Do you ever see a U.S. election process where big money influence is marginalized?

[Junkpet]

I.e., Public financing or, at least, exposure of donors.

If so, how will it be done?

If not, how much longer before the next revolution/civil war?

[1-Old-Man]

1. I think its prudent to consider the first obstacle to reducing the influence of big money

Of course the problem is the 1st Amendment, the free speech and free press portions of it. How can you justify telling a man, be he rich or poor, that his voice must be muted in the matter of elections in light of his right, his perfect right you might say, to speak his mind in the matter of how he is governed, in who will represent him when the Government takes action effecting him?

One way is to only permit Government financing of elections, treating everyone the same. I believe there are examples of this working elsewhere.

You will never see a civil war in this country in your lifetime, but you may see several revolutions - I have.

[denverbill]

2. I really don't think the 1st amendment is an obstacle.

The first amendment protects speech and money is not speech, IMO. The Supreme Court see it differently, naturally, since they are more interested in protecting billionaires than democracy. But if money = speech, I should be able to pay my legislator a cash bribe to pass a law with no repercussions. After all, I'm just speaking to my legislator with money.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Say Congress passed a law that nobody was allowed to spend money criticizing Congressmen.

You would be allowed to tell people that a congressman sucked. You could wave banners and shout it on the streets. But you could not buy TV or radio advertising or pay for a billboard that said anything negative about a congressman.

Would such a law be constitutional, or would it violate the First Amendment? If the latter, then (however unpopular this viewpoint is) money is indeed speech.

[denverbill]

7. Money is a tool to amplify speech, and we can regulate the use of tools.

I can buy a truck and drive around a city playing a message over loudspeakers saying "Ron Paul is a moron". But I still have to abide by local regulations controlling noise levels and would expect to be arrested if I insisted on using my 'free speech rights' at 2 in the morning.

I suppose I could try appealing to the Supreme Court about the town violating my free speech rights, but I'm guessing the Supreme Court would find a town could impose 'reasonable restrictions' on my method of amplifying my speech.

I think a law banning spending ANY money criticizing Congressmen would be disallowed as 'unreasonable'. A law restricting people from spending more than $1000 criticizing a Congressman I would consider a reasonable restriction to prevent one person from having an undue influence on an election.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Pretty sure your $1000 limit would be "abridging the freedom of speech".

In fact, it's hard to see how any monetary limit would not be "abridging the freedom of speech".

[denverbill]

14. Well the Supreme Court as it's currently configured agrees with you.

Which is why our government doesn't answer to the people anymore, and why government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, will not perish from the earth.

[dawg]

3. Money is the same as free speech.

You know, unless I use it to talk a woman into having sex with me or to talk an officer out of giving me a speeding ticket. Then, it's called prostitution or bribery.

But if I use it to talk a politician into giving my industry favorable treatment, then it's just good old fashioned free speech.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Talking an officer out of giving you a ticket is certainly not a crime.

I have done this a couple of times myself.

Also, talking a woman into having sex is not a crime. I'm not sure that you thought this post through fully.

[dawg]

6. By using money?

Think about it.

[datasuspect]

10. talk loud enough at a copper

or question their authoriTAY and you'll get your ass in the slam right quick.

disorderly/resisting/obstruction are all bullshit charges for pissing off a cop.

[cali]

8. are you referring to state elections as well as national ones?

big money is not a big factor in state elections in my state. And when it is, it often works against the big money candidate.

[datasuspect]

9. not unless we have a violent revolution

[treestar]

11. In the old days, it probably didn't

It depends on the media. The internet could help equalize, as anyone can get out there and start something.

But the main thing is to influence people to care more and spend more time on it. It's a great thing that we have self government, but we throw it away when we pay no attention and let the people with the most money grab our attention the easiest way - ads while watching entertainment. Or just plain entertainment, which is what Glenn Beck really is - there's no reason to take him seriously and those who do are just plain lazy.

[Junkpet]

15. I like your optimism, but think it's untenable.

The internet was an equalizing agent for only as long as it took big money and its supporters to change their attack plan.

The "media" is now basically nothing but a bunch of talking heads, spewing directly to their captured audiences. We the people can now effectively isolate ourselves with only the information we want to hear and blanket ourselves with enough lies and distortions to give us comfort that "the other side" is lying/distorting about any opposing viewpoint.

As far as people spending more time on "it" and being more "rational", we flatly have no time and are not reinforced by "it". "Laziness" isn't necessarily the root problem when you consider the plethora of information and misinformation any "well intentioned" person sifts through. The less "well intentioned" simply have no reason to look further because all their questions have been answered by the aforementioned lies/distortions.

We see now a newer breed of liberal who is as idealistic as any past neo-con. They distrust all and rally against the middle and any compromise. I sincerely doubt there's any going back without revolutionary action.

That said, my hope resides in requirement of working together in a social species and that the conservatives have carried the lies/misinformation and selfishness about as far as they can without igniting a full scale outrage. It's likely they know this and is the reason for all the craziness in their party, as their actions become more and more desperate, knowing that the end of their power is near. That being the case, the midterm elections are probably the most important elections we'll have in our lifetime. I think they are the tipping point as long as our elected officials don't shy away from the opportunities...which they generally do.

[kudzu22]

13. Not just no but hell no

The federal government has a multi trillion dollar budget and immense power over people's lives. Who gets to control it depends on who wins elections, so money will ALWAYS influence elections. The only way to stop it is to shrink the budget and federal power back to pre-1850 levels, and I don't see that happening ever.