What are your best solutions for stopping corruption in D.C.?

[Starman]

Term limits.

Ban politicians from joining lobby groups after their political life is over.

Put a cap on how much money those in the public sector are allowed to donate, just the same as exists in the private sector. Additionally, money donated/given by corporations and lobbyists must be made public.

Revoke security clearances from retired politicians.

 

[surrealworlds]

State Tyranny? Please expound on this.

I'm never sure what people mean when they say this.

Like, we obviously need more reps in Congress for starters. Including territories and the Senate we're under 600 total elected reps in D.C. to cover more than 300 million people.

Do we get rid of the FDA? The CDC? The EPA? Obviously those would be disastrous decisions. Do we stop holding states accountable to federal law? Like really expand state tyranny for no particular reason other than the size of government seems really big? End Medicaid/Medicare? Disastrous obv. I dunno, the "big government" argument just seems like a way of saying "It's too big for me to understand so I don't like it." States do a horrible job of protecting rights, too.


Also, how big is the government?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't have the energy to get into the drawn-out version of my brain's argument about the inevitability of big corporate lobbies in a free society, but yeah, I've come to not think of them as a problem in the same way that others do.

"I need 2,000 jobs in my city, so should I listen to Joe Fuckhair from the bar, or the guy bringing a lot of capital here?" Or, "Joe Fuckhair from the bar is welcome to come see me, but him and his Fuckhair friends aren't very organized." Joe Fuckhair doesn't like to hear this from his computer chair or his barstool. But he hasn't ever been to a public meeting in his town, and he has nothing to offer anybody.

Then there are obvious constitutional problems in limiting political speech. Start from scratch and see what happens. Nuke all the lobbyists. Now what? Well, interests will still grow bigly as they represent more people/capital. You can try to limit the influence of capital, but that also creates corruption (bending/breaking the new rules, possible undue influence for local politicians). Lots of problems here. And still no reason to sit down with Joe Fuckhair.

Term limits would probably streamline politics into more of a smash and grab industry, imo, so I admit there's a corrupting element to lobbying. But lobbying is for everyone with influence, not just crooks. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? You completely sure that's the right thing to do? Hundreds of millions are spent lobbying for increased immigration, for instance.

I'm sure there are serious local problems here and there with lobbying (STL has some, though notably the lobbyists trying to dick over people via racism in the process of a necessary but postponed city/county merger were defeated).

On the state level especially, I think it is a problem that businesses have the power to influence policy by threatening to move. That justifies some standardization, I think. Harder for businesses to influence the federal gov't that way. But note that that is different from what we normally think of as lobbying.

Also, it's true that the rich have disproportionate and usually harmful influence on policy, but lobbying and campaign finance just aren't the means by which their power is effectively exercised. Think tanks are a big one, but that's a matter of free speech. Can't do anything about that but attempt to counter bullshit with truth. More publicly funded research might be good (obviously you have to put in protections against influence). Also, think tanks are good at getting their stuff covered by the media and influencing media thinking on issues. Might make sense to create a public PR arm (just maybe opening up contact between relevant departments in papers and experts who are not conflicted). When you think about the implementation process, you can see how difficult the problem is. And the other thing is that legislators themselves tend to be wealthy and to travel in social circles with the wealthy. Not sure what the solution to that is.

 

[Whippy McGee]

You need laws that prevent corporations and lobbyists from donating large sums of money.

First start by closing the loopholes that allow anonymous donations to be funneled through Super PACs and non-profit organizations. This takes care of the most obscene corruption.

Next create a committee whose job it is to propose a new set of anti-corruption laws with the distinct purpose of getting corporate money out of politics.

Finally if politicians are caught breaking the law, hold them accountable. Put a few of them in jail, and it will act as a deterrent for the rest.

This!!!

Publicly funded campaigns/no private donations.

And at this point some kind of regulations built into MSM that forces fair news stories and coverage.

Term limits.

Ban politicians from joining lobby groups after their political life is over.

Put a cap on how much money those in the public sector are allowed to donate, just the same as exists in the private sector. Additionally, money donated/given by corporations and lobbyists must be made public.

Revoke security clearances from retired politicians.

Below is that solution... it is all about the money and that is where we should fix all of this.

This one is super easy, non-partisan, and would happen if the Establishment didn't run everything.

28th Amendment

Only U.S. Citizens of voting age may donate to political campaigns. The limit per year is $5,000 per citizen in total contributions. A citizen may not donate to any campaign outside of their geographic impact.

Impact:

· No: foreign countries or citizens, corporations, unions, special interest groups can contribute.
· This includes all ballot measures.
· Citizens cannot donate to any politician or measure out of their residency which the politician directly impacts.

This will effectively make the politicians answer to, "We the People", and take the $ out of the game.

 

[IGIT]

Yea

I think that if occupy wallstreet busted out the guillotine instead of fighting for wokeness points that shit woulda turned into a potent movement real quick

hio Gutter Chris,

or just pretend we're in Singapore and flail the denizens of Wall Street in public.

well heeled folks are particularly sensitive to public humiliation. i think flailing, in general, would staunch a great deal of corruption in government.

- IGIT

 

[Last Samurai]

Below is that solution... it is all about the money and that is where we should fix all of this.

This one is super easy, non-partisan, and would happen if the Establishment didn't run everything.

28th Amendment

Only U.S. Citizens of voting age may donate to political campaigns. The limit per year is $5,000 per citizen in total contributions. A citizen may not donate to any campaign outside of their geographic impact.

Impact:

· No: foreign countries or citizens, corporations, unions, special interest groups can contribute.
· This includes all ballot measures.
· Citizens cannot donate to any politician or measure out of their residency which the politician directly impacts.

This will effectively make the politicians answer to, "We the People", and take the $ out of the game.

How is this not the #1 campaign issue?

 

[IGIT]

Only U.S. Citizens of voting age may donate to political campaigns. The limit per year is $5,000 per citizen in total contributions. A citizen may not donate to any campaign outside of their geographic impact.

hio Whippy McGee,

i don't think this is a bad idea, but i'd lower it to 15 dollars per year in total contributions for all the federal elections. make it so almost everyone can participate. i mean, lol, think about it. something like 70% of the country has less than a grand in the bank, afterall.

there are around 250,000,000 americans of voting age. multiply that times 15 and i think that should be enough money for the candidates.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Think tanks are a big one, but that's a matter of free speech. Can't do anything about that but attempt to counter bullshit with truth. More publicly funded research might be good (obviously you have to put in protections against influence).

hello JVS,

on a less granular level - but more comprehensible to the public - the Federal Government could boost its funding to NPR.

i know i'm tiresome because i keep beating this drum, but i think its good that there is a "free" source of reasonable information regarding the news of the day that people can access, if they feel like it.

- IGIT

 

[Deleted member 539235]

can't be corruption in the senate when u are the senate

 

[franklinstower]

Below is that solution... it is all about the money and that is where we should fix all of this.

This one is super easy, non-partisan, and would happen if the Establishment didn't run everything.

28th Amendment

Only U.S. Citizens of voting age may donate to political campaigns. The limit per year is $5,000 per citizen in total contributions. A citizen may not donate to any campaign outside of their geographic impact.

Impact:

· No: foreign countries or citizens, corporations, unions, special interest groups can contribute.
· This includes all ballot measures.
· Citizens cannot donate to any politician or measure out of their residency which the politician directly impacts.

This will effectively make the politicians answer to, "We the People", and take the $ out of the game.

5000 dollars gives more of a voice to upper middle class people. We need publicly funded elections, mandatory days off for voting days and accountability for all MSM but obviously especially the lying FOX news network.

 

[franklinstower]

hello JVS,

on a less granular level - but more comprehensible to the public - the Federal Government could boost its funding to NPR.

i know i'm tiresome because i keep beating this drum, but i think its good that there is a "free" source of reasonable information regarding the news of the day that people can access, if they feel like it.

- IGIT

I think the federal government should CUT all funding to NPR. They have shown too much bias to be given public funds.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the federal government should CUT all funding to NPR. They have shown too much bias to be given public funds.

Didn't expect that response. What do you think their biases are?

 

[IGIT]

I think the federal government should CUT all funding to NPR. They have shown too much bias to be given public funds.

hiya franklinstower,

sometimes NPR reports findings that are at odds with one's own convictions. that is not bias.

for example, when NPR described Bernie Sanders as a "long shot" candidate early in the 2016 race in the Democratic primary, that enraged supporters of Mr. Sanders. the thing is, he was a long shot candidate. just like Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, which NPR described in a similar manner.

them's the breaks.

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. i think NPR's funding should be boosted.

- IGIT

PS - some of NPR's hosts definitely seem to lean a bit to the left (ie - the host of "Science Friday", Ira Flatow, seems to believe that climate change is a grave challenge facing humanity, which seems like a pretty liberal belief to hold).

 

[IGIT]

Didn't expect that response. What do you think their biases are?

hi Jack V Savage,

it probably relates to;

a) NPR didn't give Bernie Sanders - who was running a rather distant second to Hillary Clinton back in 2016 - equal coverage

b) NPR may have a corporate sponsor that FranklinsTower has denoted as an "evil corporate interest"

c) NPR didn't just straight up denounce Hillary Clinton as the Antichrist in 2016

d) Diane Rheme's 2016 interview with Bernie, which outraged Sanders supporters (Rheme asked Mr. Sanders a question regarding dual citizenship, assuming he was a dual citizen of Israel and the US, hence, jewbashing). it might be some singular incident regarding a lone reporter or host, in much the same way my friend Anung Un Rama would cite Judith Miller to me whenever i made a favorable mention of the New York Times.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

hi Jack V Savage,

it probably relates to;

a) NPR didn't give Bernie Sanders - who was running a rather distant second to Hillary Clinton back in 2016 - equal coverage

b) NPR may have a corporate sponsor that FranklinsTower has denoted as an "evil corporate interest"

c) NPR didn't just straight up denounce Hillary Clinton as the Antichrist in 2016

- IGIT

Could be. I'm curious, but some people here don't like good-faith discussions.

 

[Brass Balls]

Public execution of those found guilty & involved along with their families.

Make the stakes higher on the risk vs reward pendulum.

 

[IGIT]

Easy:

hiya skold,

i was with Bernie in the 2016 primaries, and i still admire the man a great deal. there really is this vibe that this is a politician who "cannot be bought". even now in 2019, it still resonates.

if all the moderates and the wealthy in the Democratic Party could be made to vanish, and all the moderates in congress transmuted into AOC acolytes, i'd be very interested to see what a "President Sanders" administration could accomplish.

its an inspiring thought.

alas.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

The best thing is to build a system that allows the greatest number of people to benefit from their own efforts as possible.

hello ocfightfan,

it would also be interesting to build a system where the makers of the system (congress) are unable to benefit.

Congresspeople in both political parties have substantial holdings in firms their legislative actions affect — and this number has grown substantially in recent years. While roughly 20% of lawmakers owned stock in 2001, that number had more than doubled by 2013. As of the most recent data (2014 from the Senate and 2016 from the House), over half of Congress owns stock, many with holdings in excess of $100,000 in stocks alone, not to mention mutual funds and other forms of investments.

We analyzed required public disclosure information about congresspeople’s stock holdings as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan nonprofit, in combination with a sample of S&P 500 performance data from 2005 to 2010.

First, the average S&P 500 firm in our sample has about seven members of Congress holding its stock. Some companies have closer to 100 members holding stock, and many firms have 50 or more in a given year.
https://hbr.org/2017/02/the-growing-conflict-of-interest-problem-in-the-u-s-congress

this is a problem.

- IGIT

 

[franklinstower]

Didn't expect that response. What do you think their biases are?

I don't answer the question of known hacks who use dishonest tactics to make disadvantageous arguments. You my friend are a liar.

hiya franklinstower,

sometimes NPR reports findings that are at odds with one's own convictions. that is not bias.

for example, when NPR described Bernie Sanders as a "long shot" candidate early in the 2016 race in the Democratic primary, that enraged supporters of Mr. Sanders. the thing is, he was a long shot candidate. just like Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, which NPR described in a similar manner.

them's the breaks.

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. i think NPR's funding should be boosted.

- IGIT

PS - some of NPR's hosts definitely seem to lean a bit to the left (ie - the host of "Science Friday", Ira Flatow, seems to believe that climate change is a grave challenge facing humanity, which seems like a pretty liberal belief to hold).

The thing is I have supported many candidates over the years and never once noticed a bias running contrary to my convictions yet in the singular case of Bernie I do notice it often across all MSM significantly and in NPR less significantly.

And this happens to be durring a time when we have a candidate who is truly a needle mover towards power for the ordinary peron amd not just the well funded and well connected and well educated....

The problem is probably a demographic one. The wealthy and highy educated news anchors and corporate administrations vote a certain way and that just happens to be the way the bias in coverage runs too....

I

It would seem that if the problem were my perception this would be more than a one off for me personally.... that I would see this bias elsewhere in other candidates across the years but I dont.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't answer the question of known hacks who use dishonest tactics to make disadvantageous arguments. You my friend are a liar.

Yeah, I know your schtick. Deflect any examination of issues to ugly, baseless personal attacks. Oh well. I guess at least this kind of thing has the effect of showing who you are. People who behave like that on a discussion group should just be banned.