also every single bit of legislation that is not written by said congress critter needs to have the same thing we require on all ad's: This law bought by evil corporation here
With Steve Jobs dead, he's having a hard time sending out his pre-election "I urge you all to vote Democrat" emails. And yes, I have about 5 of those archived.
I don't think this is actually a major factor, I think it's more people are pissed off by the people currently in power, and want change - any change - from what's currently happening.
10,000 people is a statistical minority when it comes to a position on an national issue. If you were going to trumpet a number, trumpet 1,000,000. 10,000 is a county group getting paid by the 'same' benefactor, and living comfortably. It's the acceptable when it comes to local politics, possibly state, but not national. Especially when you're talking about a group that is wanting to continue the disenfranchisement of the middle class.
To misquote Ash: Republican? Democrat? I'm the one with the vote!
People believe the promises, so the election becomes a competition to see who can promise the best.
Is your life any better for having these party affiliations? Since the last election, has the government made the country better or worse? Will your kids have a harder or easier time when they go out into the world? Will you retire in ease or hardship?
Since the last election, do you have more freedoms or less?
Don't buy into the promises, they mean nothing. Vote against the people in office. That's the way to promote change, that's the way to force people to action.
Vote out the incumbents.
It's a cold day in the infernal regions
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law.
There are some small difficulties in the way here, like "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of speech."
The right to organize and act collectively, effectively, to protect your own interests. Which implies the right to hire or subsidize professionals as staff, advisors, spokesmen and negotiators.
The geek resists organization. He doesn't like being told that he is not particularly competent outside his own specialty.
Now and again the EFF comes into focus.
But it remains perfectly capable of descending into self-parody, as in this classic non-event event that plays out like a bad skit from Saturday Night Live:
Free Software Foundation - Windows 7 Sins
There's nothing wrong with lobbyists representing people, but most often they don't. The vast majority of them represent corporations (in other words, money). It absolutely does equate to buying legislation. The corporation weighs the benefit of legislation multiplied by the likelihood of it passing with the cost of buying the legislator. At no time are the common people involved in this process. It's not democracy.
they want there $1.21 HR with no OT labor + H-1B job lock.
10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources
You see how quickly you went from people to "resources"? Now consider extremely uneven allocation of "resources" within the population and see where your arguments end up.
If there only was some way for people to express their feelings and thoughts remotely.
Like in a written form. Or in some form of a ballot or check box. But without leaving their respective homes and towns.
Alas... such a thing will never be possible.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
You DO have a valid point. But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf? Working single mothers, and people holding down two or three jobs spend a lot of their lives in survival mode. The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.
Then there are all the sub-rosa deals made during lobbying - "My client will or won't build, (or close), a factory in your district, depending on how you vote", and the like.
How does this NOT subvert democracy?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The fact that lobbying is talked about so openly disgust me, at least in my country the politicians try to hide their corruption.
Don't bother. Most people posting about this stuff have no idea how it works. They think you can run down to the congressman store and buy a congressman as long as you have the most money. That is their view and nothing will change that. These are the same people that would rather complain about something than getting their own group together and talk to politicians.
The answer is to not give money to either side, try making a new party. Maybe the tech companies could start a trend, the current method is not working out.
how about all encounters be public record. Say a group of people (as the example given above) has a concern that a new legislation might alleviate. They pool their resources (hire a lawyer or something, let's call that person lobbyist), draft a bill send to the office of said politician (or a special office that deal with that sort of things), somebody review it, an invitation is sent to said lobbyist to assist in a committee to defend the case/concern/drafted legislation, all before everybody (no secret meetings). And when/if the said legislation is debated the lobbyist is invited again to clarify/defend it again if need rises.
or something along those lines anyways.
The problem with the system as it is now, is accessibility (not everyone is treated equally. And bias saw it with what the then Minister of heritage (or industry I can;t recall) James Moore when the copyright reform bill in Canada was debated, he outright sided with "the industry" on principle, especially on draconian DRMs and anti-circumvention a la DMCA (may be worse). And finally secrecy and backroom deals (which in a way sums up the previous points).
"This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators)."
Absolutely agree! It "breaks" the reason WHY we have a bicameral legislature in the first place.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law. ...
Who would write the laws? It doesn't look like the elected guys have that talent anymore.
Outlawing lobbying would actually be bad for democracy overall. Lobbyists are a vehicle in which an interest communicates the needs of that interest to an elected official... lobbying in general is a good thing; it is a tool of democracy that enables communication between the State and the people. Like any tool, it can be used appropriately or inappropriately. The key is to create regulation that discourages inappropriate use, not throw out the tool entirely.
True - but then, how to address the disparities that the very nature of lobbying introduces? As I mentioned in a reply above, people working two or three jobs or otherwise spending every waking hour just keeping their lives together have no practical means of hiring a lobbyist; although they might manage a letter or an email, which without the 'amplifying' effect of a lobbyist will simply be ignored. As far as I can see, "inappropriate use" is built into the very mechanism of lobbying. I don't have any ideas right now for an alternative; but for ideas to come forward I think it's first necessary to widely acknowledge that the existing mechanism is broken, probably at the design level.
And you can't outlaw lobbying from corporations, because the private sector is the engine of economic creation; it creates jobs for people and better products that improve people's lives etc. Again, yes, as a tool it can be misused, but removing the primary form of communication between the State and the economy is just a stupid idea.
The private sector can't be "an engine of economic creation" without the people it employs - and the best interests of those people are often diametrically opposed to what the directors and shareholders of corporations see as their own best interests. An uncritical and submissive position with respect to the private sector is a major contributor to the wealth concentration that is destroying the middle class. Corporatocracy != meritocracy.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
And why they are falling apart.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It may be on the books, but that doesn't make it right.
The US should institute term limits on senators.
It may be on the books, but that doesn't make it right.
Why? You don't think you should be able to help a candidate you like get his message out?
Or put it another way. Let's say a politician is running for office, and he promises that high no his list is to do something to make whatever it is that YOU do or like miserable for you. Say, looking to ban photography in city parks, or tell people they can no long fly their RC models like they've been doing for decades, anywhere in your city or state. Or that he's going to seek to institute some high new tax that singles out your profession. Whatever.
Do you really think that you should be prevented from communicating about that? Or do you think that you SHOULD be able to do something like run an ad in the local newspaper that brings attention to what you see as a dangerous campaign, but you think you should get the use of that newspaper's printing presses and employees for free? Or that your fellow taxpayers should write a check for you so you could say your mind? Would they have to do that every day, if that's how you want to do it? Every hour? Should we scrap the first amendment, and have the government prevent you from speaking your mind on something that's very important to you? Or would you have the government only prevent you from doing so if you have to pay for some paper to use in communicating, or pay to host a web site where you say it?
How is it "not right" to put your own resources into communicating a message you want people to hear? How is it not right to seek out some time with your elected representative to explain what you think, even if the only time the both of you have to do that is over breakfast before his legislative day is started?
Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Makes since. When you're a start-up you're begging for handouts, so you're like a Democrat. Then when your business is successful, you don't want to pay a lot of taxes, so you're like a Republican.
Repubs freely admit it.Dems have to sneak around and not let their base know they are WS whores. Their goal is to further rig the system in favor of Corporations at the expense of the working class and the taxpayers. I look forward to the days when voters wake up and start voting for independent candiates who just might be on their side. And by Independent I don't mean the TeaTards who are just super extremist Repubs.
The fact that lobbying is talked about so openly disgust me, at least in my country the politicians try to hide their corruption.
Oh, grow up.
Lobbying isn't corruption.
Corruption is pretending lobbying doesn't exist.
The *real* answer is to find the individuals out there who want to "break the cycle" and actually offer something more beneficial than the status-quo, and vote for them regardless of party affiliation.
I know you don't get a lot of real options when you're talking about a vote for the next President. (Truth is -- I think a lot of the people best suited to do the job well have NO interest in ever running. That's why you get such poor candidates, time after time.)
Personally, I would have really loved to see Ron Paul as President when we had the opportunity to elect him. May not have agreed 100% with him on everything, but I liked a LOT of his thinking. And realistically, you can only change or do so much while in office, since you have an entire judicial system AND a senate/congress who are probably filled with people holding opposing views. So anything Ron tried to do would have been tempered and watered down significantly before becoming law.
Right now? I like Dan Bongino for Congress in my district of Maryland. Former secret service agent who knows all about the political system and wants to stamp out a lot of the corruption - giving the common man more of a voice. There are others like him out there.... but you have to search for them and support them when they come out of the woodwork.
Because "you" as a singular voter cannot hope to overcome the "they" of highly motivated corporations and other private interests. It's a false equality, because in the end those with the money can game the system to their advantage. A major union with a couple of million bucks to "donate" is going to get the ear of a legislator a lot more than Joe Q Public.
You're invoking the standard "all things be equal" logic when all things are very much not equal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether, with long prison terms in store for those who break that law.
Wishful thinking and not workable. If we're going to go with pie in the sky solutions I prefer NASCAR style jumpsuits for all the politicians so I know who they belong to.
Lobbying in inevitable, they'd just find some other way to do it. We already have a well established mechanism for discouraging things we don't like but are going to happen anyways, it's called taxes. Of course the lobbyists would never allow politicians to pass a lobbyist tax so it's kind of a moot point.
The original system was completely corrupt in different ways, I'm not sure that would really be an improvement. My suggestion would be to switch to proportional representation for the senate. It doesn't remove the corruption issue, but it does reduce the total dominance of the two party system by giving minority parties an actual voice and that should introduce more accountability and churn between parties. If you leave the house as being regional representation I think we'd have a better balance of selection methods.
In politics, votes are the true currency, the primary source of power. Money is a secondary source of power, a tool of persuasion to get votes, nothing more.
However the voters have this terrible habit or returning incumbents to office no matter how they act. Voters rarely vote punitively to remove a politician who misbehaves or votes against the interests of the people. By failing to vote punitively the 99% abdicate their power. This opens a windows for the 1% to have undue influence. However when the politicians go against the interests of the 1% the 1% will active punitively and direct their money to the opposition. And again, why does this have undue influence? Because the 99% do not vote punitively. 1/3 vote their party, and sufficiently disinterested and uninformed others exist that can be persuaded and this is where money comes in. Emphasize that money only has this undue influence because of a failure to vote punitively, even against one's own party.
Party loyalty makes a voter irrelevant. Your party has your vote so they can ignore you. The other party can not get your vote so they can ignore you. Want politicians to pay attention to you? Want them to keep your interests in mind? Then we need voters to demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively even against their own party. Votes are the true currency of politics, threaten to deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money can save him/her. This happens on rare instances. For example where the House Minority leader lost a recent election to a local professor who spent less than 1/10th what the high profile and powerful incumbent did. We need more of this on both ends of the political spectrum. This is the only way voters can regain control, by instilling fear into politicians.
Examples of such fear do exist. Consider the two most powerful lobbies in the country, the NRA and AARP. Their power is not in money, rather it is in the literal millions of members who will show up on election day and vote their interests, who have little to no party loyalty and will vote punitively. Politicians fear these groups because they deliver ***voters***, and politicians act according, careful not to anger these two groups.
Is everybody ok with this?! Trial Lawyers *PAY* a politician to make bad laws that will generate more lawsuits, so he does. Google *PAYS* other politicians to make laws favorable to them. So they do.
It's completely outrageous and a generation ago would have been a huge scandal. Now it's business as usual. There is no more democracy.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Lobbying is not corruption in the legal sense, lobbying is corruption in the sense that people/corporations can push money down a politician throat to get the result they want.
That's way too much of a stretch to justify framing it with sarcasm. Most people only contribute one bit of information each election.
The way i see it is that for about two years now the media has been grooming Millennials to think that they're future conservatives. Just listen to NPR... Fox... talking heads... everywhere... and they've all been saying it. I think that being a bunch of youngsters without the benefit of a few years under their belt are particularly susceptible to the left-right paradigm. They haven't had the time to see the patterns repeating, so they think that they'll get reform by turning the cowpie over to the red side. It's still just a cowpie...
The one thing a government really needs is a population, and a scared, gullible one is easy to persuade. A self-sustaining population is what will get the government's attention, not a bunch of angry video gamers... (no offense). When we have a generation that doesn't need the feds so much then we've re-earned our rights back. Until then we're just a bunch of grown-up kids looking for free digs from our schizophrenic donkey-elephant riding uncle.
For me, I teach my progeny to learn tech but make good friends with farmers, hunters, and military.
I am pissing myself laughing actually. Between this Chucklehead and Chris "do as I say, not as I do" Dodd, the democrats are scratching their heads wondering where there credibility is. Its not the so called "fringe" canidates, Its not the out and out socialists. Its the proggressives and their blatant corporate and special intrests.
If they actually had a populist movement, they wouldn't have to worry about midterm elections.
What really makes sense is for those 10,000 people to talk to their neighbors about it, then vote.
Democracy. Wow.
Your point is undermined by the phrase "to campaigns".
Most money is directed around campaigns today and that money is not tracked.
And yes, the Dem with the freezer money is also part of it, but mostly we're talking about the lying and cheating that are allowed by the rules.
Wanting change "any change" is how we got ourselves into our current mess.
As a working stiff, just trying to get by, I can tell you when that when the people (on the left) in San Francisco and Oakland started to throw bricks through bus windows, doorstep engineers, and post things that said that we weren't wanted here and should GTFO, that made me re-evaluate my political allegiances.
Well, there's the import-export bank. should America maintain a large number of expensive troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should the United States send ground troops in Syria, as almost president John McCain wanted to? How to deal with Russia, no sanctions, or maybe send ground troops in there too? How should the health care system be organized?
A major union with a couple of million bucks to "donate" is going to get the ear of a legislator a lot more than Joe Q Public.
And that major union is representing more voices than just Joe Q Public's. They are representing (purportedly) Philip P. Everyman, James C. Popplar, Johnny "Tight-lips" DiMaggio, etc. When do you say to yourself that more people disagreed with you (even if it is because they are stupid and believe everything they hear), instead of blaming a nebulous boogeyman? Is it so hard to believe that the many people working and investing together in a corporation share a common goal?
But what about all those people who don't have the time to even get together with like-minded individuals, much less the money to pay a representative to lobby on their behalf?
That's exactly why people on a modest fixed retirement income become members of groups like AARP, or why even bubbas in Appalachia with hardly any cash see fit to become members of the NRA, or why no-job-having eco-activists join the Sierra Club, etc. To pool their voices, and express themselves with like minded people - and to also do that on matters that matter to them, in front of the right legislators and executive branch people.
... deals? Of COURSE people make deals. "We have a factory to build. We want to build it where it makes the most sense, and that includes a country and a state and a county and a city where the regulatory atmosphere, the tax climate, and the prospects for other growth are attractive for the long term. We think you should focus on the following legislative priorities, or we'll go somewhere that has a legislator who sees things the same way we do." Are you suggesting that people should completely ignore how the decisions made by their elected officials impact their prosperity?
And
The institution of lobbying effectively makes political change either a rich man's sport or the province of revolutionaries.
Or, the province of normal people like you and me who use all of this glorious new technology to assemble - virtually or traditionally - and be every bit as impactful on the political discourse as some rich guy or raving revolutionary. You may not like them, but look to the NRA as an example. They have a clear agenda, and millions of every-man members whose very modest dues pile up to give them the same sort of horsepower as a guy like Soros, at least within the topic on which they're focused.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Did I miss a sarcasm flag somewhere?
The "U3" unemployment rate is downright deceitful; it excludes people who are no longer applying for jobs because they've become discouraged by endless rejections (regardless of whether they became discouraged 2 weeks ago, or 5 years ago). Naturally, U3 is the measure most commonly reported in the mainstream media. As the U3 rate regularly ticks downward because more and more workers become discouraged, it has become rote for the media to release celebratory articles. But more people seem to be waking up to the fact that movements of this number are meaningless outside of the context that explains why it moved.
A true measure of economic health -- which genuinely reflects whether the demand for labor is vigorous or soft -- is the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR). It has just fallen to a the lowest value in 36 years. You specifically asked about current prosperity as compared to 10 years ago. You can go here to see a chart showing it's taken a nose dive since 10 years ago: http://static3.businessinsider...
Note that the current LFPR is even worse than it was when the so-called "Misery Index" was at its all-time high (June 1980). And the LFPR is nothing like it was during the boom years of the Clinton Administration.
Our current "booming stock market" is solely a function of the Fed artificially holding interest rates near zero. I.e., the places where "sensible" people traditionally invested money, such as a bank certificate of deposit, are currently not an option unless you're willing to settle for a return that's near zero. (Actually, those near-zero returns are negative, when adjusted for inflation.) That certainly explains why people are pouring a large portion of their savings into the stock market, does it not?
And since you're interested in genuine numbers, I trust you will stop saying that "tens of thousands" died in recent wars. The genuine numbers of combat deaths are: Afghanistan, 1,742; Iraq, 3,527. You have to go back to Vietnam to find a figure in the tens of thousands (47,424).
Has this helped?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Because "you" as a singular voter cannot hope to overcome the "they" of highly motivated corporations and other private interests. It's a false equality, because in the end those with the money can game the system to their advantage. A major union with a couple of million bucks to "donate" is going to get the ear of a legislator a lot more than Joe Q Public.
You're invoking the standard "all things be equal" logic when all things are very much not equal.
From where did said major union get that couple of millions of bucks if not from the thousands of members it's supposed to represent?
So that's like 200,000 members each giving $10, or 20,000 members each giving $100.
And that can also represent 20, 000 or 200,000 votes come election day.
As opposed to one Koch brother giving the first million and the other one the second million.
Even though that only represents 2 votes in the ballot box.
Speaking of gaming the system to their advantage.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
...or the Koch brothers.
mentioning Ebola made me immediately discredit anything you said. Isn't it the republicans that are holding up a Surgeon General vote because the candidate said something negative about guns so the NRA called out the troupes? The same folks who are screaming in congress are the ones that are directly at fault due to gun politics. Yeah, Obama's fault. Please
What about them? They spend less than rich Democrats do, so the only reason you're mention only that name is because you've got some sort of fetish about it. I wonder why.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When people on the pro-rent-seeking side of an issue has far more money to spend on speech than people on the anti-rent-seeking side, why is it always beneficial for legislators to listen more to the pro-rent-seeking side?
Silly Slashdotters, so many here think there is a difference between Democrat and Republican. This is simply not the case, they are two sides to the same coin. (The money reference here being intentional.) I doubt there as many as 3 of either flavor of politician that are unscathed by corruption or controlled in some way by money and/or power.
Whats the purpose of debating their differences? "Hmmmm, which way do I want to be enslaved...."
(disclaimer: not the other AC)
What about them? They spend less than rich Democrats do, so the only reason you're mention only that name is because you've got some sort of fetish about it. I wonder why.
Actually, you don't need to wonder why. The reason why Koch is named dropped is BECAUSE of the very lobbying you support.
You said it yourself, the D's spend more. By their lobbying, Koch has become the boogeymen that must be mentioned when we talk about Soros.
This is the bed you, for support lobbying, have laid. Enjoy.
Yet another story GUARANTEED to bring out all the cut and pasters of the same old talking points.
.vs. Bush... Every single one of these threads READS EXACTLY THE SAME and I'll bet 99% of the posters are THE SAME PEOPLE.
Can someone please explain to me... what the point is... on a web site that has no display advertising? Traffic here generates no CPI or CPC there's nothing to fucking click for crissakes. So why bother posting endless stories about global warming/cooling/climate change, gay marriage, the ACA, Obama
So let me save us all a lot of time.
for(i=0, i >infinity, i++) {
You Suck!
Reply: You Suck More!
}
Murphy was an optimist
What I support is the first amendment. I don't care if Soros or the Kochs, or Barbara Streisand spent millions of dollars to organize the groups they like and use some media buys to say what they want to say. Because the alternative is having the government tell you what you can say. The republicans area about to take over the senate. Imagine they also get the executive branch in a couple of years because nobody can possibly stand the idea of Hillary Clinton wagging her finger at them for four years. Do you want a one-party government empowered to tell you want you can say about the government, or where you can say it? I don't want any party telling me that, and neither did the people who wrote the first amendment.
If you don't like the effect of communication aimed at swaying people's opinions about candidates or issues, focus your efforts on getting parents to teach critical thinking skills to their kids, so that such advertising won't work later when they grow up. You don't find that such ads change your behavior, do you? Are you that weak-minded? I don't find that they change mine, though I respect your right to run such an ad if you want to.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Small businesses in which entrepreneurs put their sweat, blood and devotion into their work continue to get sued by patent trolls... just because the attorneys who get a commission in such cases pass it on to a guy in a position of power in the form of donations.
How can people be so pettily selfish, while realizing that there are others out there willing to take bullets so that their countrymen can continue to live comfortably.
I almost always vote for the Green Party, independents and anyone but the D's and R's. To vote for one of the two main parties I need to know who they are before I cast the vote and feel they're something worthwhile... or I'll just pick whoever else is on the ballot. Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul would come to mind to being from the mainstream parties that I would cast a ballot for, not that I agree with the latter's ideas in all cases.. but either of them would shake things up.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.