Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi are right

[u9y42]

Money being in politics is not a problem. Having money in politics allows people to make a statement that they agree or disagree with something that is more powerful then just their words. Money allows you to make a statement that can be heard by others (by allowing for tv/radio/print advertisements

It does indeed - but disproportionally more those with money to spend in such efforts, than those who barely scrap by day to day. I mean, it's not a coincidence that policy decisions tend to closely follow the interests of the wealthy, while pretty much disenfranchising the poor and average citizens.

[...] After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period [policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002] and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." [...]

Excerpt taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html.

Of course, this isn't to say you necessarily have to remove money from the system entirely - that isn't the idea behind those 2 sites I mentioned (I should have been a bit clearer in my last post). Rather, the idea is to find other ways in which campaign contributions, lobbying, and so on, can be made, that is more representative of the interests of the whole population.

[1715030460]

1715030460

[1715030460]

1715030460

[1715030460]

1715030460

[exoton]

Money being in politics is not a problem. Having money in politics allows people to make a statement that they agree or disagree with something that is more powerful then just their words. Money allows you to make a statement that can be heard by others (by allowing for tv/radio/print advertisements

It does indeed - but disproportionally more those with money to spend in such efforts, than those who barely scrap by day to day. I mean, it's not a coincidence that policy decisions tend to closely follow the interests of the wealthy, while pretty much disenfranchising the poor and average citizens.

[...] After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period [policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002] and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." [...]

Excerpt taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html.

Of course, this isn't to say you necessarily have to remove money from the system entirely - that isn't the idea behind those 2 sites I mentioned (I should have been a bit clearer in my last post). Rather, the idea is to find other ways in which campaign contributions, lobbying, and so on, can be made, that is more representative of the interests of the whole population.

The entire population may not have a strong enough feeling towards a specific candidate or a specific issue in order for them to want to donate to a campaign. If both sides of an issue are putting out their own one sided story to the issue then everyone has an equal chance of hearing both sides. If you were to force people to spend money on campaigns then it would be essentially the public financing campaigns that may or may not have a chance of succeeding

[u9y42]

The entire population may not have a strong enough feeling towards a specific candidate or a specific issue in order for them to want to donate to a campaign. If both sides of an issue are putting out their own one sided story to the issue then everyone has an equal chance of hearing both sides. If you were to force people to spend money on campaigns then it would be essentially the public financing campaigns that may or may not have a chance of succeeding

The problem is that, as things stand, you're never going to get both sides of the story; politicians on the left and the right "hear" only the wealthy, and other large concentrations of power - those who "speak" the loudest - and follow policies that cater to them, not the population at large.

In relation to political finance, there are several countries that have considerable amounts of public financing, in one or more of the forms it takes - Germany, Japan, Sweden, Israel possibly with the highest levels. Is there any reason why the US would not be able to function in such a model?

[malaimult]

In relation to political finance, there are several countries that have considerable amounts of public financing, in one or more of the forms it takes - Germany, Japan, Sweden, Israel possibly with the highest levels. Is there any reason why the US would not be able to function in such a model?

This puts ideas on too equal of a footing. If someone has a crazy left idea that no one is taking seriously under this model, the left would be able to present their idea to the public as of many people agreed with the idea enough so that they can advertise it's so called benefits that do not really exist

[u9y42]

In relation to political finance, there are several countries that have considerable amounts of public financing, in one or more of the forms it takes - Germany, Japan, Sweden, Israel possibly with the highest levels. Is there any reason why the US would not be able to function in such a model?

This puts ideas on too equal of a footing. If someone has a crazy left idea that no one is taking seriously under this model, the left would be able to present their idea to the public as of many people agreed with the idea enough so that they can advertise it's so called benefits that do not really exist

As opposed to the crazy right ideas that pass by unchallenged in the current system?

At any rate, as I said above, there are several methods of implementing public financing: some more receptive to crazy new ideas, some more conservative. And by the way, this isn't all or nothing: most countries allow some amount of private financing alongside public funding - though within limits, and all at a far less insane level than in the US.

[malaimult]

In relation to political finance, there are several countries that have considerable amounts of public financing, in one or more of the forms it takes - Germany, Japan, Sweden, Israel possibly with the highest levels. Is there any reason why the US would not be able to function in such a model?

This puts ideas on too equal of a footing. If someone has a crazy left idea that no one is taking seriously under this model, the left would be able to present their idea to the public as of many people agreed with the idea enough so that they can advertise it's so called benefits that do not really exist

As opposed to the crazy right ideas that pass by unchallenged in the current system?

At any rate, as I said above, there are several methods of implementing public financing: some more receptive to crazy new ideas, some more conservative. And by the way, this isn't all or nothing: most countries allow some amount of private financing alongside public funding - though within limits, and all at a far less insane level than in the US.

There are moderate limits as to how much each person can give to individual campaigns. This prevents people from using their money to give undue influence on candidates. People can give much more money to more broader issues but these funds to not affect individual officials as much and as a result will not have influence on them.

The vast majority of people can afford to give an "average" amount to a candidate they support and have their voice be heard

[AllTheBitz]

Most people should realized by now both parties have little difference when it comes to corruption.

Over the years they have become more and more harder to tell apart.

[u9y42]

There are moderate limits as to how much each person can give to individual campaigns. This prevents people from using their money to give undue influence on candidates. People can give much more money to more broader issues but these funds to not affect individual officials as much and as a result will not have influence on them.

You know there are several ways to bypass such limits - but if not, see a few examples here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/wall-streets-money-is-flooding-congress.

But out of curiosity, if you really, honestly believe candidates aren't under "undue influence" from big money interests, what's your explanation for, for example, the section dealing with the repeal of the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule (of which 70 of the 85 lines of text were, for all practical purposes, written by Citigroup). Now, I'm under the impression most people aren't happy about that section, so what happened - the people didn't pay them enough for them not to do it?

The vast majority of people can afford to give an "average" amount to a candidate they support and have their voice be heard

Such an "average" amount won't even begin to compare to how much they currently receive from wealthier donors - read the above link. Also, as the article I had linked in a previous post put it: reading that study, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the US is pretty much an oligarchy. Again:

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

It's not like people aren't organizing and trying to make their voice heard - it's that they're simply not able to compete.

[MemoryShock]

The entire population may not have a strong enough feeling towards a specific candidate or a specific issue in order for them to want to donate to a campaign.

I think this misses a larger point.  The entire population does not have the money to donate to campaigns.

One of the things that I find lacking in the "money in politics debate' is the fact that the major PACS have the money and time to research the demographics of their position in order to muscle it through (convincing people is done through misleading ads/rhetoric).  Everyone else has money to get through the day and perhaps glance in to the news in order to gain a feel for what is going on currently - certainly, it can not be said that there is a consistent societal effort to accumulate information to gauge societal and political trend (which has changed slightly due to the onset of the internet).

Point is, if people are focusing on how to pay their bills and take care of their families than an attention to politics and the how/whys of decision making in those forums are not going to be on the personal radar.  It's the opportunity cost of attention - and that is why portions of the media can rely on straight up lies in their reporting and on a larger extent rely on distractionary techniques to dissuade attention - because people don't generally have the time to do everything that is necessary.  It's one of the reasons the economy is so important.  If people had the money to divert their attention to things other than their day to day maintenance to ensure continuance of such, there would be more people paying attention and keeping track of events.

If both sides of an issue are putting out their own one sided story to the issue then everyone has an equal chance of hearing both sides.

That doesn't even make sense.  If both sides are putting out their 'one sided story' than how is there an equal chance for everyone to hear both sides?  You're not factoring in regional attention, media manipulation and the level of effort it takes to wade through the bias in order to 'equally hear both sides'.  If we factor in what I mentioned previously (opportunity cost of attention) than there is very little chance that we can assume that each side is heard equally.  For what it is worth, I haven't yet mentioned the psychological difference in hearing "accusations" vs "statistical data"...media manipulation vs considered research.  The mainstream media relies more heavily on the former and to a very large degree in recent memory.  The likelihood of a casual attention to politics remembering an accusation because of fear is greater than remembering or even mentally attending to status quo (there is actually quite a bit more we can discuss regarding media psychology).

Point is - There is no equal chance of hearing both sides since obfuscation is the name of the game.

If you were to force people to spend money on campaigns then it would be essentially the public financing campaigns that may or may not have a chance of succeeding

The issue is not about forcing people to spend money on politics...it's about unrestricting the amount of money in politics.  Allowing unlimited spending (which we are on the verge of) allows people with more money to dominate the talking points within the media which ensures that a lot of time gets spent debating misrepresentations, fallacies and just plain old irrelevant bullshite.  While we do that, Congress passes bills that were written by their corporate lobbyists and we find ourselves debating within a smaller constraint then we were previously.  Rinse and repeat.

That's the issue.

[malaimult]

There are moderate limits as to how much each person can give to individual campaigns. This prevents people from using their money to give undue influence on candidates. People can give much more money to more broader issues but these funds to not affect individual officials as much and as a result will not have influence on them.

You know there are several ways to bypass such limits - but if not, see a few examples here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/wall-streets-money-is-flooding-congress.

But out of curiosity, if you really, honestly believe candidates aren't under "undue influence" from big money interests, what's your explanation for, for example, the section dealing with the repeal of the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule (of which 70 of the 85 lines of text were, for all practical purposes, written by Citigroup). Now, I'm under the impression most people aren't happy about that section, so what happened - the people didn't pay them enough for them not to do it?

The vast majority of people can afford to give an "average" amount to a candidate they support and have their voice be heard

Such an "average" amount won't even begin to compare to how much they currently receive from wealthier donors - read the above link. Also, as the article I had linked in a previous post put it: reading that study, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the US is pretty much an oligarchy. Again:

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

It's not like people aren't organizing and trying to make their voice heard - it's that they're simply not able to compete.

Like I said the money goes to issues, not individual campaigns. Your article says that money goes to campaigns however this is not true because it is illegal for corporations to donate to specific campaigns.

The laws that are written and enforced are not done so by popular vote, they are written and voted on by members of congress who vote based on what they think is best for the country. Members of congress are not required to take a poll of their constituents each time they vote for a particular bill. If a constituent has a certain feeling towards a certain bill they should let their representative know (as well as the reasoning behind their opinion). Just because a bill is written by a certain entity does not mean that it was "paid for" by that entity

[MemoryShock]

Like I said the money goes to issues, not individual campaigns. Your article says that money goes to campaigns however this is not true because it is illegal for corporations to donate to specific campaigns.

The laws that are written and enforced are not done so by popular vote, they are written and voted on by members of congress who vote based on what they think is best for the country. Members of congress are not required to take a poll of their constituents each time they vote for a particular bill. If a constituent has a certain feeling towards a certain bill they should let their representative know (as well as the reasoning behind their opinion). Just because a bill is written by a certain entity does not mean that it was "paid for" by that entity

I am not sure what you are saying.

Pre-bold - It isn't illegal for corporations to donate to specific campaigns.  That is the whole point of the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission decision.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

I'm not sure why you are asserting otherwise...

Actual Bold - Kind of true.  That is how our system is built - a representation of the people and there are three categories of politicians - those who vote (in Congress) based on what they think their constituents want, those who vote based on the authority that they believe they were elected for and those who vote specifically for the party that they are affiliated.  The three categories do not represent an even ratio and as such it cannot be said that "members of congress" vote for what is best for the country...especially since the aforementioned classes are defined as such in basic political science and do not factor in corporate influence (which is quite influential).

Finally...the post bold...

Just because a bill is written by a certain entity does not mean that it was "paid for" by that entity

I don't quite get why that would even be an assertion from someone who is paying attention to modern politics...it is an easy effort to list the amount of campaign contributions from an entity (https://www.opensecrets.org/) and then determine their influence based on the types of bills that get passed.

Further, if corporate interests are the ones writing the bills...then why would the taxpayers knowingly fund it?  Especially when there are many instances of legislation being passed under the radar and under the threat of government shutdown (budget bills)?

My point is, I don't think that you have a viable grasp of what is going on to be asserting what you are asserting...

[jaysabi]

RodeoX and jaysabi, I can not fathom how you can write so astutely in this thread, and yet have favored Obama's pleas to regulate net neutrality. How can you write the above and not understand the regulators are always captured by the regulated as matter of mathematical certainty as well as historical evidence?

The only way we will protect net neutrality is obscure the content with anonymity and so consumers can vote with their feet without fear of retribution from the State.

Only the free market works in the end, and anonymity is absolutely crucial to making it work. We don't have a free market, so you can't claim it doesn't work. We don't have it, because the technology hasn't been implemented to free up the market.

Always technological solutions (paradigm shifts) are the only real solutions. Politics is always a morass and entire waste of time.

We already have the system being proposed. The proposal is to keep it. If all the doom and gloom you're predicting hasn't happened yet, that's a pretty strong indication your fears are overblown. The internet will be less free and more expensive under a pay-lane scenario. We've already seen how big ISPs will throttle companies they are in negotiations with (Netflix/Comcast, Netflix/Verizon) in order to extort more money out of them. There's no doubt in my mind now that they've seen that it works, we'll see far more of it in a pay-lane system. Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

[contagion]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

[jaysabi]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

[contagion]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1].

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

[jaysabi]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1].

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

All of your fear mongering is countered by the fact that net neutrality is the system we've had all along. But I bet you're right, keeping the system that's been in place since the beginning of the internet is the boogeyman. 

[contagion]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1].

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

All of your fear mongering is countered by the fact that net neutrality is the system we've had all along. But I bet you're right, keeping the system that's been in place since the beginning of the internet is the boogeyman.  

Is your small brain incapable of the basic logic of recognizing that you've equated two orthogonal categories?

There has been no system of net neutrality in place. The internet has been a free market and grew to serve a billion people with private corporation competition and no regulation of the government.

To the extent that the corporate providers of the internet infrastructure have provided net neutrality up to now, this was due to free market realities and incentives that made it so, not by any form of government interference in the free market.

You are advocating Obama's call to regulate the internet as a public utility. What we know from the history of the world and even the recent history of Obama (e.g. using the carbon tax to shut down utility power plants of political enemies and rewarding new licenses to his political supporters), is that regulation is always corrupted.

So not only have you conflated two orthogonal categories in that pea brain of yours, but you are also delusional about the fact that regulation has always been corrupted and there is not a single example in the history of man where it was not. You try to present an example, and we can slaughter your example with numerous citations of corruption in your example.

Offer your crying and whining temper tantrums to your corrupt, enslaving Big Brother about your ignorance. He will surely provide the slavery you seek.

P.S. you highly underestimate the hackers and technologists (such as myself, who helped invent the internet) who will never allow the monopolists (nor the government) to take over. We are actively developing technological paradigm shifts to render impotent any of their attempts to monopolize. This is why the internet is net neutral and will remain so. Whereas, if the users of the internet call for the government to take over the internet, then the people will be fighting against us and the free internet (and then the global economy will bifurcate and the Knowledge Age will win and the Big Brother and his minions will fall into the economic collapse abyss as they enslave themselves along with the monopolists).

It is really annoying when a dumbshit, young snot such as yourself tries to tell the older people who invented the internet and are doing the programming and design work to keep it freedom directed. Do you not realize how stupid you are?

[jaysabi]

Net neutrality makes these abuses illegal.

In essence, you mean you believe Obama will protect you from rising costs, when in fact he has been doing exactly the opposite.  More evidence.

No, in essence, I mean exactly what I said. Net neutrality will prohibit ISP-sponsored censorship by prohibiting extortion against those who can afford to pay.

And when net neutrality regulation ends up with ISPs merged into mega-telcoms and the mega-telcoms sleeping in bed with the government, then you will ask for more regulation to regulate to the regulators or some other endless set of excuses, always failing to recognize that the generative essence of the problem is THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1].

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

All of your fear mongering is countered by the fact that net neutrality is the system we've had all along. But I bet you're right, keeping the system that's been in place since the beginning of the internet is the boogeyman.  

There has been no system of net neutrality in place.

If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true.  

[contagion]

There has been no system of net neutrality in place.

If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true.  

You do realize that the intelligent Libertarian (or Anarchist) readers know by now that you are a Dunning-Kruger doofus.  The more you go on, the more obvious it is for more readers.

I did not maintain the net neutrality is not the way it has been. Can't you fucking read? I wrote that net neutrality was an implicit result of the free market, and that you want to change from a free market to a government regulated system and I stated that there is no example in the history of the world where government regulation was not corrupted by the people they were suppose to be regulating.

Quoting one sentence from me above while erasing the rest of the context of what I wrote, is obviously your feeble attempt to obfuscate and change the meaning of what I wrote.

But let's play along with your propaganda tactics and assume the above sentence was all I wrote.

So young snot idiot, where is the system that enforces or even tracks net neutrality? TCP/IP has no parameters for enforcing or tracking net neutrality. All I see is network protocols for data exchange and a free market of cooperating internet nodes. I mean you are such a dumb fuck, you go spouting off your ignorance without even first gaining a basic level understanding of how the internet works.

sys·tem
ˈsistəm/
noun

    1.
    a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
    2.
    a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

sys·tem·at·ic
ˌsistəˈmadik/
adjective
adjective: systematic

    done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

[jaysabi]

There has been no system of net neutrality in place.

If you're too stupid to understand basic facts, there's no reason reading what you write. Continuing to maintain that net neutrality hasn't been the way it's been doesn't make it so. Unfortunately for you, you have no facts on your side. But please, keep going on... you're so close to making your non-facts true.  

I did not maintain the net neutrality is not the way it has been. ...   Quoting one sentence from me above while erasing the rest of the context of what I wrote, is obviously your feeble attempt to obfuscate and change the meaning of what I wrote.

Really? I'll restore the full quote since you're distracted by all the lost context.

There has been no system of net neutrality in place. The internet has been a free market and grew to serve a billion people with private corporation competition and no regulation of the government.

Net Neutrality (regulation by the government) has been in place since 1995. Now, I believe you were in the middle of defending your dumbfuckery before I interrupted with reality. Please continue so I can continue to not take you seriously.