If they really want a cohesive sound byte to represent the Occupy movement, let's give them one.

[garybeck]

I believe it should be:

TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS

This is the summation of everything as I see it. And (in theory at least) this is a populist idea that even Tea Baggers can wrap their heads around.

All these issues flow from it:

- Rich people have more say in policy making than average and poor people
- Corporations have too much influence in policy making
- Lobbyists are destroying our political system
- Rich people and corporations are never prosecuted for their crimes
- We need campaign finance reform
- people should get elected for their ideas, not how much money they can raise
- money is not speech
- corporations are not individuals
- campaigns should be publicly financed

The whole point of a democracy is that everyone is supposed to have equal say. With political contributions we've destroyed our democracy. Rich people have more say, more power, and immunity. This is not a Democracy! We're not Marxists or Nazis. We just want our Democracy back!

Imagine a country where every person, regardless of their income or financial status, has one vote and an equal say in politics. NO ONE, and NO CORPORATION can contribute a single penny to a politician, before, during or after their campaign. There's no such thing as political contributions because this inherently give more power to people with money, and this violates the intent of our Democracy. Politicians campaign on issues only and not on raising money. When they vote, they have their CONSTITUENTS in mind instead of their DONORS.

TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. ALL OF IT.
THAT's WHAT WE WANT. SIMPLE AS THAT.

Everyone who thinks money should stay in politics, you get on THAT side of the line.
Everyone who thinks money should get out of politics, you get on THIS side of the line.

I think you'd have about a 99% vs. 1% right there, along with that sound byte you've been looking for.

[PETRUS]

1. Money is power.

As long as there are severe concentrations of wealth and property ownership, keeping "money out of politics" is going to be a losing battle. Dramatically inequitable wealth distribution is inherently anti-democratic.

[pinto]

2. Was at a small, local support OWS gathering Sat. This meme got the loudest, clearest

support of any issue mentioned. :hi:

[RegieRocker]

3. No more wars! First.

Then backtrack one thing at a time until all injustice is destroyed.

[PETRUS]

5. We'd have a lot fewer wars if there weren't powerful, for-profit interests promoting them. nt

[garybeck]

7. Why do we have wars?

because the military is a huge industry that has too much influence on politics.

take away their influence, and the wars will go away.

[RegieRocker]

12. When the people no longer will go to war then there will be no

more wars.

[Bandit]

30. When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, we will know Peace

:shrug:

[cui bono]

11. Disagree. Bringing "no war" into this will just dilute it.

And we've already gone through anti-war protests so there's a built in bias against them from a certain segment of the population, regardless of whether it's correct or not.

We need to keep the focus on the fact that the corporations have bought our government and the people, the 99% have no say in it. We need our government back to where it represents the will of the people, then we can stop the wars.

[RegieRocker]

13. Probably much to your dismay this movement is not about

the good ole US of A. This is global. First things first.

[cui bono]

16. Why are you attacking?

Anyway, first things first means cleaning up your own house.

And do you think only wars are global? Corporations are called transnational for a reason. And the movement is called Occupy Wall Street for a reason. Other countries have the same problems we do with the banksters. The banksters are a global problem.

We protested the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and where did that get us? This is not an anti-war protest. The movement will fizzle without focus. Once the politicians are not bought we can address all other issues, until then they simply will not answer to us.

[RegieRocker]

20. You misread my post. There can be no wars if people don't go.

So in essence what I am saying is this movement can help people realize they can simply say "No more". It can stop now. I am all for the ending of the banking system we have today believe me. Some way or another it has to start with people refusing to go along with the things wrong in this world.

[cui bono]

22. No. I don't think I misread it. The snark was very evident.

You clearly attacked me with your "much to your dismay... good ol' US of A" remark, which quite a presumption on your part since I never said anything to warrant that.

That's exactly what OWS is doing, refusing to go along with the status quo, demanding a change in our system. But to bring ending the wars into this will simply dilute it and give the corporate media a reason to say there's no cohesive message, they don't know what they want.

Occupy Wall Street is obviously about Wall Street. It really can't get much clearer than that. Calling ourselves the 99% is clearly about the monetary inequity in this country, yes, this country. It is not about the wars. That is another movement. And it would be a mistake to bring that into this at this time when we need to focus on the problem of money controlling everything in this country. If that doesn't change nothing will. You can stop the wars and that won't change the financial sector owning the government.

[RegieRocker]

24. Once again you think this is about the good ole US of A

only and you make that clear in your speech. It's not however. There are many people all over the world in these rally's carrying "Stop the killing" and "No more wars". I am sorry they disappoint you and you think it's inappropriate.

[cui bono]

32. See? Again you make a snarky attack and false presumption.

I think I made myself clear, sorry if you didn't understand and are unable or unwilling to carry on a dialogue. Yes, I made the mistake of not repeating myself about the global situation, I should have been more clear in my second post that OWS is about Wall Street and other countries have their own situations, making it a global thing. I did say that in my previous post but you didn't address any of the content of that one.

[RegieRocker]

34. What I read was this

"everything in this country" or "We need our government" or "Once the politicians" there is no other way to perceive this other than the good ole US of A. That is all I meant by the so called snark. It wasn't however that. You seem to disagree about the no wars so I was pointing out that the global movement is focused on ending war along with the money problems. That people themselves can stop the wars by saying "NO". Many things can be realized by just saying "NO".

[cui bono]

39. I agree with your saying "NO" sentiment. That seems to be what's going on, no?

I don't know how you got that I was only concerned about the "good ole US of A" though, since I pointed out how the bank situation is global and that's why they call corporations transnational. In fact, it was in response to you saying that wars are global when disagreeing with me so it seemed to me that you were the one saying the bankster problem wasn't. OWS is about Wall Street, hence the name, even though they affect a large portion of the world. As far as doing something about it we can only change our politicians/rules/system. I can't go changing the government in some other country very easily, hell, I can't change this one easily! But if we fix the rules here it will affect the world. It's all a global thing divided into parts. We can work to fix this part. Doesn't mean that's the only thing I care about though, so please don't attribute that sentiment to me.

I still disagree about bringing wars up at this time for the reasons I've already stated previous posts.

[RegieRocker]

41. Fair enough. I feel the wall street here while saying no

to wars is the most appropriate. My opinion.

[garybeck]

14. ding ding ding! you win the prize! n/t

[lbrtbell]

33. You're bringing the cart before the horse

Take the money out of politics, and the wars will end.

[RegieRocker]

35. I am all for taking the money out of politics.

There is so much to be done and so little time.

[Gamow]

4. Sorry but that isn't broad enough. Something closer "Take the Power Away from Wall Street"

Repubs want to talk about small government, how about small ruling powers in general?
Break up the banks, throw the criminal offenders in jail, and cut the ties between WallStreet and DC.
Take away their power.

[Amonester]

6. It definitely is the first change that must be implemented.

There is no other first change. Also, direct the FCC to cancel all existing media licenses at a predetermined date, only to re-issue new licenses that will include provisions for all mass-media outlets to allocate FREE and EQUAL air-time to all official candidates, on verifiable schedules. The cost of running for public office would become a lot cheaper for all taxpayers. F the mass-media greedy f*ck$. They've got plenty enough already. No free and equal time for candidates? No license. Public airwaves belong to the public, after all.

The second change that must be implemented after that is, verifiable paper & pen voting.

[BrendaBrick]

21. Interesting to compare

the way Britain handled their last election in 2010 with the U.S. The debates took place for only about a month or so before the election.

Imagine that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk5HvJmy_yg&feature=relmfu

Far cry from the circu$ here in the States, clearly over ONE YEAR beforehand...and all this time, energy, focus (er...distraction) and massive amounts of $$$$$ being spent over possible candidates when who knows a year from now who will ultimately run??? Could wind up being some unknown at the last minute like Palin was this last go 'round.

[zacherystaylor]

8. Agreed with two adjustments

I certainly agree with the general objective but campaign finance reform won't be enough we need complete election reform that enables the public to control the system.

And this election reform should be publicly financed but not controlled by the candidates as most reform seems to imply. Instead we should set up a job application process where the candidates are required to fill out an application controlled with input from the public and attend interviews that are influenced by the public. Candidates who refuse to comply should be disqualified the way a a applicant that refuses to fill out an application or attend an interview are rejected.

[garybeck]

10. Agreed.

by "campaign finance reform" I didn't meant to imply little tweaks to the system. As stated in other places of the OP, I mean take ALL the money out of campaigns. Publicly funded.

the basic idea is that ANYTHING that gives ANYONE more influence in politics needs to go away.

the whole point of a democracy is that each person has an equal say. so anything that contradicts that should be axed.

[kctim]

15. Really?

"the basic idea is that ANYTHING that gives ANYONE more influence in politics needs to go away"

No more union money? NRA money? NAACP money?

[garybeck]

17. you can contribute to those organizations, but they can't give money to campaigns

NRA and NCAAP can say they support a candidate, but that's it. They can voice their opinions, write a letter to the editor, but they can't buy commercials on TV or make contributions. The bottom line is that the campaigns are publicly funded and the candidates can't throw more money at it.

[zacherystaylor]

19. We should here from all candidates on an equal footing

Advertising that are designed to manipulate the public without rational scrutiny should be banned. This means that even those that agree with me should be on equal footing; otherwise we will continue to play the game on the terms of those that have already corrupted it.

[kctim]

23. Interesting

Can they buy time at a union hall, theater, arena, stadium, park etc...?

[PotatoChip]

27. They can if they want under public financing

However, since their opponent would have the same amount to spend, the candidate would really want to consider whether or not "time in a union hall, theater, arena, stadium, or park" is a wise use of his/her limited allotment of funds.

[kctim]

36. Not the candidates

The union, NRA, NAACP etc... Can they use their money to rent those things and promote one candidate over the other?

[PotatoChip]

40. Under Maine's Publicly Financed campaign laws

(aka "Clean Elections") the answer is no... At least not w/the candidate's knowledge.

Though I've never heard of it happening, I suppose a Union, or the NRA could have a rah-rah event for their candidate of choice (especially now after the SCOTUS ruling on "corporate personhood"). However, it seems kind of foolish considering that their guest of honor is not only NOT allowed to attend, but they cannot even know about it.

The same rule applies to an individual group such as those you cited (PAC) airing commercials, print ads, sending mailings ect on behalf of any one candidate... they can do it, but the candidate is not allowed to have any say in how or what they do, nor even know about it... Now this, I've have seen. And sometimes the candidate doesn't even want/or like what the PAC has done when trying to "help".

If this rule were to be violated IOW, if the candidate knew about it, or had a hand in it somehow, the cost of the event, mailing, advertisement, ect would be considered to be a private contribution and as such, a violation of the publicly funded candidate's legally binding agreement to not accept private funds. Since I'm unaware of there ever having been such a violation, I don't know what the penalty would be. But ethics violations are considered to be serious matters, nothing a Clean Election candidate would want. At the very least, I would assume they would have to pay back the public funds, plus a hefty fine, plus maybe face criminal charges, plus extremely negative publicity.

You've probably gotten far more then you ever wished to know about Publicly Funded campaigns, but just in case you want more info (lol)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Elections

[kctim]

42. Actually, I am seeking more info

IMO, it is not possible to get money out of campaigns, so I really never gave it much thought. What is fair for one, may not be fair for another. And it is almost always possible to figure out a way to game it.

So, since I seen somebody with some ideas and points, just thought I would ask some questions.

[PotatoChip]

43. What do you mean by

"it's not possible to get money out of campaigns"? Do you mean 'any' campaign or publicly funded campaigns?

Because if you mean the former, I agree. Citizens deserve to know as much as possible about their candidates in order to make an informed choice and that takes money. The candidate needs money to mail information, advertise on air or in print, to have brochures and signs made up, ect.

But after over a decade of publicly funded campaigns in my state, I can attest to the fact that they work very well. *Or at least up until now. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling will affect our system, (it's not going to be good- I know that) but up until now (6 election cycles), this is how it worked...

Hypothetically, let's just say this is your typical State Representative race w/2 candidates, D against R and no primary for either of them. There would be 3 possible scenarios.

A) Both candidates choose to run traditional, privately funded campaigns. No explanation needed here obviously.

B) Both candidates choose to be Clean Elections candidates. In order for either of them to qualify, they must be able to show a modest amount of grassroots support for their candidacy by collecting 50 or more 5 dollar donations along w/50 signatures (verified by their town clerk(s)) from citizens within their district. Once these signatures and money is submitted, the state ethics commission then must examine and certify the authenticity of the money & signatures, just as the town clerk did. Once verified, the candidates are given their alloted sum of money. Each candidate will get the same amount and will be required to submit campaign finance reports just as privately funded candidates do. I think there are 3, maybe 4 in a General election cycle.

C) One candidate chooses to run 'traditional' while the other chooses to run 'clean'. Candidate A (the 'clean' candidate) goes through the process I described above, while Candidate B (the 'traditional' candidate) goes the normal route everyone already knows about... calling donors ect. Both A&B will still be required to file their campaign finance reports. Now this is where it gets interesting... If any of candidate B's reports show that he received more money in donations then candidate A (the publicly funded one) the system's "Matching Funds" kick in, therefore candidate A will be sent enough money to equal the amount candidate B received.

This is the part that is most likely to "be gamed" as you put it. I've heard of many cases in which the privately funded candidate holds off cashing some of his donations till the day after he files his finance report, thus having the upper hand financially. This can put Candidate A at a big disadvantage, especially if candidate B times it so that the majority of his extra cash comes in during the very last month of the campaign... too late for publicly funded A to get his Matching Funds.

Incidentally, this "Matching Fund" part is what the Supreme Court ruled to be unconstitutional, so I guess the issue no longer matters. It'll be interesting to see how many candidates will still choose the 'Clean Election' option for the next election knowing that they very well may be outspent.

We could steer clear of this whole Matching Funds Issue altogether though if we get rid of the 'traditional' option completely... My state's 'Clean Elections' came about by Citizen Initiative. They could bring about a new referendum requiring that all state candidates be publicly funded. Period. Sounds radical, I know, but if the voters can approve Publicly Funded elections as they did here in 1996, they can take it one step farther. Especially now while we are having a National dialog on how terribly money and politics are so entrenched.

Doing this on the Federal Level would be extremely difficult, as my guess is that it probably would require an amendment to the Constitution, however "never say never" is my motto... And people really *are* ready for change. Actually they've been ready since 2008. Too bad it didn't happen. Maybe this movement will MAKE it happen.

[garybeck]

31. I don't have all the answers. The principle is there. Details need to be discussed.

the basic idea is to take the money out of campaigns and restore the basic principle that everyone has the same amount of power and say in the government, with their sacred vote.

today the vote is nothing. it's just a small part of the system where money buys votes.

if you agree on the principle, the details can be worked out. I"m sure there's a fair way to allow free speech and let people have a talk in a union hall, without giving power to money.

in my mind, unions should primarily represent their constituents in regards to negotiations with employers. Their main purpose is not to exist as a political organization. Leave the politics to the people and their votes. Let the unions negotiate with employers. If they want to make an endorsement, that's fine but leave it at that.

[kctim]

38. Interesting AND consistent in your beliefs

Thanks for the ideas and suggestions. Good stuff.

[PotatoChip]

25. Exactly. And the model for a smoothly operating publicly funded

campaign finance system is already available. The state of Maine has had public financing of campaigns for over a decade. Works beautifully... or rather it did until the Citizens United ruling; not sure what will happen now :mad:

In any event, I fully agree with you. Public Financing of campaigns should be the #1 priority. That one move would wipe out a ton of other problems that we need to address...

Just a thought, but perhaps a way around the citizens united ruling would be to insist upon abolishing ALL private funding. The SCOTUS ruling got rid of the "Matching Funds" portion of public financing, but that issue would be moot if opposing candidates cannot receive private funding. Period. Maine's system was voluntary. We'd have to get rid of that part.

Same amount of contributions for every candidate. Public funding or candidate will not be allowed on ballot.

[Zorra]

9. Yes. That is #1 or very close to it. nt

[gratuitous]

18. It's quite simple

The system as currently running isn't working. It's not sustainable. It doesn't inure to the benefit of the people who generate the wealth. Whether it's money in politics, ongoing war, unprosecuted high crimes and misdemeanors of public officials, rapacious policies in the financial sector, or whatever else (take your pick), the system isn't working. If there was one thing wrong, we could concentrate on that. But there are so many areas of dysfunction, naming just one is like singling out which tooth on the chainsaw felled the tree.

If campaign corruption is your issue, work on that.
If war and its attendant waste is your issue, work on that.
If corruption and criminal wrongdoing in government circles is your issue, work on that.
If robber baron financial policies is your issue, work on that.

I promise to support your efforts, even if it's not my number one concern. I ask that in return, you not interfere with my efforts to correct my number one concern, and if possible, support my efforts, even if you don't want to take the lead on it.

[MilesColtrane]

26. "SIMPLE AS THAT."

A simple message, yes.

But, fundamentally changing things is going to require a new Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment.

There are some things that can be done like taxing the rich and enforcing antitrust laws, but until "money is speech" and "corporations are people" is overturned, we're screwn.

[garybeck]

29. the stuff we are talking about is on that scale

we need a constitutional ammendment and/or a supreme court ruling to fix this mess, for sure!

so yes, that's what we're talking about!

[kestrel91316]

28. "Castrate the bulls"

[TBF]

37. Income inequality is the issue -

getting money out of politics is one particular issue ... but not the overriding one as far as I'm concerned.

[garybeck]

44. I think you have the cart before the horse

if we cut CEO's salaries and boost the poor's salaries, that would be great. however it will do nothing to stop the undue influence that rich people and corporations have in politics. The banks will still be ripping people off, taking our tax money as bailouts, we'll still be destroying our planet, starting wars, having 50 million people with no health care, etc. In contrast, one effect of their influence is keeping the minimum wage rate low. If we remove their undue influence in politics, a natural effect is that people's income will rise. along with that a lot of other things will get fixed. If we take the money out of politics it will solve many many problems because the rich and the poor will have the same amount of say. If the poor think they're not getting enough pay, they can vote people into office who want to raise the minimum wage. Or they can vote people into office who will enact labor union rights, or universal health care, etc...