Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that, in many (if not most) publicly financed campaign systems, the idiots get filtered out in the first stage of the election cycle because they never receive enough votes, or signatures. Consequently, they never receive very much (if anything) in the way of public funding.
If elections are publicly financed, then how does a candidate without name recognition bootstrap? And if the answer is "everyone gets equal financial support," then what prevents 1000 candidates from running?
As I was saying, more than half of all political campaigns at the State level are already publicly financed in some way and they don't have such problems. Moreover, political campaigns in most other western democracies are also publicly funded and they seem to get by, so I wouldn't worry about it. At any rate, it would certainly be better than the mess we have now.
Just repeal the damned PATRIOT act. IT was supposed to be a temporary measure and it needs to go away now. Why dont these senators have any backbone or honestly left in them and just repeal it?
Completely agree, but I fear that won't happen (not even the USA Freedom Act) because Congress doesn't work for us anymore: they work for rich folks and for the corporations. That's because bribery is legal these days and those in Congress have found that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins. Consequently, fundraising is what they do 60% of the time; "following the green," as they call it. So, if companies like Booz Allen Hamilton start instructing their stooges in Congress on both sides of the isle about what they want, the PATRIOT Act will remain and the USA Freedom Act will fail.
To fix that and many other things, we first need to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
...What we need to know is how to defeat them and pull the reins back in and get back in control of those gone rogue agencies that have respect for neither Constitution,Law nor Country...
That may be a tall order in some other countries, but in the United States the way to do it is with Article Five of the Constitution, which says that there are two ways to alter that document, the second one being a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (min. 34) of the 50 states, after which the change must be ratified by at least three-fourths (min. 38) of the states.
Article V is a powerful tool that way included specifically to bypass a corrupt Congress. We need to use it now to get money out of politics, which is ultimately reason for our dysfunctional Congress. Our representatives no longer work for us: they work for the big corporations, such as Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the company that developed the PRISM program for the NSA. BAH earns almost all of its money from US government contracts, and it is extremely likely that they annually spend millions of their earnings to legally bribe our politicians in order to keep those contracts coming. This situation has become a gigantic self-licking ice cream cone that must be stopped.
If this makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Article V is necessary because Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, but already many states have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles -- a group that can be trusted to put an end to this huge spying scandal.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which granted some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there would be nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
PS -- If we do succeed in using Article V for this purpose, it won't be the first time it was used. The reason we can directly elect our senators today is because Nebraska started calling for an Article V Convention way back in in 1893.
Personally, I love the idea of autonomous vehicles, but what about privacy? These days, almost all smart phone users must assume that anything they do with the device is being recorded by one or more spy agencies, so will that also be true for self-driving cars? At this point in our history I imagine the answer would have to be yes, which I find depressing.
In the future I hope things will be different, but then we will first have to get money out of politics.
Actually, since we now know that we're almost certainly giving the NSA insight into our thoughts and activities when we disclose our identities here at Slashdot and elsewhere on the web, perhaps we should start referring to this person as Anonymous Hero instead. Those who still don't have much respect for the practice could consider the new name to be ironic.
Here in the Netherlands FTTH is not at all that expensive. I currently have an 8/1 Mbps ADSL connection for about EUR 30.50 a month, while a 100/100 Mbps fiber connection from the same provider costs EUR 55.93 a month (in 2005 I was still paying around EUR 80.00 for the fastest DSL connection). There are cheaper providers, but I would prefer mine (XS4ALL) over the competition any day. Moreover, the houses in all recently built neighborhoods in this country already have fiber connections instead of copper (so maybe I just need to move).
Fiber also has another advantage for people like myself: no modem required. Instead, all I would have to do is connect my server's external Ethernet interface directly to the Internet port on an Optical Network Terminal. On the server side, this makes it necessary to install and configure the ppp package and set up an iptables firewall, but I already do all that. What it would save me from doing, however, is always worrying about finding a suitable modem that supports something like PPP-passthough, or SIP-spoof, or DHCP-spoof, so that I can bypass the horrid routing software that's always included with DSL modems these days.
As for your last point, though, I suspect that you're right. I once asked Reggefiber, a company that installs FTTH in the Netherlands, if they were planning to do anything in my neighborhood, and they said no. When asked under what circumstances they would change their mind, they said that if I personally were to conduct a survey of all of the 2000 or so homes in my area and discovered that at least 40-50% of the people would be interested in swapping their copper for a fiber connection, then Reggefiber might be interested. Then again, maybe not; they refused to give any guarantee. I'm sure they are very aware of any perceived consumer disinterest.
With ADSL2+ here in the Netherlands I used to get as much as 16/1 Mbps down/up. Then in mid-2008 DSL became so popular in my neighborhood that the resultant crosstalk reduced my download speed to less than 8 Mbps. I now have the option to upgrade my connection to VDSL, but for some reason I'm not too enthusiastic about it.
... G.fast is designed to deliver superfast downloads up to a distance of 250 meters, thereby eliminating the expense of installing fibre between the distribution point and people’s homes.
Because that's what this is all about. It's yet another excuse not to make the investment we've all been waiting so long for. And besides, most subscribers will not be within 250 meters of their DSLAM anyway, crosstalk can still lead to a significant reduction in performance and the upload speed will always be just a fraction of 1Gbps.
Will the only way forward be for us to nationalize our telecommunications infrastructure?
... The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.
You have my sympathy, but outspending the big corporations is futile. Not to mention that doing so should not be necessary in a healthy democracy. The reason all that money is so effective in Washington D.C. is because of government corruption -- bribery in the form of campaign donations and Super PAC support that is currently legal. As a result, for those in Congress today 94-95% of the time the ability to raise the most money is what got them (re)elected. Moreover, since that kind of money always comes with strings attached, our representatives no longer work for us: they work for the corporations who happen not to give give a damn about the environment.
However, there is a solution: get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. For it to pass it would have to be ratified by at least 38 States, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles: a group capable of fixing much more difficult problems than those in power today.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which granted some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there would be nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
There have always been numerous problems with that famous Bond car. For example, it was light enough to be agile like a sports car, but it was nevertheless heavy enough to sink despite having a cabin being largely filled with air. And, what about its pressure hull: how could it be light-weight with a flattened shape, yet still be strong enough to withstand several atmospheres of pressure? By all rights it should be crushed at just a few meters depth. In many ways, making a spacecraft is easier than making a submarine.
On the other hand, if the aim is still to keep the car as light and sporty as possible, it seems to me that an amphibious sports car would be much more do-able, especially if it were to make use of hydrofoils, instead of relying on a streamlined hull, to make it travel more quickly through the water. It might not even be necessary to retract the wheels; just as long as it would remain afloat when sitting on the water and tend to keep its nose up when under power.
The hope is that there will be no need to worry about that. According to the plan:
Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention.
You might also be interested to know this:
Near the turn of the 20th century the states wanted a direct election of senators, and Nebraska was the first state to call for an Article V. Convention in 1893. By 1913 the movement had come within one state of reaching the necessary 2/3 threshold that would force a convention. When it became clear to Congress that the 17th Amendment was going to happen one way or another they decided to preempt a convention by passing it themselves. The threat of a convention is the strongest message we can send and the most effective way to restore our democracy in the United States. This can and must be done in a far shorter time period then it took for the 17th Amendment, then again, they didn't have the power of the internet and other technology we will be using in this battle.
Agreed. I've always seen myself as a progressive and have voted for Democratic candidates since the 1980s, but after the Obama experience I'm not so sure. There are a few exceptions, but otherwise it's clear to me that both of the two major parties are almost completely corrupt. For instance, do you think things would have been much different under Hillary than under Obama? I don't think so. They're both establishment figures who's real masters are the big corporations -- that's where they get most of the money for their campaigns. But that kind of cash always comes with strings attached.
If we ever want to see this kind of corruption end, our first goal must be to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
The ability to make financial contributions used to be better regulated by laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, that was unfortunately overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010. The latter ruling is what makes such contributions a First Amendment right for corporations, as if they were also natural persons instead of just legal persons.
Furthermore, at the State level over half of all elections in the United States are already publicly financed, so why would it be so impossible to do at the Federal level? For example, there's the Patriot Dollar idea. Whichever way it's done, it sure would cut back on the corruption we see in Congress today.
...The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.
America may now be the world's biggest oil producer, but in contrast to other oil producing countries around the world, where multinational oil companies must hand over most of their profits (90% in Saudi Arabia), when they pump it out of the ground in the United States they pay zero taxes and are even subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Why? Because of political bribery, now legal thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has created a corrupt Congress that affects both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Luckily there is still hope: it's called Wolf-PAC. This organization was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass an Amendment like this on its own, the idea is to have the State Legislators propose it instead by way of an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, so it's not an easy thing to do, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, Congress should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
Please note that the "right-wingers" got into congress by BEING ELECTED, by voters who support what they're doing....
Ultimately you're correct, but that's only part of how congressional (and presidential) candidates get elected these days. In reality 94-95% of the time the candidate that wins the election was the one able to raise the most money -- lots of it. But in almost all those cases, most of the campaign money comes a small group of donors: corporations and the super rich. Unfortunately, that kind of money always comes with strings attached, so if a candidate refuses to put the interests of their donors before those of their constituents, the donors simply take their money and support a more willing candidate instead. This affects both Democratic and Republican candidates alike. In all other developed countries it's referred to as political corruption, but in the United States it was basically made legal in 2010 thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
Therefore, it can be argued that America is currently not really a democracy; it's more of a plutocracy or a corporatocracy. This is very unfortunate for Americans, among whom income inequality is now at almost the same level as it was at the beginning of the Great Depression in 1928, despite the fact that productivity has risen steadily since the end of WWII, and has even increased since the end of the 1990s. It's also a blight on the rest of the world, because of America's position as the dominant military and economic power.
Luckily, it may not be too late because of two things. First, democracy is apparently still doing pretty well at the State level, and second, this means that it is still possible to organize an Article V Convention for the purpose of amending to the US Constitution and setting things right. One group is attempting to do just that: Wolf-PAC. Launched in 2011, their goal is to pass a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. At least 34 States need to cooperate for such a Convention to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, the corruption that affects all politicians in the US Federal Government should mostly be gone within one or two election cycles, but until then... try to be a little more understanding of American voters.
... I guess they really are just like all the other cars out there.
A car that can't suddenly roast its occupants in an explosion should be regarded as a step forwards. Don't forget how dangerous it is to travel at speed in a vehicle that carries both a tank of highly volatile liquid and an engine that, even when functioning properly, turns 70-75% of that potential energy into heat.
Conversely it would be better if the outside of beer glasses were more hydrophilic, because the longer every drop of water can be delayed from rolling off the surface and leaving more room for condensation to take place, the more time we would have to drink the beer at a suitably low temperature.
Not necessarily. We're not always as nuanced, but I suspect that many if not most of our members are not so upset with corporations being seen as legal persons with certain legal rights and duties, which has been the case since the 19th century, as they are with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that gave corporations additional rights previously reserved only for natural persons, particularly the right to make political independent expenditures under the First Amendment.
Who said anything about eliminating corporations? Corporations are fine as long as they are properly regulated. It's lack of effective regulation and deregulation that has messed things up.
It's great that you're willing to sign the WOLF-PAC petition, because money in politics does far more damage than you may think. Sure, democracy is a messy business even in the best of times, but it's always preferable to an authoritarian regime.
Corporate influence on our politicians should always be limited to prevent corruption, but right now very little limits that influence at all. This affects both parties, because 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins the election, while most have found that getting their money from a small number of big donors is much more effective than getting it from many small ones. But that kind of money always comes with strings attached, which is exactly why Congress has such a low approval rating these days: they spend virtually all their time trying to keep their donors happy -- not their actual constituents.
Don't get me wrong here: we will always need corporations, because usually they are a force for good. For most things in our lives, we depend on the goods and services they produce. But certain rules need to apply to them lest things get out of hand. After all, they should serve us and not vice versa.
Of course, that's not how the corporations see it, for in the end the only thing that motivates them is profit. That's why to some extent all of them continue to bend and break the rules (pollution, money laundering, monopolistic practices, etc. etc.) whenever they think the benefits outweigh the costs. One of the tasks of government is to keep after them and make sure those costs (e.g. fines) always outweigh the benefits, but unfortunately it seems that Congress is no longer very effective at this. In fact, all they seem to be interested in is deregulation. Gee, I wonder why...
Change does not come from within. Real change must be made from the outside.
Correct, and here's how to do it: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article Five Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, the real problem should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that, in many (if not most) publicly financed campaign systems, the idiots get filtered out in the first stage of the election cycle because they never receive enough votes, or signatures. Consequently, they never receive very much (if anything) in the way of public funding.
If elections are publicly financed, then how does a candidate without name recognition bootstrap? And if the answer is "everyone gets equal financial support," then what prevents 1000 candidates from running?
As I was saying, more than half of all political campaigns at the State level are already publicly financed in some way and they don't have such problems. Moreover, political campaigns in most other western democracies are also publicly funded and they seem to get by, so I wouldn't worry about it. At any rate, it would certainly be better than the mess we have now.
Just repeal the damned PATRIOT act. IT was supposed to be a temporary measure and it needs to go away now. Why dont these senators have any backbone or honestly left in them and just repeal it?
Completely agree, but I fear that won't happen (not even the USA Freedom Act) because Congress doesn't work for us anymore: they work for rich folks and for the corporations. That's because bribery is legal these days and those in Congress have found that 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins. Consequently, fundraising is what they do 60% of the time; "following the green," as they call it. So, if companies like Booz Allen Hamilton start instructing their stooges in Congress on both sides of the isle about what they want, the PATRIOT Act will remain and the USA Freedom Act will fail.
To fix that and many other things, we first need to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
...What we need to know is how to defeat them and pull the reins back in and get back in control of those gone rogue agencies that have respect for neither Constitution ,Law nor Country...
That may be a tall order in some other countries, but in the United States the way to do it is with Article Five of the Constitution, which says that there are two ways to alter that document, the second one being a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (min. 34) of the 50 states, after which the change must be ratified by at least three-fourths (min. 38) of the states.
Article V is a powerful tool that way included specifically to bypass a corrupt Congress. We need to use it now to get money out of politics, which is ultimately reason for our dysfunctional Congress. Our representatives no longer work for us: they work for the big corporations, such as Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the company that developed the PRISM program for the NSA. BAH earns almost all of its money from US government contracts, and it is extremely likely that they annually spend millions of their earnings to legally bribe our politicians in order to keep those contracts coming. This situation has become a gigantic self-licking ice cream cone that must be stopped.
If this makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Article V is necessary because Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, but already many states have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles -- a group that can be trusted to put an end to this huge spying scandal.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which granted some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there would be nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
PS -- If we do succeed in using Article V for this purpose, it won't be the first time it was used. The reason we can directly elect our senators today is because Nebraska started calling for an Article V Convention way back in in 1893.
Personally, I love the idea of autonomous vehicles, but what about privacy? These days, almost all smart phone users must assume that anything they do with the device is being recorded by one or more spy agencies, so will that also be true for self-driving cars? At this point in our history I imagine the answer would have to be yes, which I find depressing.
In the future I hope things will be different, but then we will first have to get money out of politics .
Actually, since we now know that we're almost certainly giving the NSA insight into our thoughts and activities when we disclose our identities here at Slashdot and elsewhere on the web, perhaps we should start referring to this person as Anonymous Hero instead. Those who still don't have much respect for the practice could consider the new name to be ironic.
Here in the Netherlands FTTH is not at all that expensive. I currently have an 8/1 Mbps ADSL connection for about EUR 30.50 a month, while a 100/100 Mbps fiber connection from the same provider costs EUR 55.93 a month (in 2005 I was still paying around EUR 80.00 for the fastest DSL connection). There are cheaper providers, but I would prefer mine (XS4ALL) over the competition any day. Moreover, the houses in all recently built neighborhoods in this country already have fiber connections instead of copper (so maybe I just need to move).
Fiber also has another advantage for people like myself: no modem required. Instead, all I would have to do is connect my server's external Ethernet interface directly to the Internet port on an Optical Network Terminal. On the server side, this makes it necessary to install and configure the ppp package and set up an iptables firewall, but I already do all that. What it would save me from doing, however, is always worrying about finding a suitable modem that supports something like PPP-passthough, or SIP-spoof, or DHCP-spoof, so that I can bypass the horrid routing software that's always included with DSL modems these days.
As for your last point, though, I suspect that you're right. I once asked Reggefiber, a company that installs FTTH in the Netherlands, if they were planning to do anything in my neighborhood, and they said no. When asked under what circumstances they would change their mind, they said that if I personally were to conduct a survey of all of the 2000 or so homes in my area and discovered that at least 40-50% of the people would be interested in swapping their copper for a fiber connection, then Reggefiber might be interested. Then again, maybe not; they refused to give any guarantee. I'm sure they are very aware of any perceived consumer disinterest.
With ADSL2+ here in the Netherlands I used to get as much as 16/1 Mbps down/up. Then in mid-2008 DSL became so popular in my neighborhood that the resultant crosstalk reduced my download speed to less than 8 Mbps. I now have the option to upgrade my connection to VDSL, but for some reason I'm not too enthusiastic about it.
From the 16 July ITU press release:
Because that's what this is all about. It's yet another excuse not to make the investment we've all been waiting so long for. And besides, most subscribers will not be within 250 meters of their DSLAM anyway, crosstalk can still lead to a significant reduction in performance and the upload speed will always be just a fraction of 1Gbps.
Will the only way forward be for us to nationalize our telecommunications infrastructure?
... The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.
You have my sympathy, but outspending the big corporations is futile. Not to mention that doing so should not be necessary in a healthy democracy. The reason all that money is so effective in Washington D.C. is because of government corruption -- bribery in the form of campaign donations and Super PAC support that is currently legal. As a result, for those in Congress today 94-95% of the time the ability to raise the most money is what got them (re)elected. Moreover, since that kind of money always comes with strings attached, our representatives no longer work for us: they work for the corporations who happen not to give give a damn about the environment.
However, there is a solution: get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. For it to pass it would have to be ratified by at least 38 States, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles: a group capable of fixing much more difficult problems than those in power today.
.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which granted some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there would be nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
There have always been numerous problems with that famous Bond car. For example, it was light enough to be agile like a sports car, but it was nevertheless heavy enough to sink despite having a cabin being largely filled with air. And, what about its pressure hull: how could it be light-weight with a flattened shape, yet still be strong enough to withstand several atmospheres of pressure? By all rights it should be crushed at just a few meters depth. In many ways, making a spacecraft is easier than making a submarine.
On the other hand, if the aim is still to keep the car as light and sporty as possible, it seems to me that an amphibious sports car would be much more do-able, especially if it were to make use of hydrofoils, instead of relying on a streamlined hull, to make it travel more quickly through the water. It might not even be necessary to retract the wheels; just as long as it would remain afloat when sitting on the water and tend to keep its nose up when under power.
The hope is that there will be no need to worry about that. According to the plan:
Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention.
You might also be interested to know this:
Near the turn of the 20th century the states wanted a direct election of senators, and Nebraska was the first state to call for an Article V. Convention in 1893. By 1913 the movement had come within one state of reaching the necessary 2/3 threshold that would force a convention. When it became clear to Congress that the 17th Amendment was going to happen one way or another they decided to preempt a convention by passing it themselves. The threat of a convention is the strongest message we can send and the most effective way to restore our democracy in the United States. This can and must be done in a far shorter time period then it took for the 17th Amendment, then again, they didn't have the power of the internet and other technology we will be using in this battle.
... a high-speed object collides with it. Because on a billion-year timescale the universe is a shooting gallery and everything is a target.
Agreed. I've always seen myself as a progressive and have voted for Democratic candidates since the 1980s, but after the Obama experience I'm not so sure. There are a few exceptions, but otherwise it's clear to me that both of the two major parties are almost completely corrupt. For instance, do you think things would have been much different under Hillary than under Obama? I don't think so. They're both establishment figures who's real masters are the big corporations -- that's where they get most of the money for their campaigns. But that kind of cash always comes with strings attached.
If we ever want to see this kind of corruption end, our first goal must be to get money out of politics.
If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.
*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.
**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.
The ability to make financial contributions used to be better regulated by laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, that was unfortunately overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010. The latter ruling is what makes such contributions a First Amendment right for corporations, as if they were also natural persons instead of just legal persons.
Furthermore, at the State level over half of all elections in the United States are already publicly financed, so why would it be so impossible to do at the Federal level? For example, there's the Patriot Dollar idea. Whichever way it's done, it sure would cut back on the corruption we see in Congress today.
Your skepticism is admirable, but Google is (mostly) your friend. For example, Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S., or America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies, or Happy 100th Birthday, Big Oil Tax Breaks. From the last article:
America may now be the world's biggest oil producer, but in contrast to other oil producing countries around the world, where multinational oil companies must hand over most of their profits (90% in Saudi Arabia), when they pump it out of the ground in the United States they pay zero taxes and are even subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Why? Because of political bribery, now legal thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has created a corrupt Congress that affects both Democrats and Republicans alike.
Luckily there is still hope: it's called Wolf-PAC. This organization was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass an Amendment like this on its own, the idea is to have the State Legislators propose it instead by way of an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, so it's not an easy thing to do, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, Congress should be fixed within one or two election cycles.
Please note that the "right-wingers" got into congress by BEING ELECTED, by voters who support what they're doing. ...
Ultimately you're correct, but that's only part of how congressional (and presidential) candidates get elected these days. In reality 94-95% of the time the candidate that wins the election was the one able to raise the most money -- lots of it. But in almost all those cases, most of the campaign money comes a small group of donors: corporations and the super rich. Unfortunately, that kind of money always comes with strings attached, so if a candidate refuses to put the interests of their donors before those of their constituents, the donors simply take their money and support a more willing candidate instead. This affects both Democratic and Republican candidates alike. In all other developed countries it's referred to as political corruption, but in the United States it was basically made legal in 2010 thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
Therefore, it can be argued that America is currently not really a democracy; it's more of a plutocracy or a corporatocracy. This is very unfortunate for Americans, among whom income inequality is now at almost the same level as it was at the beginning of the Great Depression in 1928, despite the fact that productivity has risen steadily since the end of WWII, and has even increased since the end of the 1990s. It's also a blight on the rest of the world, because of America's position as the dominant military and economic power.
Luckily, it may not be too late because of two things. First, democracy is apparently still doing pretty well at the State level, and second, this means that it is still possible to organize an Article V Convention for the purpose of amending to the US Constitution and setting things right. One group is attempting to do just that: Wolf-PAC. Launched in 2011, their goal is to pass a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. At least 34 States need to cooperate for such a Convention to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, the corruption that affects all politicians in the US Federal Government should mostly be gone within one or two election cycles, but until then... try to be a little more understanding of American voters.
... I guess they really are just like all the other cars out there.
A car that can't suddenly roast its occupants in an explosion should be regarded as a step forwards. Don't forget how dangerous it is to travel at speed in a vehicle that carries both a tank of highly volatile liquid and an engine that, even when functioning properly, turns 70-75% of that potential energy into heat.
Conversely it would be better if the outside of beer glasses were more hydrophilic, because the longer every drop of water can be delayed from rolling off the surface and leaving more room for condensation to take place, the more time we would have to drink the beer at a suitably low temperature.
Other than everyone on Slashdot, every day?
Not necessarily. We're not always as nuanced, but I suspect that many if not most of our members are not so upset with corporations being seen as legal persons with certain legal rights and duties, which has been the case since the 19th century, as they are with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that gave corporations additional rights previously reserved only for natural persons, particularly the right to make political independent expenditures under the First Amendment.
... a watery tart.
Who said anything about eliminating corporations? Corporations are fine as long as they are properly regulated. It's lack of effective regulation and deregulation that has messed things up.
It's great that you're willing to sign the WOLF-PAC petition, because money in politics does far more damage than you may think. Sure, democracy is a messy business even in the best of times, but it's always preferable to an authoritarian regime.
Corporate influence on our politicians should always be limited to prevent corruption, but right now very little limits that influence at all. This affects both parties, because 94-95% of the time the candidate with the most money wins the election, while most have found that getting their money from a small number of big donors is much more effective than getting it from many small ones. But that kind of money always comes with strings attached, which is exactly why Congress has such a low approval rating these days: they spend virtually all their time trying to keep their donors happy -- not their actual constituents.
Don't get me wrong here: we will always need corporations, because usually they are a force for good. For most things in our lives, we depend on the goods and services they produce. But certain rules need to apply to them lest things get out of hand. After all, they should serve us and not vice versa.
Of course, that's not how the corporations see it, for in the end the only thing that motivates them is profit. That's why to some extent all of them continue to bend and break the rules (pollution, money laundering, monopolistic practices, etc. etc.) whenever they think the benefits outweigh the costs. One of the tasks of government is to keep after them and make sure those costs (e.g. fines) always outweigh the benefits, but unfortunately it seems that Congress is no longer very effective at this. In fact, all they seem to be interested in is deregulation. Gee, I wonder why...
Change does not come from within. Real change must be made from the outside.
Correct, and here's how to do it: WOLF-PAC. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article Five Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, the real problem should be fixed within one or two election cycles.