Why do you want to Get Money Out of Politics?
Comment and discuss below or send us a video reaction. Please follow a few common sense rules when commenting: Be respectful. Be courteous. Stay on topic.
Got any ideas for how we can improve the website or the movement? Let us know!
Why We’re Here:
| Dylan Ratigan | John Rzeznik | Naomi Klein |
| Jimmy Williams | Tim Carney | Leo Hindery |
I’m tired of seeing my business struggle for survival because people are too broke to buy what I make. I am tired of also being broke because of this. In our economy, everyone depends on everyone else, and when someone gets greedy and takes thousands of times his rightful share, the rest of us pay for it. I am tired of seeing these unbelievably selfish people having their cake and mine, too. A strong, honest government, controlled by the people, equally, and in the light of knowledge, is the best remedy for this society’s illness.
Just saw the file Inside Job at a Move-on gathering. This should be widely available and could form the basis for discussion and reading groups, as well as background for a 28th Amendment.
What is so clear from viewing this film is that people with political power and influence are far removed from the daily struggles of most Americans, “the rest of us” (99 percenters). The move to deregulate the markets resulted in one of the largest transfers of wealth from working people, pension funds, and ordinary economic protections of borrowing and lending.
Further, Obama has appointed some of the ‘culprits’ who backed deregulation (or failed to warn us about the risks) to positions of power–Larry Summers, Hank Paulson–for example. These are now foxes in the henhouse, and Inside Job illustrates how accountability for our economic disaster has been passed off with vague denials, shifting of topics, and outright lies.
Our government is not aided by a Supreme Court that affords the super-rich “corporate spending” labeled as free-speech. Our country is polarized by deregulation, the influence of Big Money in politics, and a revolving door between Wall Street and government that has resulted in a democracy no longer of, by and for the people.
It is time for real change and real action, which is why I support an amendment to our constitution to begin a process of taking back our government and restoring a sense of the common good.
It seems that a Balanced Budget amendment coupled with an amendment to get money out of politics might get us on the right path. The federal government is currently incapable of making the tough choices for many reasons. Therefore, citizens at the state level need to step-up to set things right. A re-balancing of power (money, taxation, authorities, etc) between the States and Federal Government needs to occur. A Balanced Budget amendment is a start to that re-balancing and will force the Federal Government to live within its means. As a by-product, tax reform, entitlement reform, etc., will flow naturally as Congress scrambles to find cost savings. Congress could simply raise taxes to European levels to balance annual budgets when saddled with a Constitutional amendment, but then most would not survive the next election cycle.
This has probably been suggested but I’ll say it just in case.
1.In every election, find out about how much money each candidate has collected.
2. Regardless of issues, competence, or even sanity- vote for the candidate that has qualified to be on the ballot, who has the LEAST money.
3.Get as many others as possible to do the same.
This will, if successful, shape candidate behavior toward government that is responsive more to the voter and less to the money.
Americans Elect sounds like a good organization. Another I think everyone should take a gander at is http://beyourgovernment.org/
I think that if the occupiers and the unemployed would go there and get set up and elected, then we would a more responsive congress.
How about a short term fix like mentioned in “Greedy Bastards”? 100% tax on all campaign donations! We need to do something quicker than the amendment…until we can get it passed. The obscenity that is campaign funding must END!
We ask young men & women to give their lives in Iraq & Afghanistan fighting for democracy. We spend fortunes trying to build democratic nations abroad. Yet our own democracy is deeply corrupt and as a result our country is broken. People have given their lives; we owe it to them to make our democracy clean and honest. Our current politicians are in the business of selling influence for money. Governing is secondary. We will never fix this country and move forward until we have honest leaders who are focused on governing, not on raising money. When ending corruption becomes the number one focus of American voters, this country will finally move forward. ~~ I would love to see the people in “Get Money Out” also get involved in “Americans Elect” which will run a candidate for president through the internet. AE is a good potential platform for building momentum to get money out of politics.
AE LINK: https://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/governmental_corruption?utm_content=reply_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification#reply_8012225
A builder from a prominent family stole our building fund. Not only ours, but dozens of people including a domestic violence shelter and city governments.
He got 27 years in jail – SUSPENDED – on the proviso that he return our money WITH EXPEDIENCE.
I heard “with expedience” and “grievous harm” over and over again in that court room. With expedience turned out to be #112 a week IF he can manage it, when he can manage it.. and if he can’t… oh well, we no laws to make him pay it.
At almost 60 yrs old I am sat outside homeless. He is in a comfortable home protected by the state – happily sat on all of the money he stole from everyone.
It’s not WHAT you know.. it’s WHO you know. The 1% can get away with murder.
http://roberthuckinsvictim.blogspot.com/
A builder from a prominent family stole our building fund. Not only ours, but dozens of people including a domestic violence shelter and city governments.
He got 27 years in jail – SUSPENDED – on the proviso that he return our money WITH EXPEDIENCE.
I heard “with expedience” and “grievous harm” over and over again in that court room. With expedience turned out to be #112 a week IF he can manage it, when he can manage it.. and if he can’t… oh well, we no laws to make him pay it.
At almost 60 yrs old I am sat outside homeless. He is in a comfortable home protected by the state – happily sat on all of the money he stole from everyone.
It’s not WHAT you know.. it’s WHO you know.
http://roberthuckinsvictim.blogspot.com/
I’m 60 disabled taking care of my invalid Mother. Even with a prescription from my Mother’s Doctor, we can’t get the equipment we need for her recovery. Who speaks for us? We don’t have a lobby to see that she gets what she needs. I’m sick of our representatives treating this like a game. We are all Americans-so I didn’t vote for you-so you now I’m the enemy? Grow up.
d
Our political system is broken. It costs millions to secure a position in Government. Our politicians do not have job security. They are reviewed and have to “re-apply” for their jobs every 2 or 6 years, depending on whether they are Reps or Senators. They spend a majority of their time raising the money to keep their jobs for another term.
How do they raise that money? They are solicited by those with enough money to bankroll the politicians…those who want laws written that will allow them to get away with cheating, lying, poisoning, and dominating others. The politicians know they are voting against the best interests of their constituents (not to mention the well-being of our earth), but they must do the bidding of those who exert pressure upon them – you know, the ones who sign their “real” paychecks.
If politicians were paid minimum wage, and both Super-Pacs and Lobbyists were abolished, and the entire election season lasted 3 months (Primaries 1 month, General 2 months), and all states had Primaries on the same day, and all candidates could only use Public Financing, then crooks might not be so attracted to run for office. This won’t put an end to large corporations trying to sway Congress, but it might help to level the playing field a bit.
What if we got the money out of politics and used it to help find a cure for aids, or breast cancer? What if we used it to help feed the poor, or Heaven forbid, at least make a dent in the National Debt? What if we used it to help keep our schools open, or repair our roads and bridges? I feel the Supreme Court missed the boat when it allowed unnamed contributors to donate unlimited amounts to out of control political campaigns so they can flood TV and the internet with ads that border on hate crimes, rather than focusing on the real issues. I believe too much of the American public votes its conscience based on what it hears on MSNBC or Fox News rather than REALLY getting to know the candidates, instead of knowing only what they can do for them. It appears that too many of our elected officials are only interested in the power, while too many of their constituants are only interested in what that power can do for them, instead of for the good of our country! They say “money is the root of all evil”. We have only to look to Washington to prove that right. Let’s get the money out of politics!
I have been watching and listening for many months now about getting “Money out of Politics” and have come up with a simple way to do this. First an amendment has to be passed to remove “Citizens United”. Second it should be replaced with “Citizens Support”. This is done by a simple attachment of One Dollar (1$) to each Americans Tax filing. Annually this should provide many millions (maybe billions)of dollars to a coffer for the purpose of providing funds for dedicated/filed Presidential candidates. If the amount I figure would develop, it could also be used for Congressional candidates. I know this sounds too simple, but our current program is way to secretive and complicated. I have left allot of the numbers out of this proposal, but someone with much better foresight might have a way to present this in a laymen’s term. Oh by the way, I am at the “poverty” class level and feel that I could do this without hurting my lifestyle.
Until money gets out of politics, Tax wall st to enforce regulations and use leftover for mandatory public campaign financing… No more fundraisers to attend, no more “favors” to repay!
Like most Americans, I am greatly concerned about our governance. I will not waste your time with my concerns or my solutions. Rather, I want to address the lack of a viable means to generate actions to address the problems. I propose an absolutely new, high tech system for political action that I believe is viable, albeit, a long term, up-hill pull.
The many solutions one reads about, such as “throw the bums out” only result in the election of a new set of “bums” — because even the election system is integrated with our governance flaws and delivers more of the same. Why has everything failed? Let’s think in terms of “weight. (or if you prefer, $)” Consider the weight of what I will call the econo/political machine, or call it the financial-interest/political machine, that has built our current system and thrives on its existence. Even the many, very admirable, organizations that currently exist to bring change cannot hope to achieve even the smallest fraction of their weight. Perhaps also, ideological and financial-interest labeling overcomes and limits or defeats most movements.
At this particular point in our history, it is my view that we need, and I wish to propose, an extra-government approach that would have no ideological identity, not be driven by financial interests and which would (1) provide the means for the derivation of proposed governance change actions as well as (2) drive the public support to create the political force for adoption. No, I am neither a messiah nor do I have clandestine army in Idaho nor am I a billionaire. I am another kind of nut.
What I propose is the use of emerging modern system technology — applied to the organization of thought, consensus building and action– technology that is amply evident but not yet focused on this problem. The technology I am referring to includes:
1. Open source design
2. Internet or cloud based service
3. Consensus decision making
General Agreement, not exact agreement
Solidarity and belief in group results
Acceptance of the input of all positions
A credible path for minority and dissenting views
4. A process that attracts teams of knowledgeable individuals for all segments of governance reform.
5. Virtually unlimited direct access to all
6. Certified mass-population voter driven results (Any certified US citizen and eligible voter)
Examples that demonstrate that such technology exists:
Wikipedia – demonstrates all of the first five technologies above and more. In addition they have developed outstanding protocols and processes to obtain the following:
Lack of rancor, personal attacks, anger
Attract volunteer teams of the cream of the experts for every subject.
Teams, as above, to organize, segregate, amalgamate and document subject matter and build documentation.
Consensus Decision Making systems/software – Google this title and you will get hundreds of responses offering organizations, software and services. One company advertised a software package designed for organizations/business to develop consensus solutions to group problems/needs.
Open source software design — examples are legion in their numbers and in their outstanding successes. Even closed source design establishments have recognized the value of the open source process and have started such programs to address specific problems and/or product segments. Applicable procedures, processes and quality control means are imbedded herein.
Both Wikipedia and Open Source software design have demonstrated their ability to attract a needed element for this proposal: massive free labor of quality.
The system I propose would take time to grow its weight, perhaps a very long time, however, should it attract enough voters, even those that are otherwise passive, it could obtain a level of recognition as an authoritative source and a driving force, attracting loyal candidates, office holders and voters and movers and shakers. That is an extremely ambitious but simple objective.
The action needed is to attract individuals, such as you, with the connections and a pulpit to move this idea forward. We would have to also attract technology leaders, to verify that the technology and systems are viable and add additional attraction for supporters. Beyond that we would need a host of academic leaders in governance and macro economics.
Obviously dealing with the range of opinion and emotion in political matters is much different from those of, say, technology and encyclopedic matters. My solution is to provide and equal path for the progress of all diversity. Each diverse belief would be provided with paths, or what we call threads, to develop their own teams of developers and followers. The process of exposing all positions, with equal fairness, on a civil, open platform with certified citizen voting based consensus building will create the winners. I have faith that the ultimate winners will be admirable, and more important, an improvement over what we have now.
Some forces, just for an example, those who want our governance to move away from secularism, will be very strong, but, I expect, will fail due to lack of adequate common ground and eventual recognition that secularism offers the most common ground for religious freedom.
Do I really think this idea could produce a “heavy weight” political reform system? Did I think that Wikipedia would have been such a huge success so rapidly? How many people knew that open-source software development would find such a strong niche? Even a minor success could be a prototype for the next thing and for a modern internet based voting system – we need to move our governance into our new century taking full advantage of its technological advances.
”If you haven’t got a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true – Bloody Mary”
Malcolm Williams Plano, TX 972-732-8887
Note: Suggested working subject name – “Open Source Governance.”
Like most Americans, I am greatly concerned about our governance. I will not waste your time with my concerns or my solutions. Rather, I want to address the lack of a viable means to generate actions to address the problems. I propose an absolutely new, high tech system for political action that I believe is viable, albeit, a long term, up-hill pull.
The many solutions one reads about, such as “throw the bums out” only result in the election of a new set of “bums” — because even the election system is integrated with our governance flaws and delivers more of the same. Why has everything failed? Let’s think in terms of “weight. (or if you prefer, $)” Consider the weight of what I will call the econo/political machine, or call it the financial-interest/political machine, that has built our current system and thrives on its existence. Even the many, very admirable, organizations that currently exist to bring change cannot hope to achieve even the smallest fraction of their weight. Perhaps also, ideological and financial-interest labeling overcomes and limits or defeats most movements.
At this particular point in our history, it is my view that we need, and I wish to propose, an extra-government approach that would have no ideological identity, not be driven by financial interests and which would (1) provide the means for the derivation of proposed governance change actions as well as (2) drive the public support to create the political force for adoption. No, I am neither a messiah nor do I have clandestine army in Idaho nor am I a billionaire. I am another kind of nut.
What I propose is the use of emerging modern system technology — applied to the organization of thought, consensus building and action– technology that is amply evident but not yet focused on this problem. The technology I am referring to includes:
1. Open source design
2. Internet or cloud based service
3. Consensus decision making
General Agreement, not exact agreement
Solidarity and belief in group results
Acceptance of the input of all positions
A credible path for minority and dissenting views
4. A process that attracts teams of knowledgeable individuals for all segments of governance reform.
5. Virtually unlimited direct access to all
6. Certified mass-population voter driven results (Any certified US citizen and eligible voter)
Examples that demonstrate that such technology exists:
Wikipedia – demonstrates all of the first five technologies above and more. In addition they have developed outstanding protocols and processes to obtain the following:
Lack of rancor, personal attacks, anger
Attract volunteer teams of the cream of the experts for every subject.
Teams, as above, to organize, segregate, amalgamate and document subject matter and build documentation.
Consensus Decision Making systems/software – Google this title and you will get hundreds of responses offering organizations, software and services. One company advertised a software package designed for organizations/business to develop consensus solutions to group problems/needs.
Open source software design — examples are legion in their numbers and in their outstanding successes. Even closed source design establishments have recognized the value of the open source process and have started such programs to address specific problems and/or product segments. Applicable procedures, processes and quality control means are imbedded herein.
Both Wikipedia and Open Source software design have demonstrated their ability to attract a needed element for this proposal: massive free labor of quality.
The system I propose would take time to grow its weight, perhaps a very long time, however, should it attract enough voters, even those that are otherwise passive, it could obtain a level of recognition as an authoritative source and a driving force, attracting loyal candidates, office holders and voters and movers and shakers. That is an extremely ambitious but simple objective.
The action needed is to attract individuals, such as you, with the connections and a pulpit to move this idea forward. We would have to also attract technology leaders, to verify that the technology and systems are viable and add additional attraction for supporters. Beyond that we would need a host of academic leaders in governance and macro economics.
Obviously dealing with the range of opinion and emotion in political matters is much different from those of, say, technology and encyclopedic matters. My solution is to provide and equal path for the progress of all diversity. Each diverse belief would be provided with paths, or what we call threads, to develop their own teams of developers and followers. The process of exposing all positions, with equal fairness, on a civil, open platform with certified citizen voting based consensus building will create the winners. I have faith that the ultimate winners will be admirable, and more important, an improvement over what we have now.
Some forces, just for an example, those who want our governance to move away from secularism, will be very strong, but, I expect, will fail due to lack of adequate common ground and eventual recognition that secularism offers the most common ground for religious freedom.
Do I really think this idea could produce a “heavy weight” political reform system? Did I think that Wikipedia would have been such a huge success so rapidly? How many people knew that open-source software development would find such a strong niche? Even a minor success could be a prototype for the next thing and for a modern internet based voting system – we need to move our governance into our new century taking full advantage of its technological advances.
”If you haven’t got a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true – Bloody Mary”
Malcolm Williams Plano, TX 972-732-8887
Note: Suggested working subject name – “Open Source Governance.”
Using undisclosed donors, it is only a matter of time until the largest donors are foreign entities (if not already) that will not have the best interests of the United States in their agenda.
If money is speech, then one could use it for all kinds of things, for example: stopped by a police officer, handing him a $100.00 just means have a nice day. Giving a prostitute money is nothing more than consensual sex and the additional 500.00 dollars only means your hair smells nice. Conversely if money is speech then speech should be money, for example I go to Walmart pick up a computer and on the way out I simply say to the cashier here is $799.00 and that should satisfy the transaction. Yeah money in politics is speech and the word is bribery.
Why do I want money out of politics?
So we can have more politicians that make sense, like RON PAUL!
RON PAUL 2012
You should engage the Google+ community, I think you would find it to be quite beneficial in getting the message out. There are 100 million people using it and a projected 400 million by years end.
“Paul Allen, a Google+ watcher, says the network will hit 100.8 million users by Wednesday evening. Google’s most recent figure for Google+ was 90 million, which Larry Page announced on Jan. 19.
In a blog post (on Google+, of course), Allen noted that the network has grown more than 10% in that two-week period. Allen, the founder of Ancestry.com, takes an unusual approach to come by his estimates: He and his staff run hundreds of queries on surnames they’ve been tracking since July and then extrapolate the size of the network. His method seems to work: Allen’s numbers are often very close to figures that Google cites a few days later.
Allen has also predicted that Google+ will hit 400 million users by year’s end. That’s half the number that Facebook currently claims.”-Mashable.com