If you are a progressive who is pissed about what happened with this bill

[AllentownJake]

There is only one issue, you should be concerned about. Publicly financed campaigns.

I don't care what your personal number one issue is. There will be no reform of any meaningful way in society unless campaigns are publicly financed and the status of one vote one person is restored when it comes to elections.

Until you are ready to do that, and even work with a few conservatives who realizes they aren't going to get their way either in the public debate, you are totally fucked.

This is not an endorsement of John McCain, he does not support this, nor do many mainstream political figures on either side of the aisle. Also Ron Paul and his fan club don't like this idea, so the tea bagger slur isn't going to hold water.

As long as it takes a shit load of money to be competitive in an election, business interest will trump the interest of the American people 100% of the time.

We need to go into the Temple and chase the money changers out.

That's all.

[lunatica]

1. The side your bread is buttered on will also be the one you work for

If I run for office and Larry the Lobbyist gives me a million dollars while John Q Public gives me $200 and I get elected because I have more money than my opponent that means Larry the Lobbyist got me there. I then represent Larry because I owe him my job and he can fire me by simply not giving me money.

Pretty basic

[AllentownJake]

5. I'm trained to look for conflict of interest in making decision making

I've done about 10 procurement audits in my career. The American political system, has a blaring case of a conflict of interest.

It is easily to see how a man who ran on a public option for health care and won in a landslide, cannot get it passed.

[jlamkin]

2. Sounds a lot easier than it is....

Where to start?

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Our two big hurdles are a) the mega-rich and corporations who can

afford to buy politicians and legislation (and the politicians who are getting paid), and b) the argument that campaign donations are free speech (which group a there would most likely use to protect their activities.)

So for starters we need to craft a great legal argument against that and then try to get it heard in court.

(Welcome to DU, btw. Yes, we are pretty much always this fractious, except in the Lounge. That's where we take our mental vacations. :))

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. That's a valid question....

A) The problem is large and complex
B) The Lobbyists have deep pockets and will fight to the death.

I think maybe this starts best at the state level. Here is Wisconsin, we've had two WI Supreme Court races decided by negative campaign ads paid for by lobbying groups. There's a movement afoot to ban campaign contributions for SCOTUS races. It's essentially a public-financing system. The next step is to pass the same legislation for General Assembly campaigns.

The more states that pass this kind of legislation, the weaker the argument becomes for maintaining the current corrupt system at the federal level.

[AllentownJake]

15. Oh this isn't something we pass this tomorrow

But as long you let them distract you with shiny objects like a public option and than hand you a stinking pile of shit, this will go on.

This is a slog that will be as long and as difficult as the civil rights movement.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. We can always dream...

Two or Three good Supreme Court replacements could do the trick. I understand that Ruth Bader Ginsberg will probably retire this year (but she was probably on our side to begin with).

With the conservative members, I think we should all start ordering triple cheese burgers with chili fries and have them delivered to their chambers every day. Maybe we could speed up the process.

[AllentownJake]

38. Oh those fuckers are going to get the best medical care available

They have hearts in freezers ready to go for them from dead children (I only slightly kid).

Electing democratic justices is important. My only fear, the drift the party is taking the past 20 years, the judges are about to look very similar on this matter, unless you have people who totally fuck everything up like a Souter or a Warren.

[Laelth]

3. I agree with you that this is a big problem.

But there's absolutely nothing we can do about it until we get a couple of Supreme Court cases reversed. We'd be better served focusing our energies elsewhere.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Add to that equal airtime for all candidates. Something needs to be done with

the media too, since they have such a large influence on what a vast number of people think... about anything.

There's lots more I would like to see done like ranked voting and proportional representation, but I agree with making publicly financed campaigns the first thing.

[AllentownJake]

The media in of itself is a special interest group

Therefore, they are going to be friendly to politicians who help their bottom line as well.

Hit the public financing first.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Amen....

I wish they had put campaign finance reform on the plate FIRST, even before Health Care. I really don't seen how some of the worst abuses in Washington can be fixed until we get the worst abusers out of the process.

[Tailormyst]

7. I agree completely

There is no other way to get people who care about the general population into power. "Of the people", instead of "of the rich people".

[Le Taz Hot]

8. The immediate problem with your proposal, of course,

is that the VERY same people reaping their 30 pieces of silver from the status quo are the VERY same people who would have to legislate the Public Finance laws. They'd be turning off their own spigots. Ain't gonna happen.

[AllentownJake]

11. The Catch 22

You have to begin by vocally exposing them. The Catholic Church no longer runs Europe and we are no longer a colony of Britain.

They fall, when people are fed up enough.

The problem is you have to expose Democrats as much as Republicans, and in doing so you piss off your allies in your support of other issues.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. Re "pissing off the allies"

At this point, the cheerleaders are anything but allies -- they're the cannon fodder the corporate elite send out to do the real fighting, and dying. I don't think the answer lies within either major party as I think that the major forces, the monied interests, the predator class, if you will, are in full control and the D's and R's are nothing more than pawns in the power struggle by the only people who will reap the benefits -- the same people who pay the bills.

Edit for gooder grammar.

[AllentownJake]

19. The cheerleaders rarely leave their house

In either party, the people that are actually motivated by changing something, are rarely motivated by a political figure, they are motivated by the change.

Of all the people that I know in real world that worked on this campaign, I know two cheerleaders, and they are about as useful as tits on a bull and were some of the laziest people in the campaign.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. We agree on the diagnosis,

we just disagree on the methodology for cure.

[AllentownJake]

30. Don't worry about the shills

The word Change, when the system is broken seems to sell things...don't know where I got that idea.

[izquierdista]

10. It's not just about money

It's the way the money is used. Money buys advertising and advertising has long ago departed from being a mere conveyer of information. It is now fine tuned to play on emotion and cause people to make choices that are not in their best interests. Cigarette ads are the prime example of advertising getting people to significantly shorten their lives for the benefit of the advertiser.

If political advertising were banned, if billboards and yard signs and bumper stickers with just a name and a vapid slogan were outlawed, people might actually be forced to get information and make a decision based on reason. Unfortunately, the unethical will use "free speech" as an excuse to trot out their appeals to emotion so that they can promise crap like "change you can believe in", and then act to preserve the status quo.

[AllentownJake]

13. Well if you cut of the money

There are only so many bumper stickers and yard signs you can buy with a limited budget. Ask the President he opted out this year.

[DemReadingDU]

14. Exactly. We need to change the way politicians are elected

Get out the lobbyists and money. Bring back government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Perhaps select our Representatives and Senators by jury-lottery. Everyone's social security number is in the lottery (similar to PowerBall). Balls are selected from each of 9 containers. The 1st ball is the 1st digit of the SS#...9th ball is the 9th digit of SS#. This will give a random pool of SS numbers to select the candidate. Specific criteria could be used to discard potential candidates, such as too young, too old, moved, died, etc. Eventually, the candidate is chosen and serves for the position he/she was selected for.

This would be a long drawn out process. It wouldn't happen in my lifetime, maybe in my kids, hopefully during my little grandbabies lifetime.

[LooseWilly]

71. By way of... "precedent"... i'd point out that indigena communities in Mexico work on this premise

... to this day. The "city council" of many villages, as well as the "police", are elected by a sort of lottery each year. When the police are just citizens who happened to get picked in a lottery this year, and won't be doing any policing next year... it tends to cut the corruption and "occupation" psyche out of the picture. Likewise, I would think, of politicians.

Just saying, the idea is not crazy.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Not Unless You Beat The System

We now have a non-stop campaign system and an underground of political "consultants" and others who make good money. You need to change this system. Today it costs at least $1 million to run for the House and $10 mil or more for the Senate. A bulk of this money goes to those "professionals" as well as to unregulated TV time that sees political campaigns as a cash cow. The longer the campaign goes, the more money people make (look at how many candidates are already on the teevee for next year's primaries and elections).

The Supreme Court has all but said there won't be any caps or limits on donating and there's very little appetite from many politicians for any true reform...self refusal of donations puts one at a severe disadvantage. My suggestion is to limit the length of a campaign season...just like the British do. Shorten the voting season to 90 days for a primary and then 90 days for a general. Move the primaries up to May or June and then a final 3 month push to the general. It'd be nice to re-regulate broadcasting to force stations to once again offer time at the lowest rate (like they were required to do under the Fairness Doctrine) and require stations that accept political advertising to match each minute bought with a free minute...or an aggregate of minutes given to each bona fide (polls over 5%) candidate.

The first step is to vote in those who will vote in favor of changes. And to do it you have to beat the current system...no one is going to change it otherwise.

[AllentownJake]

20. Oh this is a long battle

and you have to start small and get bigger.

The 2012 Presidential Election will be as good of a case as anything. Two candidates, neither using public financing in the last 2 months.

Look for 2 billion dollars by both parties to be spent on an election and the subsequent legislative agenda once elected from either group to be so absolutely offensive for the movement to take a little ground.

[KharmaTrain]

33. They'll Avoid Public Funding Altogether...

Or they'll pull a McCain...take the funding during the primaries when the bucks are tight and when the big money starts to roll then find some loophole or just outright ignore the FEC (they're worthless anyway).

Yep, it'll take a billion to win the White House in 2012 and the money is alraedy being banked...might be worth keeping an eye on sites like Open Secrets to see if there's a spike in donations to the DNC, DSCC as well as the campaigns and PACs of critical Senators. It won't happen until the heat is off...a couple months down the road, but the mindset is unless one has the money, one can't get the votes...thus coddling to donors (especially those that can crank out five and six figure checks) comes before the voter.

I honestly believe that public funding will never work as candidates will always find loopholes. Also it puts handcuffs on many little folks (netroots) who do critical donating...to grassroot candidates who start out with next to nothing against incumbents with long established war chests. Again...I think limiting the campaign season and cutting back the money to the election machine would be a better equalizer than any other reform I've seen/heard.

Cheers...

[AllentownJake]

36. The problem is out there

A patriotic billionaire who is pissed off, is always the preferred option.

[KharmaTrain]

37. Careful For What You Wish For...

There are far more rushpublican billionaires out there than Democrats. You could end up with a Forbes or Erik Prince.

[AllentownJake]

39. Ross Perot in hindsight

Would have been better than Bill Clinton or Bush I.

At least Nafta would have been delayed four years.

[KharmaTrain]

41. One Plus, Many Downs...

I looked closely at Perot in '92...and while I liked his populist message, he would have been a disaster with both parties not wanting to work with him. It's similar to supporting Ron Paul cause he is against the war...but then you look at his stance on women and LGBT issues or Education and you get second thoughts in a hurry.

[AllentownJake]

43. Like I said

Are you willing to make the sacrifice on other core issues, continue to lobby for them, if you feel that the money in politics prevents those issues from getting addressed.

If the answer is no, than you lobby for your key issues and don't try to work with people you fundamentally don't like on other issues. If the answer is yes, you have to suck it up, and be prepared to fight a former ally as soon as the other battle is resolved.

The party has obviously shown its willingness to sacrifice those issues for broader appeal, so I'm not really that troubled by that choice.

[sabrina 1]

67. You read my mind, I was just wondering is there

such a person? All the wealthy people in this country seem to support politicians in both parties to cover themselves. They are not patriotic, that's for sure.

I'm sure there are people who have money, and who are socially conscious. But they seem to stay away from politics.

How about the guy who owns Costco?

[Captain Hilts]

18. Obama's wildly successful fund-raising killed that for another generation. nt

[AllentownJake]

22. Actually it exposed the problem more than anything else

Look at this board and how people are reacting to this bill.

A bunch of people just woke up to the fact they aren't getting what they wanted, they aren't even getting what they thought would be a minimum compromise.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Al, I hope you're right. I'm hoping folks figure this out. nt

[AllentownJake]

29. Half the democratic party is doing a collective WTF

Other than the shills. No one is very happy right now.

[Captain Hilts]

32. THIS is why I wanted most the candidates to stay in the primaries. nt

[AllentownJake]

35. Why?

Obama or Hillary were going to win, on a daily basis you were told they were the only two people who could do it, and who did you want to stay in. Other than Dennis and Gravel, the other people were as big children of the current system.

[Captain Hilts]

40. Hell, I'm still upset Feingold bailed before it began and Clark demurred...but

Edwards' message was an important one, no matter what someone thinks of him. Same for Denis and Gravel.

We needed to keep pulling the debate left and by the 2nd week of Feb the progressives were being pushed out. It was very upsetting.

I guess I'm still a Clarkie at heart.

[AllentownJake]

42. Edwards is an interesting cat and so is Spitzer

60 years ago, no one would care, because no one would know. The elites had a private matter clause and there was an understanding there is a little more temptation that goes on with being a public figure with wealth than that of the masses. They didn't report it.

The fact is, it has been shown most of these conservative Christian values fucks have mistresses. The problem progressives face, is they have to convince people they are moral because conservatism has been equated with Christianity (the two belief systems at their core couldn't be more opposite).

60 years ago, Christians were protesting for workers, civil rights, and the poor. Now they defend the rich, protect banks, and attack people who don't look like them. Some people don't believe in a "satan" or evil force in the world. I do, and the change in the church can only be attributed to one force.

[Captain Hilts]

44. Ain't the whole thing bass ackwards???

I always enjoy your posts. You are intellectually consistent and thoughtful. Even when I don't agree with them. I'm glad to agree with you here.

[AllentownJake]

45. In Fort Wayne Indiana

The largest church had everything from a coffee shop, sports teams, fire work displays on the fourth of July, and was very right wing. To learn what they thought I attended for a year.

They are people who proclaim faith in Christ, but wall themselves up in a fortress from the rest of the world, afraid to be corrupted. Meanwhile inside that church the divorce rate is no different, teenage pregnancies are happening, people are getting in trouble with the law, and they spend most of their missions going to Guatamela when they have a deteriotating economic system down town with people who are just as bad off.

It opened my eyes.

The Pastor was a very good man who I disagreed with politically, he let me know, I try to lead sometimes, the flock determines my actions more than I can determine theirs. I don't make the sports teams or organize the fireworks displays...they do.

[waiting for hope]

61. Edwards pushed both Obama and Clinton to

take more progressive stances on the issues, now that they are the "in" crowd, they don't need them anymore. They only took from Edwards what they thought would help them get elected. I still stand by that message, regardless of the messenger for it spoke for me.

[AllentownJake]

65. J.Edwards made a terrible mistake millions of men make every year

and the cover-up was no different than other politicians. Unfortunately we live in an age, where image trumps message. None of our founding fathers could have been elected to city council with their histories in 2009.

[CoffeeCat]

21. Like it or not...we're going to have to UNITE...

...and that means holding hands with many people that you once hated politically.

We no longer have a democracy. It's batshit insane.

The bastards who orchestrated this coup purposely created a divided America. That's what talk
radio is...a device to make us hate each other. When we're fighting we're distracted, but more
importantly--we're also weak and unable to make change.

There has got to be a new movement in this country. It's the only way.

We must agree to set aside important political issues and fix the damn political infrastructure of
this country. Cuz right now--the corporations and a gang of criminal, sell-out politicians control
everything.

We have to agree, as you said, on campaign finance reform. We have to end the corporate influence.

If we can set aside our social issues and get to work--We The People could change this country.

The teabaggers, Ron Paul fans, Progressives--we must unite. The only people who would be against
this are those who are orchestrating it--and unfortunately some of them are in our own party. The
neocon Republicans and Democrats are the problem. Screw them. They're a minority. We must galvanize
with those who want the same things that we do--our country back on the right track. Otherwise, we all
lose--everything.

[AllentownJake]

23. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Pretty much hated each other ideologically after the revolution. It has precedence.

You have to convince people we have a common foe.

[MineralMan]

24. So, I wonder how we're going to do this when it is the

same Congress we're trying to throw out who would have to implement this?

The real way to change this system is through grassroots efforts to take over the Democratic Party, starting at the lowest levels, then to nominate and elect candidates to the House and Senate who will enact what we want.

It's all very nice to say, "We need to do this," but it ain't happening until we reconstitute the body that must implement it. First things first.

[AllentownJake]

27. Yes as a former officer of the local democratic party

The democratic party has a very effective internal control system for that.

[shadowknows69]

31. Been saying it for years. Once you cut out the lobbying and corporate money.

Then and only then can Mr. Smith get back to Washington.

[Odin2005]

34. K&R.

[BeFree]

46. Two things...

...first: at this link is an idea of what our vote counting problems are and why Bush won his second term.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514688

Secondly: We will never reform the system of campaign financing because the courts have allowed it to happen and the congress who got bribed is not going to admit that they accepted bribes.

So, the only recourse we have is to spread out the number of people who need to be bribed, therefore diluting the power of the bribery.

How do we do that? Glad you asked.

We hire about 5 times as many legislators as we presently have.

What? You don't think having more representatives is good for democracy?
You gotta be kidding me. More democracy is bad for democracy?

[AllentownJake]

47. An interesting idea

One I will have to consider.

My immediate reaction, is the same people who are taking the bribes, are the people you have to convince to hire more reps, and I can't see them voting to dilute their own power.

However I will ponder the issue more, before I reject it. It is a proposed solution.

[BeFree]

48. Well

What we need is a constitutional revision that establishes that one representative represents a fixed number of persons.

George Washington, the first president and Father of our country, thought that number should be one for every thirty thousand.

Given the internet communication system we have today, it would not be too expensive or cumbersome for reps to do most of the people's business on the web. Plus we, the people, would then be privy to most of the ways the sausage is being made.

[AllentownJake]

49. Our Constitution is over 200 years old

a look at some of the details isn't a bad thing, the principles of it's founding are sound and have stood the test of time. Some of the details haven't.

It might be one of those times, where a tinkering is in order.

[glitch]

53. If reduce their salaries to one fifth of current. And give them the same healthcare that is being

passed right now.

[ProSense]

50. So now that Specter voted for the bill, are you going to vote against him?

You planned to vote for him over Sestak, are you still planning on doing that?

[AllentownJake]

51. Conundrum

I support Arlen's stance on Afghanistan, Joe Sestak voted for a Public Option.

If there is a public option in the final plan, I can vote for Specter in good conscious in that he did not vote for insurance mandates without a public option in reconciliation. No public option can't vote for either now can I in a primary.

If not, I must vote for Doris Ribner Smith. Kohrs is more conservative than all of them.

I'd vote for George W. Bush over Pat Toomey in a head to head match up, so the general election is not an issue.

[glitch]

52. The entire US election systems process needs reform

Three fatally flawed areas: campaign finance, private vote count machines, corporate media. Until we fix all three we will not have fair elections.

[Vidar]

54. You hit the nail on the head.

[MessiahRp]

55. Yep I said this exact same thing on this board and was flamed for it...

We should have went after campaign finance reform first. If you don't take the money out of politics, then every battle will be lost to corporations like this one was.

Rp

[AllentownJake]

56. Why do you think ACORN and UNIONS

are attacked by the Right Wing and the media so much, they work for democrats. The right got this memo 30 years ago, they've controlled the debate ever since.

[MessiahRp]

57. I completely agree... and I actually think with the right attack...

we could unify the right AND the left on this.

Both groups hate special interests... To the right you play up taking Unions and MoveOn out of the mix and they are all for campaign finance reform. I know, I've made the argument to right wingers who disagree with me on everything and won them over. On the left it's about eliminating corporate lobbyists and getting rid of all campaign donations. It also would remove the ability of an employer to lobby their employees on behalf of a candidate (the other half of that Union equation).

We'd just message both sides differently for one end goal.

You do that, make the election period 12 weeks (6 weeks for a primary, 6 weeks for a general), force networks to air national campaign debates with every candidate that has the pre-requisite signatures to be allowed on the ballot (and also to receive public funds) and you force complete stock/bond/financial holding divestiture from anyone who wants to run from public office and their immediate families and you eliminate all of the money in politics. Not just campaign funding, committee budget steering of funds to companies you're invested in.

The divestiture makes a ton of sense too... sell your stocks and bonds and keep your money liquid and in a savings account. There's no reason for people like Tom Petri, R-WI being able to vote on the prescription drug plan when he owns millions of dollars in Walgreens stock... for instance.

Rp

[AllentownJake]

58. My right wing bowling team partner

and I were talking, and I said, he's going against most of what he said he would support.

He said, join the club, How do you think I feel after 8 years of George W. Bush thinking in 2000 I got a conservative.

[ChaoticSilly]

59. It's possible but not very probable

If we can convince a critical mass of voters to ALWAYS vote for the candidate who raises the least amount of money we can force the system to evolve without any help from the politicians at all. I realize this won't be a popular idea because we'll no doubt have to endure a few downright crazies along the way but if enough voters signed on political money would eventually be a detriment to campaigns. Think of it as applying natural selection to politics.

Of course there are still problems to work out like what to do about groups that try to use money to influence the election from outside or where to find a Master Cat Herder to convince enough people to act on it instead of just talking about it.

[waiting for hope]

60. Add refusing to hire lobbyist lackeys to

cabinet posts and I would say that is the ticket. K&R

[bridgit]

62. It's really quite an eye opener to see how little American capitalism has to offer cept...

holding the American people hostage for ransom while shaking us down for the last few dollars in our pockets for diamond parachutes and obscene profits - no new ideas, no new products, no new wars just the same long deathly chaotic one - disgusting

A call for the separation of church & state was a powdered wig piker's ignorant short sightedness as it turns out. When it was the capitalism of economic & indentured servitude that has founded and perpetuates this nation

[Goldstein1984]

63. You're not going to get a corrupt system to volunteer to end

corruption.

During elections, it's still the number of votes that count. What if the people just reject candidates with a lot of money behind them? Lots of money = bad, bad, bad.

We have to REJECT THE SYSTEM. We aren't going to change it from within.

Lots of money = bad = no vote.

We're always hearing about what candidate has raised the most money. Make that a bad thing.

[branders seine]

64. that and rolling back the reagan tax cuts

[Mithreal]

66. Should be posted daily

[ClassWarrior]

68. If you are a progressive, no matter what your position on this bill... in fact, if you're an...

...American citizen of any stripe, there is only one issue that you should be concerned about. Publicly financed campaigns. It is the mother of all issues. And as long as we fail to enact it, we will continue to see the deterioration of our national discourse.

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Which unfortunately can't happen without overturning Buckley v Valeo

You can come up with all of the schemes you want to try and stop corporations from contributing to candidates but they will still find a way around the law. The only way to really do campaign finance reform is to impose spending limits and make the limit some very small amount that can easily be raised by small individual contributions or through public financing. Unfortunately the Supreme Court said that spending limits were unconstitutional in Buckley v Valeo.

Although I definitely support campaign finance reform I just don't see how it can be done with this constitutional restriction and sometimes I think well intentioned efforts can just make the system worse. FDR's campaign was completely financed by 10 really wealthy guys and as a result all he had to do in office was give patronage to those 10 wealthy guys (among them Joe Kennedy). In some ways that's better than the system we have now.

[Truth2Tell]

70. Great point Jake!

Always worth repeating at times like these. :hi: K&R

[saracat]

72. I agree but here in AZ, where we have publicly funded local elections, the GOP

are doing their best to destroy the system. Oddly many of them were elected using it but turned their backs on it once elected! It really is important to have publicly funded elections and when Obama declined federal funding he definitely cast a pall over the general.It was a really bad and unnecessary thing for him to do, IMHO.
In Arizona, I feel differently about our Dem candidates who choose to campaign traditionally, freeing themselves from the public accountability of Clean Elections Candidates, believing they can raise more money from lobbyists and PACS.I do not trust traditional candidates as much because they are not having to reach out directly to the people for $5 contributions to qualify. Many more voters feel they have a stake in publicly funded candidates.

[Raster]

73. There may be two parties in DC, but they feed by the same hand and from the same trough.

There will NEVER be any type of meaningful reform until the dirty money removed from American elections. It's a bad system that self-perpetuates. As it stands now, it is almost impossible to be elected to Congress without corporate financing. It is impossible to stay in Congress without corporate funds.

[druidity33]

74. I disagree.

I think Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is just as important if ever we want to break from a 2 party system. As is eliminating "Black Box" voting.

:shrug: