CFTM (513264) wrote: ... being an ideologue is so much fun! ......
It's even more fun when you realize that labels such as Democrat or Republican have no organization or individual with the authority to organize politicians under any such labels. Private, member-based, political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. About the only things that organizes politicians are wealth and previously elected (incumbent) politicians!
I_Voter
Much like Alice's Cheshire cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very independent, entrepreneur politicians.
I would tend to agree with all of it.
My comments were just a satire on the previous posters comment about "all" registered Democrats favoring of welfare. I was just pointing out that the Republicans were now quite willing to give welfare to broke and unproductive economic entities.
I_Voter
A number of years ago, I typed out and published on the web, the following copyright expired article. Read it if you think that I oppose "democratic" government manipulation of the economy. It's been getting a lot of hits lately. It may be one of the earliest suggestions that lack of demand by consumers can cause or sustain an economic crisis. This humorous story published in 1897 is much earlier than John Maynard Keynes, and his "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" published in 1936.
The Parable of the Water-Tank
published by Edward Bellamy in 1897 http://www.geocities.com/stewjackmail/parable.html
non-citizen Kral_Blbec wrote:
"I'm a Republican because not everybody can be on welfare"
----
I'm with you brother! But I think there may have been some Republicans involved.
First it's $700 billion for mortgage giants and banks. Then its free low credit from the federal reserve.. Now look at what those sneaky Democrats plan to give to the poor and unproductive.
".. the administration is working to speed the distribution to automakers of $25 billion in factory retooling funds authorized by Congress last month, the official told Reuters."
SOURCE: Treasury not negotiating aid for GM merger
It's not all bad news if you favor the people vs the state.
From the article:
"Pretty small but intelligent criminal organizations are pulling off transnational, multicontinent heists that only a foreign intelligence service would have been able to do a few years ago," said Joel F. Brenner, the U.S. government's top counterintelligence officer.
And your willing to believe what the U.S. government's top counterintelligence officer said.
Shakra wrote:
It's rather pink of you to call our democratic process a charade.
-----
A PBS mind in a Fox News world.
====
First just let me mention that almost all PBS stations are controlled by non-profit corporations who's board appoints their own successors. Any connection with a "democratic" process could be described as a charade - even compared with our corporate media!
Second, the question of how much our U.S. democratic process is a charade ( compared with other democratic nations ) while somewhat subjective is an important question.
Lets just consider the fairly unique nature of U.S. political parties.
QUOTE FROM 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE:
American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
The tyranny of the two-party system,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
As someone in the U.S. who is a consumer of IT services, I would like to say how much I really admire the large number of Slashdots that desire to remain productive, even if it means that they suffer low wages and or long work hours.
However, to the extent I believed that a labor union or professional organization would increase my material or economic well being I personally would be willing to join one.
I am aware that the U.S. has little democracy and therefore self-sacrificing citizenship is unlikely to be rewarded. I am aware that legally and politically speaking, the U.S. is all about money. I am aware that your economic status has much to do with your personal life expectancy, not to mention that of your family.
Captain Splendid wrote:
Somebody please tell me why we're still fisting Adam Smith's very dry corpse?
-----
I think your familiarity with Adam Smith is limited.
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. ....Snip...
But a company of merchants are, it seems, incapable of considering themselves as sovereigns . . . Their mercantile habits draw them in this manner, almost necessarily, though perhaps insensibly, to prefer upon all ordinary occasions the little and transitory profit of the monopolist to the great and permanent revenue of the sovereign . .. As sovereigns, their interest is exactly the same with that of the country which they govern. As merchants their interest is directly opposite to that interest.
(Book_Four*Chapt_VII*Of_Colonies)
... a source of reliable news that includes all relevant facts.
--------
While I am not claiming that anything you wrote was incorrect, I hope you understand that relevant facts can, and in politics usually are, - subjective. What is relevant to one individual is not relevant to another.
Adam Smith in economics, and James Madison in politics, ( among many others ) used the term "interests." There are many areas of objective and common interests, but in general there can be no such thing as objective journalism. The advertiser funded media serves the economic and political interests of it's paying customers - above the economic and political interests of it's readers.
Democracy and markets are both based on serving the needs of their customers. They are both based on competition. Competition of politicians for votes and competition of products for sales. They both serve the PUBLIC interest.
An advertiser funded media does not serve the public interest.
This Socialist Ideology is famous as the shortest and simplest Socialist Ideology known to exist. Additionally, it's near universal acceptance by the general public puts it into a class of it's own. No pun intended.
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. - at least as they are traditionally understood.
We now lack enforceable party platforms. This weakened the ability of the citizens to make deals between different interest groups in society. IMO: A classic case of "divide and conquer." (the electorate)
Great Quote from 1927 "Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy
nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions
or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine
how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party
and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in
great detail." SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
---
Many people who are familiar with U.S. constitutional history would tend to find that to be a provocative statement. The relationship between the law and the people has changed radically over time.
The following polemic article may provide some understanding of what I am talking about.
IMO: A history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. would show an ever increasing franchise, along with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry has far less political power today than they would have had in say 1830.
My ( under construction ) web site -
Political Power in the U.S.:
and why you don't have any! http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
Here is one interesting example of a legitimate use.
Try Something New
NASA TV Via Peer-to-Peer Streaming
NASA and Digimeld are conducting a pilot study to stream NASA TV using Digimeld's peer-to-peer streaming technology
The Anonymous Coward who wrote...
In Sweden it has actually hit mainstream Politics, and there is a Political Party with legalizing P2p on its agenda.
The current activities of the PirateBay are fully legal in Sweden.
... makes an interesting point, but I hope that most people are aware that "mainstream politics," has less to do with the average U.S. citizen than it would in Sweden.
It is my view that although the pile of democratic nations in the world has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
The U.S. has few majority or runoff elections for state or national office. It has no proportional representation elections using multi-member districts at the same level. In fact the federal government has outlawed such elections for U.S. House elections.
Jury nullification, probably the average U.S. citizens strongest influence on government granted by the U.S. Constitution has been gutted by the U.S. Supreme court!
Unlike Sweden, the U.S. no longer has political parties in the traditional sense. Such parties, with enforceable party platforms, have been effectively outlawed. U.S. political parties do not have public agendas, except in both rare and partial instances. ( see below )
.... keeps the worst of human nature from destroying the free market.
-----------
My Question: What is the "free market"?
I think a little historical background on the traditional U.S. view of the political economy would be helpful at this time.
The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -
"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest,
with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them
into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of
these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation,
and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation
of government."
Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time,"people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830.
At the time of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, in 1787, most state governments had property requirements for voting and Madison spoke in favor of requiring one for voting in federal elections. Madison; as well as most members of the Constitutional Convention, believed that the only people who should have a legal authority, (the franchise) to influence the government, (vote for a representative) were property owners. However; members of the convention could not agree on exactly what property requirements should be required, and decided to rely on the states voting requirements to protect their political power. Madison accepted this but worried about the future.
The following Madison quote is from James Madison's personal records of the
Constitutional Convention.
"Viewing the subject on its merits alone, the freeholders, (property owners without debt), of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property."
From Farrand's Records, [ MADISON August 7th. In Convention ]
My Answer: The "free market" is defined by whoever has the power to do so. In the U.S., the Supreme court is probably guided by the above historical tradition.
NewbieProgrammerMan wrote:
See, it wasn't supposed to work like that, at least on paper.
---
Actually our "founding fathers," tended to trust people more than pieces of paper. Their famous bad mouthing of democracy, at least in it's pure form, doesn't change the fact that the citizen jury, not the Supreme court, was the primary defense against government tyranny.
This is how it worked in England, and the English replacement of jury trials with admiralty courts was a prime reason for the colonies declaration of war.
IMO: A history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. would show an ever increasing franchise, along with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the voter has far less political power today than they would have had in say 1830.
We certainly have two distinct parties despite the fact that they only oppose each other out of spite and grandstanding rather than on principles.
------
I think it would be more accurate, at least from an international perspective, to say that: Starting in the late nineteenth century the U.S. has managed to effectively outlaw political parties. We have ballot labels that individual candidates are free legally to choose at will.
Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
SOURCE:
_American Parties and Elections_,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
_The tyranny of the two-party system_,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
A short polemic article on the subject.
Can You Define What a Political Party is? http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
Things in Japan work differently than they do here.
------
Would you believe that I actually RTFA - and if it is accurate I certainly agree with you.
"Soon after the war we followed the U.S. model with the government issuing licenses through the FCC," Hizumi said. "As one party, the LDP, came to dominate politics, it sought more control of the media so the FCC was abolished. There is no ombudsman here, so the government controls the media directly. With this new bill, the LDP will seek to do the same for the Internet."
Certainly, such a construct has benefited the LDP, which has enjoyed nearly unbroken rule in Japan since 1955. Since then, government's cozy relationship with big media has become legendary, as has the media's self-censorship, which, Hizumi said, had repeatedly restricted the spectrum of voices heard - until the arrival of the Internet started to open the field up to dissent.
Now as a democrat I will accept that; if the Japanese people have not thrown, and will not throw, that political party out of power - they still have the right to self determination. However: They may also have to censor the international net. I suspect that this is not going to be in the material interest of the Japanese people.
Note: I am not claiming that article is accurate. I am not very familiar with Japan.
The two frontrunners for their party's nominations, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, are both active backers of instant runoff voting (IRV). In 2002, Sen. McCain recorded a message for backers of IRV in Alaska, while that year Sen. Obama was the lead sponsor of legislation to implement IRV for certain Illinois elections. With most third party candidates also supporting IRV, we may see a rare issue of consensus this November, although neither McCain nor Obama have yet secured their party's nomination.
Any dictionary that defines Republic == Democracy is wrong. There are many, many Republics in the world that don't have any democracy of any kind. For example, the former Soviet Socialist Republics, and modern-day Republic of China.
---------
We both agree that they are not democracies. However, they still fit the older definition of a republic as lack of rule by a King - or Emperor in the case of China and the Soviet Union. In general, these forms of government would also fill your ambition of rule by law as administered by a judge who was not restricted by a citizen jury. Maybe you should praise these republics?
They probably proclaim civil liberties and individual rights also. However since power, including the power to make laws, is not held by the people, I would guess their actual benefits to the people are limited. Of course the people have some rights based on the desire of the state to keep the people willing to protect and defend the homeland security. I would bet that the more secure the state feels the less reward the state provides.
------
electrictroy also wrote:
Under a Democracy, the majority can squash the minority underfoot with a simple 50%+1 vote. Under the U.S. Republic, the majority can not do that because the LAW reigns supreme, and our law includes a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from being squashed by the majority.
---------
Words are defined by common usage, and are quite "democratic." I think some of your definitions are out of date. You are talking about what is more often called "pure" democracy. Since jury nullification is a negative or defensive form of political power, I could hardly have called it a form of representative democracy. However, it is not "pure" democracy either.
Why are you equating a citizens power that can only be applied to people who voluntarily submit to it - with a tyranny of the majority? It's the individuals choice! It empowers the individual!
All the world democracies that I am familiar with are representative democracies. You are the only person I have ever met who tries to call them republics. Skipping any arguments about constitutional monarchies, what you say is probably true but meaningless.
Note: Your comment about southern blacks leaves out the fact that they lacked the power to vote or sit on juries. In fact, unless the southern states passed laws requiring jury trials, the black defendants must have decided that all white juries provided a better bet than the judge. At any rate, I would equate that situation with the rule of thumb that powerless people suffer! Not an argument for removing power from the people.
I am not promoting jury nullification over things like proportional representation, runoff voting in general elections. or even the re-legalization of political parties. It is just an example of a lost political power that needs to be remembered. The U.S. citizens have lost other political powers that were originally legal. I like pointing that out. Again and again.
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
I am glad that you do not deny the original Constitutional intent of the framers. By the way, I have found that modern dictionaries accept democracy and republic as synonyms. The older meaning of the word is a form of government lacking a king. I used to hear that republic crap all the time in the south as a justification for blacks not having the vote.
-----
electrictroy wrote:
Such weighty decisions should be left in the hands of an educated, above-average intelligent body.
------
I wouldn't think to argue with a subjective argument like that. However: I would have wished that you had clarified what you meant by "above average". Is that the upper 50 percent? The upper 10 percent? The upper 1 percent? That would have helped me understand what social status you think of yourself as having.
-------
electrictroy also wrote:
I'd likely get a bunch of Christians and Muslims who would think I should be "sentenced to burn in hell" via an electric chair.
------
I think that your knowledge of the U.S. legal system is limited. A jury only has the power to acquit, or allow the prosecutor and judge to convict. You have the right to reject a jury trial.
However; if those Christians and Muslims understood that you favored removing political power from a large percentage of the population, I expect that they would not defend you from the prosecutor and judge - even if the evidence was non-existent. Heck: I'm an Atheist and that's what my reaction would be.
Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended,...
----------
The weak link in that theoretical argument is that the U.S. Supreme court and our judicial system would have to enforce this piece of paper. Assuming civil liberties are defined as protections or privileges of the general population, as opposed to the political state or class, the fact that the U.S. Supreme court is about our most unrepresentative institution makes it totally unsuited for this enforcement.
The U.S. founding fathers were not so stupid as to expect that to be the case. They avoided the term democracy, and the francise was very limited, but they ultimately relied on a very democratic institution. They relied on the standard political institution of the citizen jury.
However, as is not surprising, the U.S. Supreme court has reinterpreted that institution.
For more information about what one book on the subject calls "The Evolution of a Doctrine" -
We do things differently in Canada.
Instead of trying to tilt one way or the other, we try our best to come up with compromises..
-------------
IMO One of the reasons this is less common in the USA, at least in political discourse, is that we lack "real" political parties. Political parties used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring, (in most states) party nomination by public primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. A modern US "party" candidate is just an individual that competes in a single election district. By registering with the state as a member of the party of their choice - just like any voter who wishes to vote in primary elections. They are individually free to choose to run under labels such as Republican, Democrat, or any other party that has achieved ballot status! There is no enforceable party platform
One important benefit of "real" political parties is their ability to facilitate political deals between different interests in society. A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform - the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded ( after the votes are counted ) are not very clear in either major party.
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
------------
Since private member based political parties, starting in the 1880's, have been effectively outlawed, words like Democrat or Republican are, from the voters perspective, little more than labels. Once elected the U.S. House has "party" discipline, but almost none in the U.S.Senate.
If the next election provides a filibuster proof U.S. Senate, or a Democratic President and control of both House and Senate then the lack of real political parties will become very apparent. I personally doubt that much would be reversed.
Heck if the Democrats had that much political power they could use the U.S. Constitution to mandate proportional representation for U.S. House elections and runoff elections for all state Senators!
U.S. Constitution
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
Note: Congress banned multi-member districts for U.S. House elections in 1967, during the Johnson administration.
"I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests."
--
U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Most nations, other than the U.S., have private member based national political parties. Parties whose members, directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, prior to U.S. national elections, the DNC's and RNC's collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, - working together our national committees can often create a great deal of bipartisanship.
The following quotes are from Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips
Little, Brown and Company 1994, Chapter V, Page 123
"Aspects of Republican-Democratic rivalry can seem as staged and phony as American professional wrestling. Since the 1980's bipartisanship in the United States frequently involves suspending electoral combat to orchestrate some outcome with no great public support, but a high priority among key elites."
"In foreign policy, these issues have included the Panama Canal treaties and NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. On the Domestic front, bipartisan commissions or summit meetings have been used to increase Social Security taxes on average Americans while the income tax rates of the rich were coming down and to raise the salaries of members of Congress."
"The pay raise deal involved walking on so many political eggshells that both sides negotiated an extraordinary side bargain: that the Democratic and Republican National Committees would refuse to fund any congressional candidate who broke the bipartisan agreement and made the pay raise an issue!"
----
Political parties in the U.S., prior to about 1890, used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! Once the organizing influence of political parties has been removed the relative organizing influence of money increases. One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
It Wasn't Always this Way.
Great Quote from 1927 "Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy
nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions
or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine
how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party
and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in
great detail." SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
IMO: Few people that express political opinions about, justice, civil liberties, or even decisions by the U.S.Supreme Court, seem to be aware of our founding fathers original views. In simple terms the basic defense against government "tyranny" in our original constitutional concept was the jury.
My Quick and Dirty Background
In 1670, the traditional right of trial, by a jury of the defendant's peers, became much more powerful. The King's Chief Justice ruled that a jury could not be punished for bringing in a verdict that the Judge thought was unreasonable. This gave the jury the right to nullify the law in any specific trial! It's no accident that our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights mention trial by jury six times. Our founding fathers understood the importance of the jury to protect the citizens from any state including a republic.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -
"The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that jurors did not have the right of "jury nullification." It could be said that they were proclaiming the jurers in that seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger to be criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision.
However; in most states trial judges now tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" are sufficient to convict, and that if so, they "should" or "must" convict. Defense attorneys can face contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if they think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. However, in England "Rumpole of the Bailey" can use the following defense - "Yes my client did it! So what! Does any member of the jury really believe my client deserves to be punished?"
This subject is explored more fully in the book, -
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine,
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.
The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present tim
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
Quadraginta wrote:
The most powerful lobbies are, pretty much by definition, those that represent the largest number of citizens from the broadest possible coalition of interests groups...(snip).. They can't give more than a measly few grand to any one political candidate, and they've only got one vote each.
--------
IMO: There are two ways that the CEO's, their BOD's, and maybe major stockholders can use economic power to influence U.S. politics - beyond what you indicated.
!. Control of advertising revenue. The media's first loyalty is to their paying customers not their audience. It's a market, and the media is for sale.
2. Those citizens who contribute larger sums such as $500 or $5,000 dollars have a more limited political influence than such sums might indicate. My understanding is that many such people work in corporate management and contribute both cash and time because it is an activity that leads to promotion. Basically they work for the interests of the corporate stockholders as defined by upper level management. They could have less personal political power than an average voter in the EU. They CERTAINLY have less personal political power than a dues paying member of an EU political party!
Note: I am aware that other groups such as Labor Unions, and professionals such as Doctors ans Lawyers also contribute significant amounts of time and money, however I suspect that corporations have the greatest economic impact.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even more fun when you realize that labels such as Democrat or Republican have no organization or individual with the authority to organize politicians under any such labels. Private, member-based, political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. About the only things that organizes politicians are wealth and previously elected (incumbent) politicians!
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
http://tinyurl.com/3ay7wk
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
I_Voter
Much like Alice's Cheshire cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very independent, entrepreneur politicians.
I_Voter
A number of years ago, I typed out and published on the web, the following copyright expired article. Read it if you think that I oppose "democratic" government manipulation of the economy. It's been getting a lot of hits lately. It may be one of the earliest suggestions that lack of demand by consumers can cause or sustain an economic crisis. This humorous story published in 1897 is much earlier than John Maynard Keynes, and his "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" published in 1936.
The Parable of the Water-Tank
published by Edward Bellamy in 1897
http://www.geocities.com/stewjackmail/parable.html
"I'm a Republican because not everybody can be on welfare"
----
I'm with you brother! But I think there may have been some Republicans involved.
First it's $700 billion for mortgage giants and banks. Then its free low credit from the federal reserve.. Now look at what those sneaky Democrats plan to give to the poor and unproductive.
".. the administration is working to speed the distribution to automakers of $25 billion in factory retooling funds authorized by Congress last month, the official told Reuters."
SOURCE:
Treasury not negotiating aid for GM merger
http://tinyurl.com/6qwx6n
I_Voter
New (Under Construction) Web Site:
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
From the article:
"Pretty small but intelligent criminal organizations are pulling off transnational, multicontinent heists that only a foreign intelligence service would have been able to do a few years ago," said Joel F. Brenner, the U.S. government's top counterintelligence officer.
And your willing to believe what the U.S. government's top counterintelligence officer said.
WEB SITE:(under construction)
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
It's rather pink of you to call our democratic process a charade.
-----
A PBS mind in a Fox News world.
====
First just let me mention that almost all PBS stations are controlled by non-profit corporations who's board appoints their own successors. Any connection with a "democratic" process could be described as a charade - even compared with our corporate media!
Second, the question of how much our U.S. democratic process is a charade ( compared with other democratic nations ) while somewhat subjective is an important question.
Lets just consider the fairly unique nature of U.S. political parties.
QUOTE FROM 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE:
American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
The tyranny of the two-party system,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
IMO: Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
I_Voter
NEW (under construction) WEB SITE:
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
However, to the extent I believed that a labor union or professional organization would increase my material or economic well being I personally would be willing to join one.
I am aware that the U.S. has little democracy and therefore self-sacrificing citizenship is unlikely to be rewarded. I am aware that legally and politically speaking, the U.S. is all about money. I am aware that your economic status has much to do with your personal life expectancy, not to mention that of your family.
(sarcasm?)
I_Voter
New and incomplete web site
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
Somebody please tell me why we're still fisting Adam Smith's very dry corpse?
-----
I think your familiarity with Adam Smith is limited.
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.
....Snip... . As sovereigns, their interest is exactly the same with that of the country which they govern. As merchants their interest is directly opposite to that interest.
But a company of merchants are, it seems, incapable of considering themselves as sovereigns . . . Their mercantile habits draw them in this manner, almost necessarily, though perhaps insensibly, to prefer upon all ordinary occasions the little and transitory profit of the monopolist to the great and permanent revenue of the sovereign . .
(Book_Four*Chapt_VII*Of_Colonies)
I_Voter
Political Power in the U.S.- an under construction web site.
http://web.newsguy.com/politicaleconomy/
--------
While I am not claiming that anything you wrote was incorrect, I hope you understand that relevant facts can, and in politics usually are, - subjective. What is relevant to one individual is not relevant to another.
Adam Smith in economics, and James Madison in politics, ( among many others ) used the term "interests." There are many areas of objective and common interests, but in general there can be no such thing as objective journalism. The advertiser funded media serves the economic and political interests of it's paying customers - above the economic and political interests of it's readers.
Democracy and markets are both based on serving the needs of their customers. They are both based on competition. Competition of politicians for votes and competition of products for sales. They both serve the PUBLIC interest.
An advertiser funded media does not serve the public interest.
I_Voter
Cotton Patch Socialism: Origins and Ideology
http://www.geocities.com/stewjackmail/cps.html
This Socialist Ideology is famous as the shortest and simplest Socialist Ideology known to exist. Additionally, it's near universal acceptance by the general public puts it into a class of it's own. No pun intended.
Forge a revolutionary workers party
--------
Political parties have been effectively outlawed in the U.S. - at least as they are traditionally understood.
We now lack enforceable party platforms. This weakened the ability of the citizens to make deals between different interest groups in society. IMO: A classic case of "divide and conquer." (the electorate)
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
We, the US, are governed by the rule of law.
---
Many people who are familiar with U.S. constitutional history would tend to find that to be a provocative statement. The relationship between the law and the people has changed radically over time.
The following polemic article may provide some understanding of what I am talking about.
The Constitutional Relationship between the Law and the People
http://tinyurl.com/3du9ec
I_Voter
IMO: A history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. would show an ever increasing franchise, along with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry has far less political power today than they would have had in say 1830.
My ( under construction ) web site -
Political Power in the U.S.:
and why you don't have any!
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
Try Something New
NASA TV Via Peer-to-Peer Streaming
NASA and Digimeld are conducting a pilot study to stream NASA TV using Digimeld's peer-to-peer streaming technology
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
In Sweden it has actually hit mainstream Politics, and there is a Political Party with legalizing P2p on its agenda.
The current activities of the PirateBay are fully legal in Sweden.
It is my view that although the pile of democratic nations in the world has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
The U.S. has few majority or runoff elections for state or national office. It has no proportional representation elections using multi-member districts at the same level. In fact the federal government has outlawed such elections for U.S. House elections.
Jury nullification, probably the average U.S. citizens strongest influence on government granted by the U.S. Constitution has been gutted by the U.S. Supreme court!
Unlike Sweden, the U.S. no longer has political parties in the traditional sense. Such parties, with enforceable party platforms, have been effectively outlawed. U.S. political parties do not have public agendas, except in both rare and partial instances. ( see below )
I_Voter
Attempts at Party Platforms
The Democrat's 100 Hours Plan
http://tinyurl.com/5kmmu5
The Republican's Contract with America
http://tinyurl.com/5bkkd3
New and incomplete web site
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
-----------
My Question: What is the "free market"?
I think a little historical background on the traditional U.S. view of the political economy would be helpful at this time.
The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -
"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation of government."
Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time,"people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830. At the time of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, in 1787, most state governments had property requirements for voting and Madison spoke in favor of requiring one for voting in federal elections. Madison; as well as most members of the Constitutional Convention, believed that the only people who should have a legal authority, (the franchise) to influence the government, (vote for a representative) were property owners. However; members of the convention could not agree on exactly what property requirements should be required, and decided to rely on the states voting requirements to protect their political power. Madison accepted this but worried about the future.
The following Madison quote is from James Madison's personal records of the Constitutional Convention.
"Viewing the subject on its merits alone, the freeholders, (property owners without debt), of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property."
From Farrand's Records, [ MADISON August 7th. In Convention ]
My Answer: The "free market" is defined by whoever has the power to do so. In the U.S., the Supreme court is probably guided by the above historical tradition.
I_Voter
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
See, it wasn't supposed to work like that, at least on paper.
---
Actually our "founding fathers," tended to trust people more than pieces of paper. Their famous bad mouthing of democracy, at least in it's pure form, doesn't change the fact that the citizen jury, not the Supreme court, was the primary defense against government tyranny.
This is how it worked in England, and the English replacement of jury trials with admiralty courts was a prime reason for the colonies declaration of war.
My short polemical introduction to the subject:
The Constitutional Relationship between the Law and the People
http://tinyurl.com/3du9ec
I_Voter
IMO: A history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. would show an ever increasing franchise, along with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the voter has far less political power today than they would have had in say 1830.
We certainly have two distinct parties despite the fact that they only oppose each other out of spite and grandstanding rather than on principles. ------
I think it would be more accurate, at least from an international perspective, to say that: Starting in the late nineteenth century the U.S. has managed to effectively outlaw political parties. We have ballot labels that individual candidates are free legally to choose at will.
Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail.
SOURCE:
_American Parties and Elections_,
by Edward Sait, 1927 (Page 174)
Quoted from:
_The tyranny of the two-party system_,
by Lisa Jane Disch c2002
A short polemic article on the subject.
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
http://tinyurl.com/2g9kc8
I_Voter
Web site under construction
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
Things in Japan work differently than they do here.
------
Would you believe that I actually RTFA - and if it is accurate I certainly agree with you.
"Soon after the war we followed the U.S. model with the government issuing licenses through the FCC," Hizumi said. "As one party, the LDP, came to dominate politics, it sought more control of the media so the FCC was abolished. There is no ombudsman here, so the government controls the media directly. With this new bill, the LDP will seek to do the same for the Internet."
Certainly, such a construct has benefited the LDP, which has enjoyed nearly unbroken rule in Japan since 1955. Since then, government's cozy relationship with big media has become legendary, as has the media's self-censorship, which, Hizumi said, had repeatedly restricted the spectrum of voices heard - until the arrival of the Internet started to open the field up to dissent.
Now as a democrat I will accept that; if the Japanese people have not thrown, and will not throw, that political party out of power - they still have the right to self determination. However: They may also have to censor the international net. I suspect that this is not going to be in the material interest of the Japanese people.
Note: I am not claiming that article is accurate. I am not very familiar with Japan.
I_Voter
Our election system is a joke, and the people with the power to fix it rely on it being broken to stay in power.
-----
If you are committed to more democracy voting for 3rd parties is normally the best action -UNLESS (see below )
Presidential Frontrunners Support Instant Runoff Voting
The two frontrunners for their party's nominations, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, are both active backers of instant runoff voting (IRV). In 2002, Sen. McCain recorded a message for backers of IRV in Alaska, while that year Sen. Obama was the lead sponsor of legislation to implement IRV for certain Illinois elections. With most third party candidates also supporting IRV, we may see a rare issue of consensus this November, although neither McCain nor Obama have yet secured their party's nomination.
I_Voter
The Political Power of the U.S. Citizen
Any dictionary that defines Republic == Democracy is wrong. There are many, many Republics in the world that don't have any democracy of any kind. For example, the former Soviet Socialist Republics, and modern-day Republic of China.
---------
We both agree that they are not democracies. However, they still fit the older definition of a republic as lack of rule by a King - or Emperor in the case of China and the Soviet Union. In general, these forms of government would also fill your ambition of rule by law as administered by a judge who was not restricted by a citizen jury. Maybe you should praise these republics?
They probably proclaim civil liberties and individual rights also. However since power, including the power to make laws, is not held by the people, I would guess their actual benefits to the people are limited. Of course the people have some rights based on the desire of the state to keep the people willing to protect and defend the homeland security. I would bet that the more secure the state feels the less reward the state provides.
------
electrictroy also wrote:
Under a Democracy, the majority can squash the minority underfoot with a simple 50%+1 vote. Under the U.S. Republic, the majority can not do that because the LAW reigns supreme, and our law includes a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from being squashed by the majority.
---------
Words are defined by common usage, and are quite "democratic." I think some of your definitions are out of date. You are talking about what is more often called "pure" democracy. Since jury nullification is a negative or defensive form of political power, I could hardly have called it a form of representative democracy. However, it is not "pure" democracy either.
Why are you equating a citizens power that can only be applied to people who voluntarily submit to it - with a tyranny of the majority? It's the individuals choice! It empowers the individual!
All the world democracies that I am familiar with are representative democracies. You are the only person I have ever met who tries to call them republics. Skipping any arguments about constitutional monarchies, what you say is probably true but meaningless.
Note: Your comment about southern blacks leaves out the fact that they lacked the power to vote or sit on juries. In fact, unless the southern states passed laws requiring jury trials, the black defendants must have decided that all white juries provided a better bet than the judge. At any rate, I would equate that situation with the rule of thumb that powerless people suffer! Not an argument for removing power from the people.
I am not promoting jury nullification over things like proportional representation, runoff voting in general elections. or even the re-legalization of political parties. It is just an example of a lost political power that needs to be remembered. The U.S. citizens have lost other political powers that were originally legal. I like pointing that out. Again and again.
Can You Define What a Political Party is?
I_Voter
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
-----
electrictroy wrote:
Such weighty decisions should be left in the hands of an educated, above-average intelligent body.
------
I wouldn't think to argue with a subjective argument like that. However: I would have wished that you had clarified what you meant by "above average". Is that the upper 50 percent? The upper 10 percent? The upper 1 percent? That would have helped me understand what social status you think of yourself as having.
-------
electrictroy also wrote:
I'd likely get a bunch of Christians and Muslims who would think I should be "sentenced to burn in hell" via an electric chair.
------
I think that your knowledge of the U.S. legal system is limited. A jury only has the power to acquit, or allow the prosecutor and judge to convict. You have the right to reject a jury trial. However; if those Christians and Muslims understood that you favored removing political power from a large percentage of the population, I expect that they would not defend you from the prosecutor and judge - even if the evidence was non-existent. Heck: I'm an Atheist and that's what my reaction would be.
I_Voter
Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended,...
----------
The weak link in that theoretical argument is that the U.S. Supreme court and our judicial system would have to enforce this piece of paper. Assuming civil liberties are defined as protections or privileges of the general population, as opposed to the political state or class, the fact that the U.S. Supreme court is about our most unrepresentative institution makes it totally unsuited for this enforcement.
The U.S. founding fathers were not so stupid as to expect that to be the case. They avoided the term democracy, and the francise was very limited, but they ultimately relied on a very democratic institution. They relied on the standard political institution of the citizen jury.
However, as is not surprising, the U.S. Supreme court has reinterpreted that institution.
For more information about what one book on the subject calls "The Evolution of a Doctrine" -
The U.S. Constitution and the Function of the Citizen Jury
We do things differently in Canada. Instead of trying to tilt one way or the other, we try our best to come up with compromises ..
-------------
IMO One of the reasons this is less common in the USA, at least in political discourse, is that we lack "real" political parties. Political parties used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring, (in most states) party nomination by public primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. A modern US "party" candidate is just an individual that competes in a single election district. By registering with the state as a member of the party of their choice - just like any voter who wishes to vote in primary elections. They are individually free to choose to run under labels such as Republican, Democrat, or any other party that has achieved ballot status! There is no enforceable party platform
One important benefit of "real" political parties is their ability to facilitate political deals between different interests in society. A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform - the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded ( after the votes are counted ) are not very clear in either major party.
My short polemic text on the subject -
Do You Know What a Political Party is?
http://web.newsguy.com/politicaleconomy/DefinePoliticalParty.html
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
------------
Since private member based political parties, starting in the 1880's, have been effectively outlawed, words like Democrat or Republican are, from the voters perspective, little more than labels. Once elected the U.S. House has "party" discipline, but almost none in the U.S.Senate.
If the next election provides a filibuster proof U.S. Senate, or a Democratic President and control of both House and Senate then the lack of real political parties will become very apparent. I personally doubt that much would be reversed.
Heck if the Democrats had that much political power they could use the U.S. Constitution to mandate proportional representation for U.S. House elections and runoff elections for all state Senators!
U.S. Constitution
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
Note: Congress banned multi-member districts for U.S. House elections in 1967, during the Johnson administration.
I_Voter
"I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests."
--
U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Most nations, other than the U.S., have private member based national political parties. Parties whose members, directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, prior to U.S. national elections, the DNC's and RNC's collect money at the national level. Besides providing the convenience of one-stop shopping for donors, - working together our national committees can often create a great deal of bipartisanship.
The following quotes are from Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips
Little, Brown and Company 1994, Chapter V, Page 123
"Aspects of Republican-Democratic rivalry can seem as staged and phony as American professional wrestling. Since the 1980's bipartisanship in the United States frequently involves suspending electoral combat to orchestrate some outcome with no great public support, but a high priority among key elites."
"In foreign policy, these issues have included the Panama Canal treaties and NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. On the Domestic front, bipartisan commissions or summit meetings have been used to increase Social Security taxes on average Americans while the income tax rates of the rich were coming down and to raise the salaries of members of Congress."
"The pay raise deal involved walking on so many political eggshells that both sides negotiated an extraordinary side bargain: that the Democratic and Republican National Committees would refuse to fund any congressional candidate who broke the bipartisan agreement and made the pay raise an issue!"
----
Political parties in the U.S., prior to about 1890, used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! Once the organizing influence of political parties has been removed the relative organizing influence of money increases. One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!
A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.
I_Voter
It Wasn't Always this Way.
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
As found in The tyranny of the two-party system / Lisa Jane Disch c2002
IMO: Few people that express political opinions about, justice, civil liberties, or even decisions by the U.S.Supreme Court, seem to be aware of our founding fathers original views. In simple terms the basic defense against government "tyranny" in our original constitutional concept was the jury.
My Quick and Dirty Background
In 1670, the traditional right of trial, by a jury of the defendant's peers, became much more powerful. The King's Chief Justice ruled that a jury could not be punished for bringing in a verdict that the Judge thought was unreasonable. This gave the jury the right to nullify the law in any specific trial! It's no accident that our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights mention trial by jury six times. Our founding fathers understood the importance of the jury to protect the citizens from any state including a republic.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -
"The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that jurors did not have the right of "jury nullification." It could be said that they were proclaiming the jurers in that seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger to be criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. However; in most states trial judges now tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" are sufficient to convict, and that if so, they "should" or "must" convict. Defense attorneys can face contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if they think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. However, in England "Rumpole of the Bailey" can use the following defense - "Yes my client did it! So what! Does any member of the jury really believe my client deserves to be punished?"
This subject is explored more fully in the book, -
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine , pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.
The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present tim
The most powerful lobbies are, pretty much by definition, those that represent the largest number of citizens from the broadest possible coalition of interests groups. ..(snip).. They can't give more than a measly few grand to any one political candidate, and they've only got one vote each.
--------
IMO: There are two ways that the CEO's, their BOD's, and maybe major stockholders can use economic power to influence U.S. politics - beyond what you indicated.
!. Control of advertising revenue. The media's first loyalty is to their paying customers not their audience. It's a market, and the media is for sale.
2. Those citizens who contribute larger sums such as $500 or $5,000 dollars have a more limited political influence than such sums might indicate. My understanding is that many such people work in corporate management and contribute both cash and time because it is an activity that leads to promotion. Basically they work for the interests of the corporate stockholders as defined by upper level management. They could have less personal political power than an average voter in the EU. They CERTAINLY have less personal political power than a dues paying member of an EU political party!
Note: I am aware that other groups such as Labor Unions, and professionals such as Doctors ans Lawyers also contribute significant amounts of time and money, however I suspect that corporations have the greatest economic impact.