#campaign finance reform

[theweeklyshowwithjonstewart]

“We created these problems, we can solve these problems.” -Doris Kearns Goodwin

Jon Stewart on Never Ending Elections with Doris Kearns Goodwin and Eugene Daniels

“The idea that this vetting process is somehow getting us closer to more competent and better leadership is nonsense and insane. And we have created an electoral campaign system that does the opposite.” On this week’s episode Jon Stewart is joined by Doris Kearns Goodwin and Eugene Daniels.

Biden Is Out, Harris Is In with Jon Stewart, Doris Kearns Goodwin & Eugene Daniels

In the turbulent month since President Biden’s disastrous debate performance, the media has been speculating as to whether it was probable, or even possible, for him to drop out of the race. Turns out, it was both. In light of Biden’s historic decision, how effectively did the media guide the public through the election chaos? This week, helping us to contextualize the moment and understand the challenges in covering it, Jon Stewart is joined by Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian and author of whose most recent book is An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s, as well as Eugene Daniels, POLITICO White House correspondent and Playbook co-author. Together, they examine the flaws in our electoral process and media coverage, offer some possible fixes, and provide facts —not speculation — about what to expect in the weeks ahead.

[kendrixtermina]

It's very easy to buy the US government.

Some have said that blaming the complicity of the US govern on the Israel lobby is an "antisemitic conspiracy" (even though the campaign donations are plain for everyone to see & no one said anything about equating them with all Jews - indeed many of the lobbyist are evangelical Christians... who seem to care precious little about the Christian Palestinian minority.)

So I want to stress the following:

This isn't unique to Israel AT ALL.

Money in politics, lobbying & corruption has been a mounting problem in the US (and to a lesser extent, but still very significant extent, other western countries)

US Politicians are, frankly, easily bought. Biden's bought by Israel, the previous guy was likely bought by Russia.

Fossil Fuel Companies buy them. Big Pharma buy them. Anti-Union ppl buy them. The Military Industrial Complex buy them (and are as guilty here as the Israel lobby) - and each of these had their propaganda campaigns to rile up people against unions for example, or spread climate denialism.

This was an ongoing, unfixed problem for ages, and now it has lead to catastrophe.

Since the "money is speech" decision under Reagan, nearly everything in the US has gone to shit. That's when poverty began increasing. That's when wages and life expectancy stopped going up.

This is why Americans are so poor. Why they have poor healthcare. Why the USA keeps poluting. And yes, why foreign governments can just buy whatever policy they want if they offer, say, oil in return.

This is a corruption problem. Some may term it a capitalism problem, too, but even if you don't want to go so far, it's just plain corruption. No conspiracy required.

It's just chaos. The throne is empty. There is no great mastermind behind anything. No one's in charge but market forces and inertia. Like many disastrous events in history, it's a clusterfuck.

Notice also how when I say, "Trump had financial ties to Russia", I'm not accused of wanting to kill all Slavs or anti-slavic prejudice? You immediately realize I mean the government, not Russians in general including average joe russians living in foreign countries?

[lovingbeta]

The parable of Trump—worth reposting regularly. It goes for most of our politicians, of course, but especially for this current crop of Republicans.

Read as many times as needed

[scottiestoybox]

Right-Wingers Are Spending Obscene Amounts Of Money On Democratic Party Primaries

[bloggingblue]

Campaign Finance Reform? Why Is This Legal?

Today I received an email from Jacky Rosen. She is the junior senator from Nevada and she is asking for money for her re-election campaign. I get lots of these requests and unless they are someone that I can vote for per my suggested campaign finance rules, I just ignore them. For months, polls have shown me locked in a statistical tie with my Trump-endorsed opponent, Sam Brown. Now, the GOP and…

[nokingsonlyfooles]

“This is only the beginning,” Bush told the AP. “Because if they can unseat me, then they’re going to continue to come after more Democrats.”

I would like to add that a recent CBC article I read about Harris's fundraising had to explain to Canada, "This isn't a thing here, we just give the candidates all the money they're allowed to use." It makes a difference, doesn't it?

This is the second Squad member to get the boot for saying, "Genocide is bad, actually." Progressives can and do win elections, folks, but if they don't bow down to the groups with the money, they lose. Another political reality we'll just have too deal with - like the electoral college, the death of the Voters' Rights Act, the two party system, the lack of ranked choice voting... Look, we must assume the democracy functions and voters would fix these things if they really wanted.

And Obama's assumption that Clinton would win and straighten that whole Supreme Court thing out for him was also something you could've voted against. I mean, all you had to do was deliver Clinton like he wanted. Was that too hard for some reason? Don't say "the electoral college" or "the Voters' Rights Act"! That's a political reality we have to deal with! Unlike the fact that third party candidates are allowed to run, people are allowed to withhold their votes, and candidates are required to campaign. There's a difference. Some of these things we have just to deal with until we can pass some legislation, and some we need to stop doing right now because I said. (We do stop doing things because I said, right? Or we could if we really wanted?)

Look, sometimes supporting a genocide is harm reduction. Progressive legislation is gonna be that much harder to pass because you weren't willing to let 40,000 dead Palestinians slide. That was a bad decision on your part, Ms. Bush. You knew you didn't have $8.5 million spare dollars and you didn't roll over for the group that did. You made Congress slightly more conservative, that's on you.

No it's NOT on Biden for okaying the genocide and supplying it with more weapons! What else could he DO?

It's not on voters for voting him in, either! What else could THEY do? In fact, if he'd campaigned on continuing a genocide indefinitely, I still would've voted for him. That's a GOOD decision! The pro-genocide people have votes and money! See what happens without their votes and money? You LOSE!

*sigh*

We can keep shuffling the blame around for as long as we want, I guess. It seems like we intend to. But at some point, you are going to wake up to one of two realities.

Either the Will of the People was that we do fascism, and we live in a functioning democracy, so there's nothing you can do to make the majority vote against its own interests...

Or!

It seems like the Will of the People is that we do fascism, because we do not live in a functioning democracy, and it doesn't function well enough to fix itself.

In either case, you're looking at a lot of dead people, and an eventual war, invasion or revolution to make it stop.

Unless.

Unless we work out some way to stop it before it gets to that point. But, I'm gonna tell ya, blaming the voters for not voting it all better isn't it. We've been doing that my whole life, if not longer. Look where we are. Look how it is. That's not working. Is there anything else?

Is there?

[ivygorgon]

Hey fellow @ 3rd party\nonpartisan Americans,

It is intentional that the current status quo makes you feel uncomfortable to the point of silence; that allows big business to keep putting YOUR money where THEIR elected official's mouth is.

Demand Dems support Ranked Choice Voting in exchange for the vote.

Vote for Ranked Choice so you can vote honestly, not strategically.

But until then;

Sign my petitions

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS; STATE GOVERNORS & LEGISLATURES

Implement Ranked-Choice Voting & Election Reforms For Vote Integrity

22 so far! Help us get to 25 signers!

I am writing to urge your immediate action on introducing and passing ranked-choice voting (RCV) and other vital election reforms at both the federal and state levels. As a concerned constituent and advocate for democratic principles, I believe that these reforms are essential to improving our electoral processes and ensuring fair and representative governance.

Ranked-choice voting has proven effective in promoting democratic outcomes by enabling voters to express their preferences more fully and ensuring that elected candidates enjoy broad support from the electorate. RCV mitigates wasted votes, reduces the spoiler effect, and fosters more inclusive and issue-focused campaigns.

In addition to advocating for ranked-choice voting, I strongly support comprehensive election reforms, including campaign finance reform, gerrymandering reform, and initiatives to enhance voter access and participation. These reforms are critical to strengthening our democracy and restoring trust in our electoral system.

The implementation of Ranked-Choice Voting is a crucial step towards enhancing our democratic process. RCV, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, ensures that elected officials have majority support, eliminates the spoiler effect, and encourages positive campaigning. This system is already in use in several U.S. cities and countries like Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. Alaska recently became the second state to adopt RCV for statewide offices, following Maine's lead. It is time to consider this reform at both federal and state levels to ensure our electoral systems reflect the diversity of our nation and empower all voices. Therefore, I urge you to introduce and support legislation that promotes RCV and other election reforms.

We must recognize that Americans are more than a two-party system. Let's take meaningful steps to ensure our electoral systems reflect the diversity of our nation and empower all voices.

Thank you for considering my perspective and taking decisive action to improve our electoral processes. I stand ready to support your efforts in advancing these important reforms.

▶ Created on April 9 by Ret. SGT Guild, Independent/Non-partisan

📱 Text SIGN PMZPRT to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

💘 Q'u lach' shughu deshni da. 🏹 "What I say is true" in Dena'ina Qenaga

Register. Vote Blue. Stay engaged.

End Republicanism. End MAGA.

[unicornheadnebula]

The Tammany Machine And The Evolution of Machine Politics

The “Tammany Machine,” also known as Tammany Hall, was a powerful and notorious political organization that operated in New York City for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It played a significant role in shaping the city’s politics and had a reputation for corruption, patronage, and machine politics. Here are some key points about the Tammany Machine: Origins: Tammany Hall was founded…

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is just another example of how the Roberts' Supreme Court decimated campaign finance regulation in its Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon et al. v. FEC decisions.

In particular, according to Politico Magazine, in McCutcheon, SCOTUS decided that unless money is given to a candidate's campaign in exchange for favorable policy decisions/laws (i.e., "quid pro quo") it isn't technically a "bribe." Therefore, it isn't sufficiently "corrupt" to be outlawed.

(Although even the SCOTUS "gang of six" must be feeling a little anxious that Trump appears to be running around lately begging billionaires for campaign contributions with promises that he will do their bidding.😳)

An article in Quartz, comparing the U.S. and British election systems, mentions a theory by a political science professor, Justin Fisher, that the difference in how much money is allowed in both systems is largely due to different values,

Fisher says the vast differences in money spent stem from contrasting philosophical approaches: the US favors liberty—the freedom of expression, which includes financial donations—while the UK favors equality. “Most European elections, and the UK is an example of this, are based on the principle of equality, of trying to ensure that the spending does not unduly advantage one side or another,” he explained. [color/ emphasis added]

The Roberts' Court clearly values the "liberty" of the wealthy and corporations to "freely speak" by making large monetary contributions to political campaigns.

Yet, it seems that the Roberts' Court doesn't value the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of "the little guy" as much.

For instance, if, as the Roberts' Court claims, "money = speech," then wealthy people and corporations produce such a huge amount of "speech" (through their enormous campaign donations) that it drowns out the "voices," and limits the impact of the average American's political "speech."

And given how Trump appears to be "selling" his presidency to those billionaires willing to make huge campaign donations, the Roberts' Court's overvaluation of the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of the wealthy and corporations results in corruption and the undo influence of the wealthy/ corporations on the laws and policies that the political benefactors of their monetary largesse implement when they are in office.

I think the only way to undo the damage the Roberts' Court has done to our nation will be if we elect a Democratic president and Congress, and are able to expand the Court. Because the "gang of six" isn't going to change their minds about any of this. And as long as they are in a majority, our nation is in peril of becoming a kleptocracy.

“Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is supposed to be about,” said Sanders.

By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT

Published August 9, 2024

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) have spoken out about corruption in politics following the defeat of Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) in her primary this week by pro-Israel groups that poured millions of dollars into unseating the progressive lawmaker.

AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent $8.5 million on the campaign to oppose Bush, helping to make it the second-most expensive House primary in history — only beaten by Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-New York) primary in June, in which UDP poured $14.5 million into electing a pro-Israel challenger to Bowman.

To many who championed the two lawmakers for speaking out against Israel, the two losses were a show of AIPAC’s outsized influence on elections and the ability for deep-pocketed interest groups to buy elections.

[kendrixtermina]

I BEG OF ALL OF YOU, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR CURRENT OPINION ON THE CONFLICT IS, PLEASE WATCH THIS

if you don’t have time for any other documentary, just please WATCH THIS ONE

[worldwatcher3072]

Is It Time to Fix the US Political System? Experts Weigh In

The United States political system has long been a topic of debate, with many citizens and experts alike arguing that it is in dire need of repair. From gridlock in Congress to concerns about money in politics, the issues are complex and multifaceted. But what are the solutions? We spoke to a range of experts to get their take on the best ways to fix the US political system.

Campaign finance reform One of the most commonly cited issues with the US political system is the role of money in politics. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, spending on federal elections has skyrocketed in recent years, with $14 billion spent on the 2020 election alone. This has led to concerns about the influence of wealthy donors on the political process.

To address this issue, many experts recommend campaign finance reform. This could include measures like increasing transparency around political donations, limiting the amount of money individuals and corporations can donate, and implementing a public financing system to help level the playing field.

2.) Electoral reform Another key issue with the US political system is the way in which elections are structured. The Electoral College, for example, has been a source of controversy for decades, with critics arguing that it gives undue influence to certain states and undermines the principle of one person, one vote.

To address this issue, some experts recommend reforms like ranked-choice voting or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would ensure that the winner of the presidential election is the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.

3.)Redistricting reform Gerrymandering is another issue that has long plagued the US political system. By manipulating district boundaries, politicians are able to effectively choose their own voters, making it more difficult for opposition parties to win elections.

To address this issue, many experts recommend redistricting reform. This could include measures like creating independent redistricting commissions, implementing strict criteria for redistricting, and using computer algorithms to draw district lines.

4.)Strengthening democracy Finally, many experts argue that the best way to fix the US political system is to strengthen democracy itself. This could include measures like expanding voting rights, ensuring fair representation for all communities, and promoting transparency and accountability in government.

Ultimately, the US political system is complex and multifaceted, and fixing it will require a range of reforms and initiatives. But by working together and implementing smart, evidence-based solutions, we can create a political system that truly represents the people it serves.

[tmarshconnors]

Biden and Trump First TV Debate

As I watch Biden and Trump face off in their first televised debate, I can't help but reflect on a country that has a population of 333.3 million people (as of 2022). With so many citizens, one would think there would be a wealth of candidates eager to run for the highest office in the land. Yet, here we are again, faced with a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

I am no fan of Joe Biden by any means, and I am not saying that Donald Trump is the "savior" of America either. The reality is far more complex. Surely, there must be more people who can run for office, bringing fresh perspectives and new energy to our political landscape. Instead, we seem trapped in a cycle of familiar faces and entrenched political battles.

The Problem with the Status Quo

No matter who wins the upcoming election, one thing is certain: the American people will lose out. This isn't just a uniquely American problem, either. Over in the United Kingdom, we're facing a similar scenario. Our general election on the 4th of July this year feels like a rerun of old political dramas, with little hope for real change.

In both countries, the political landscape seems devoid of truly inspiring leaders. We see the same names, the same faces, and hear the same tired rhetoric. It's as if our political systems are designed to recycle the past rather than innovate for the future.

Where Are the Fresh Faces?

One of the biggest questions is why we aren't seeing more new faces in politics. With so many intelligent, capable, and passionate individuals in both the U.S. and the U.K., why do so few step up to run for office? The reasons are multifaceted:

The Financial Barrier: Running for office is incredibly expensive. Campaigns require vast amounts of money, which often means that only those with substantial financial backing or connections can realistically consider running.

Political Entrenchment: Established politicians have a stronghold on their positions, making it difficult for newcomers to break through. The political machinery often favors incumbents, who have name recognition and a network of support.

Public Disillusionment: Many potential candidates are dissuaded by the current state of politics. The negativity, polarization, and media scrutiny can be overwhelming. This discourages fresh talent from entering the fray, preferring to make a difference in less public, and perhaps less contentious, ways.

The Impact on Democracy

The lack of diversity in our political candidates has a direct impact on democracy. When voters are presented with limited choices, it undermines the very principles of democratic governance. Democracy thrives on variety and choice, enabling the electorate to select leaders who truly represent their values and aspirations.

In the absence of this variety, elections become exercises in choosing the lesser of two evils rather than selecting the best possible leader. This, in turn, leads to widespread disillusionment and apathy among the electorate. When people feel that their vote won't bring about meaningful change, they are less likely to participate in the democratic process.

Looking Forward

As we watch Biden and Trump debate, we should be asking ourselves what we can do to encourage more people to run for office. How can we lower the financial barriers, dismantle the entrenched political systems, and inspire a new generation of leaders?

We need to foster a political culture that values innovation, inclusivity, and genuine public service. This means supporting candidates from diverse backgrounds and with new ideas. It also means holding our current leaders accountable and demanding more from them.

In the end, the future of our democracy depends on our ability to broaden the pool of candidates and ensure that our political systems are open to fresh voices and new perspectives. Only then can we hope to elect leaders who truly represent the will of the people and can bring about the change that so many of us desire.

In both the United States and the United Kingdom, the time for political renewal is now. Let's hope that the next debate, and the next election, will feature a more diverse and inspiring lineup of candidates, giving us all a reason to believe in the future of our democracy.

[zenosanalytic]

#stupid political ideas I have had#universal campaign finance reform#we would need to hire a few database admins to pull this off#I suggest nationalizing google(via@some-triangles)

we should ABSOLUTELY Nationalize Google. And Facebook. And Twitter.

STUPID POLITICAL IDEAS I HAVE HAD #3

Total financial transparency.  Any purchase or transfer of over $1000 is logged and posted publicly as it happens, searchable by spender and recipient. We can carve out some exceptions (stuff that would be covered by HIPAA, etc) but most of it is just out there.  Find out what your coworkers are making, what your elected officials are spending their money on, where all that money is coming from, who’s buying crypto and who’s withdrawing interesting amounts of cash.  Make financial crime much, much easier to prosecute and tax avoidance more difficult. Make conspicuous consumption redundant.  As long as we’re stuck with the panopticon we might as well democratize it.

[visenyaism]

But yeah. Love my state, despite the Horrors (looking at you Lindsey Graham) and could talk about the politics and history of it for hours.

lindsey graham has never bragged in detail about stuffing ballot boxes or violently overthrowing the government or admitted to murder unprompted or beat the shit out of a colleague on the senate floor he might be the most normal kind of evil senator y’all have ever had.