A moment of politics, if I may...
In the united states there is currently a movement among the states to call a constitutional convention that would repeal citizens united (corporations are NOT entitled to the same rights as people. They are NOT people) and would call for all campaign financing to be completely public. Essentially, it's a movement to remove the ability of corporations and special interest groups to buy politicians and elections.
If you are a legal US citizen, I ask that you join this cause. Spread the word, email your district congressmen. Donate money if you have the funds, donate time if you have the means. Or just sign the petition, if nothing else please sign the petition. Whether or not you believe this has a chance, it will only take a minute to sign. This is a movement that needs to succeed, and I'm sharing it everywhere I can.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
edit: fixed that, thanks computergeek
If you are a legal US citizen, I ask that you join this cause. Spread the word, email your district congressmen. Donate money if you have the funds, donate time if you have the means. Or just sign the petition, if nothing else please sign the petition. Whether or not you believe this has a chance, it will only take a minute to sign. This is a movement that needs to succeed, and I'm sharing it everywhere I can.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition
edit: fixed that, thanks computergeek
Last edited on
I'm cynical. I'll give my support (after some research) but I'm doubtful this will pass... at least not in a form which does what it is intended to do.
The problem is that laws have to go through the lawmakers.. and the lawmakers are the ones that are corrupt. So it's like a no-win situation. They're not going to sign something that's going to force them to stop doing what they're doing.
The problem is that laws have to go through the lawmakers.. and the lawmakers are the ones that are corrupt. So it's like a no-win situation. They're not going to sign something that's going to force them to stop doing what they're doing.
| ... email your |
FTFY. As much I like your enthusiasm, all this would do is encourage the corporations to donate either through a shell company or a group of middle men. We should be working toward either capping campaign expenditures or maybe another way would allocating funds from the government and not allowing any other money in. Not that any of this would change anything of course.
The whole campaign system is broken anyway. There should be a reasonable limit to money/manhours that can be spent on a campaign. Whoever wins the election is subject to an audit, and if they exceeded the maximums they are disqualified.
The problem is less about corporate funding and more about wealthy having an unfair advantage. With the US's horrible income distribution these days, it's almost a certainty that if you're wealthy enough to win a federal election you literally have no idea what life is like for 95% of the population, and thus you will make a terrible representative.
We need to get people in office who are more interested in actually serving as a representative, and less interested in advancing their political career.
A serious problem with federal politics these days is that the people who are actually qualified to run for office don't, because they don't want to have to deal with the hacks who are in office now. Over 50% of federal representatives become lobbyists after their term ends... that goes to show that the people in office are more interested in "the game" than actually being productive.
We need to fix how the politicians get to office (electoral process), and how long they can stay there to prevent it from getting stagnant.. and to weed out the stragglers that are there now (shorter term limits).
If we can do those 2 things effectively, and prevent it from being broken/corrupted... it will take effect in a few years, and then the term limit issue can be revisited (after the people we don't want in office are out, we can adjust to keep the people we do want in).
Yadda yadda yadda.
The problem is less about corporate funding and more about wealthy having an unfair advantage. With the US's horrible income distribution these days, it's almost a certainty that if you're wealthy enough to win a federal election you literally have no idea what life is like for 95% of the population, and thus you will make a terrible representative.
We need to get people in office who are more interested in actually serving as a representative, and less interested in advancing their political career.
A serious problem with federal politics these days is that the people who are actually qualified to run for office don't, because they don't want to have to deal with the hacks who are in office now. Over 50% of federal representatives become lobbyists after their term ends... that goes to show that the people in office are more interested in "the game" than actually being productive.
We need to fix how the politicians get to office (electoral process), and how long they can stay there to prevent it from getting stagnant.. and to weed out the stragglers that are there now (shorter term limits).
If we can do those 2 things effectively, and prevent it from being broken/corrupted... it will take effect in a few years, and then the term limit issue can be revisited (after the people we don't want in office are out, we can adjust to keep the people we do want in).
Yadda yadda yadda.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Boot them all out and start over also implement 4 or 8 year term limits on EVERY representitive that is the only way I can see to fix it. Otherwise it will be just like disch said it will jist be a career and not a SERVICE to your country.
So the people that the most people agree with don't have to have the same rules as the others? That can turn into a bad thing also where the majority makes the rules and the minority has no voice. I think it would have to be the same rules (term limits) for everyone.
| revisited (after the people we don't want in office are out, we can adjust to keep the people we do want in). |
So the people that the most people agree with don't have to have the same rules as the others? That can turn into a bad thing also where the majority makes the rules and the minority has no voice. I think it would have to be the same rules (term limits) for everyone.
Last edited on
This quote sums up my opinion on politicians:
“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.”
Just don't choose or vote blindly. Change isn't always a good thing.
Change isn't always a good thing. <-- is this the right way to write it?
“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.”
Just don't choose or vote blindly. Change isn't always a good thing.
Change isn't always a good thing. <-- is this the right way to write it?
| Change isn't always a good thing. <-- is this the right way to write it? |
Sounds right to me.
| “Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” |
Agreed.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.