How can we get rid of special interest groups/lobbysts?

Question

I say we should change the way elections are done. It should be stipulated that candidates (for whatever election--local, state, or federal) be allocated EQUAL portions of funding from the US treasury to fund their campaign. This means that candidates won't have any strings being pulled from the sidelines because they have no obligation to the special interest groups that seek to have their way carried out through the proxy--the potential policy maker.

This also means that candidates can push their ideas and promises with much less ulterior motives, and of course, everyone has an equal footing because of equal funding.

I'm a firm believer of our system of capitalism, but the line between public and private is drawn for a reason, and the two should never mesh.

What do you guys think?

Answer 1

the first thing that has to happen is that corporations were given the rights of citizens that need to be stripped away , The question of corporate personhood came before the Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Railroad vs.. Santa Clara County. The court never explicitly stated that a corporation was a person. That statement was made in a header, written by a court clerk that summarized the case. But that was enough to make it a precedent.

Once stripped of their personhood, corporations would no longer have any rights, only privileges granted by their charters, which could be revoked if they misbehaved. As it stands, the only rights corporations have are the ones they’ve bought and paid for—which is all of them, plus some.

Stripping corporations of their personhood is in line with the rightwing Doctrine of Personal Responsibility, which is the rationale for privatizing Social Security and shredding our social safety net. Why should we allow corporate executives to have their safety net while they take away ours? Personal responsibility is an equal opportunity ideal.

As long as they are considered persons, corporations would be able to challenge the public funding of elections by claiming that it infringed on their freedom of speech. However, if all they .have are privileges, then their freedom of speech is the same as a slug’s.

then that takes away the right of redress that corporations have now but never should of had.

and then i have a simple 7 rules of campaign reform

1. u can only donate to people u can vote for
2. no pac's, corporate, lobbyist, or foreign donations
3. must be us citizen to vote
4. unlimited donations but public list of the donors and how much they have given
5. 6 month campaign cycle
6. no matching federal funds
7. no donations to political parties, the politicians can give a part of there raised funds to their own parties ( cause you cant vote for parties, but for people.)

these would go along way to reforming the system

Answer 2

I think that the U.S. treasury has a chance of being corrupted by the political party in office so it would be better to have campaign money paid into a fund which can be drawn upon by candidates for office. The fund could be administered by person elected to that office so that there would be a mixture of political parties and perhaps even economists to ensure that each candidate has the money to support his campaign without knowing who is trying to buy his vote.

Answer 3

It's similar to what I've been preaching for years. If all were allotted the same amount, then no one would need to take time off to hit the campaign trail, doing the "fund raisers." I think also, we need to look at establishing term limits and revising the pay charts for our elected officials. To that end, Franklin and the boys all knew that if they were to serve without pay, that only the wealthy would be able to serve -- so a small stipend was granted, making it possible for even the lowliest farmer to serve and stay away for the prolonged periods. Look what it's been perverted into. You have Teddy Kennedy -- didn't need any money, but here he is, still serving after forty years. What's his pay grade and monthly take home look like? What I wouldn't give to have the financial backing to get myself elected! Talk about gravey the rest of your life!

Answer 4

Now , you know that Congress is in charge of changing any rules and do you think they want to change a sweet deal , like they have . Any changing is up to them and not even pressure from voters can get them to do it .
Congress knows how to play this game , they have made politics their careers and don't want any term limits . That would put a damper in the way they make money and can stay in Congress forever .
Things will never change until we demand that there are term limits in the Senate .

Hey , Doc , you got that exactly right !!!!!!

Answer 5

The only realistic way of lessening theyre influence is to get the majority of people to vote for people who arent under theyre influence. Some politicians do not sell political considerations to finance theyre campaigns. Like Ron Paul.
Or Dennis Kucinich. Listen to people not running that used to be in Politics like Buchanan or Nader( do not konw Nader coul be running?) see who they endorse. Nader endorsed Kucinich in the Democratic nomination and 04. Thats how I heard about him. Buchanan endorsed Paul this year and that how I found about Ron Paul. Paul has my vote this year. I would choose Nader over anyone else running besides Paul. I am a Conservative and disagree with him on many things. ( I am not a Neo Con Bushie Rudy conservative BTW)But I know Nader is not corrupt and he is a vote against the established parties.

You cant expect any of the Front runners in either party to step up and fight corruption and in my opiniom corruption in our government is the most important issue of all because it is the root cause of many of our other problems.

Answer 6

It has to be done if we are going to save our country.

The first step would be to elect a candidate that doesn't accept the money from the lobbyists. To the best of my knowledge that only leaves three candidates McCain, Obama or Edwards.

Answer 7

I guess to the left Obama saying something is more important than actually doing what he said. Remember the most transparent government comment? What BS. Or Pelosi with the " drain the swamp " comment? Guess they missed one during cleaning hence Weiner.

Answer 8

Well, it is a fine idea. It would be the right thing to do.

But it will never happen in a modern capitilistic society.

Money talks. And people listen to it.

Answer 9

I think their products or services should be boycotted. It's the only way to hurt them and make them feel it. You're right about the campaign funding too.

Answer 10

encourage independents to run for all open senate and congressional seats, the republicans and democrats will get the message if we vote them out of office close to completely!!
And Vote Ron Paul for president. He's a man
FOR THE PEOPLE. and the constitution