We can go on and on about NSA spying, wars, budget cuts, the decline of the middle class...

[reformist2]

... but nothing is going to change on any of those fronts until we get campaign finance reform, whether that be public finance of elections or mandated free airtime/publicity for candidates. It really is the "sine qua non" of reforms. Without campaign finance reform, nothing else is possible. It's the only way we're ever going to get a congress that doesn't get bribed by Big Money.

You may say that our leaders aren't all bad, as they have been making real headway when it comes to social progress, and that's true. But let's not be naïve here - the social issues don't cost the tycoons and business leaders a dime. Sadly, it's quite possible these are the bones they throw to keep us happy - pacifiers, if you will, that keep us from crying so loudly about the growing economic injustices that are all around us now.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be happy about the victories that have been achieved, but we should start focusing our energy on demanding - and getting - real economic reforms that actually redistribute wealth. When you see the wall of resistance that goes up, from both Dems and Repugs alike, then you'll know that campaign finance reform is really the #1 issue - it should have been all along.

[cantbeserious]

1. Yes - Well Said

eom

[90-percent]

2. If I had to pick one root cause of the death of Ameircan Democracy

It would be the legalized bribery that is our current campaign finance system.

Although there are a hell of a lot of other causes in place that go along with it. Mostly fueled by the obsessive greed is good practices of our Oligarchs that really run everything, public good be damned.

-90% Jimmy

[reformist2]

14. Yes. The saddest thing of all are the good guys that get corrupted by Big Moneyafter years in office

Obviously not even campaign finance reform would prevent bribery altogether, but it would certainly reduce the temptation, a lot.

[pscot]

3. K&R

[Brigid]

4. Absolutely.

Deal with.this issue, and many others then become solvable.

[Arctic Dave]

5. I can definatly agree with this. nt

[stupidicus]

6. that's long been obvious

but it bears repeating time and again

[sabrina 1]

7. So true, the money in politics is obscene. One billion or more now to get elected to the WH.

And then you are beholden to all that money.

That is what OWS is all about and why there was the huge effort to crush the movement.

[Martin Eden]

8. Campaign Finance is the biggest reform, but several others are needed:

Voter enfranchisement Universal voter registration with no impediments to voting. If voter ID is necessary, obtaining it should in no way prohibit or discourage legal voters. Make election day a holiday, or provide those who voted with a stub that entitles them to a day (or half-day) off work.

Accurate & Secure Balloting Standard voting machines that accurately record voter intent, and can be checked without being hacked.

End Gerrymandering Congressional districts must be drawn by logical geographic boundaries, not engineered for electoral outcomes by the political party in power.

Eliminate the Electoral College It's an anachronism that makes one vote in a small state equivalent to several votes in a large state. Candidates focus their campaigns on a few battleground states in the winner-take-all system, while voters in states where the outcome is assured have little incentive to vote.

Intant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice) allows voters to select several candidates in order of preference. When their #1 choice is eliminated, their vote applies to 2nd choice. Citizens could vote for the 3rd-party candidate they like best without aiding the major party candidate they rank last (think Florida 2000).

Reform Campaign Financing (as stated in the OP) and also reform presidential campaigns. Limit the time span of the campaign season (goes on for more than a year) and provide voters with better information by changing the debate format. 2 minute answers are little more than slogans, and lies go unchallenged by the moderators who are angling for controversial "gotcha" questions & answers.

[cprise]

9. No, its not that simple

After the corporate consolidation of the 90s, the mass media (where most campaign money is spent) can and will act as the mouthpiece of Wall Street. The over-the-air channels, which are most frequented by the rural poor, are mainly run by conglomerates with a RW bent under Trust-like market conditions.

We will have to break up the media conglomerates, too.

Then, if we're lucky, legislation to eliminate gerrymandering.

[SunSeeker]

10. K & R

[L0oniX]

11. Behind the scene ...they can make deals to get high pay jobs after they leave office.

Do now ...get paid later.

[heaven05]

12. no

problem with this reasoning.

[limpyhobbler]

13. I'm skeptical that changing election finance laws will help much

As long as we allow such concentrated wealth, money will always find a way to influence elections.

I'm all for trying campaign finance reform. But it just seems like we already tried that multiple times the situation keeps getting worse.

I think the problem is we have too much inequality of power between the super rich and everyone else. So the super rich are able to spend money to convince people to believe in shitty ideas and vote for shitty candidates.

Even if we overturned the "Citizens United" ruling, money is still going to find a way to influence voters.

We should eliminate extreme wealth and then we will have a much more level playing field in the elections.

[bvar22]

15. I absolutely agree, but with this request:

Avoid the phrase "redistribute wealth", or "wealth redistribution".
The Conservatives have already branded those words as Anti-American, and they will elicit an instant negative Pavlovian Response in many people.
A Red Flag goes UP, and they Shut Down as soon as Trigger Phrases like "Redistribute the Wealth" hits their ear drums.
(Sean Hannity warned us that Liberals want to redistribute our hard earned wealth!&quot

Substitute phrases like "Level the Economic Playing Field",
or "Economic Justice for Working Americans".

[90-percent]

20. Agreed

Same negative PR as using the word "entitlement" to describe Social Security. So that means you're entitled to your own money that you've paid into through your entire working career? Some entitlement!

I'd prefer something with the root word "progressive" instead of "redistribution of wealth". Progressive taxation, which helped make America prosper after the Great Depression, has been utterly dismantled since Reagan. We are now living in what Progressive Taxation fixed for that magic post WW2 economic fairness we got to enjoy from 1945 to 1980. They've eroded economic fairness back to the 1920's. Gee, what could possibly be next for us, if history repeats?

-90% Jimmy

[reformist2]

28. Actually, I quite like the phrase "wealth redistribution" - it's exactly what needs to be done.

We may as well say so!

[bvar22]

30. Go ahead and beat your head against the wall,

if that makes you feel good,
but it will NEVER sell with most Americans,
and THAT is what must be done to achieve "change".
The issue must be marketed to the American People,
and popularized with a BIG majority.

Anything with the word "Socialist", "Liberal", or "wealth redistribution"
in the title or text is DOOMED from the start. You won't even be given time to explain yourself before the door is slammed in your face.

[KauaiK]

16. EXACTLY!

Unless and until there are publicly financed elections within a limited time frame all elected officials (including judges) are for sale.

[ShawnRIN]

17. Its Certainly Possible

Comparison of the candidates and what they support is the end state of the democratic process. With the internet its too easy to just give each candidate to have a web page and have easy access to how they voted and/or what they support. If the histories were laid side by side in a graph or gantt chart with the candidates and how they have voted in the pasts I could just take that into the voting booth. No commercials needed.

[Shankapotomus]

27. +1

That's what I'd like to see too. One .gov website we can go to to learn about the candidates in any election. Each candidate is allocated the same amount of space on that website to present themselves and that's it.

No paid for advertising anywhere else. Your supporters can promote you for free if they want but you can't pay for anything.

[Catherina]

18. Great thread. Threads like this are why I love DU Rec'd n/t

[DirkGently]

19. ++ Be a start. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

21. K&R

The unlimited PACs and corporate lobbyists must be reigned in.

[gulliver]

22. The Drug War is the keystone.

Eliminate the Drug War and the people will become saner and more cooperative fellow Americans again. That enhances prosperity and trust and leads to less political conflict. People won't be bolting to the edges of the Constitution all the time looking for weapons then.

[truedelphi]

24. + My household. n/t

[reusrename]

23. It cannot happen with this Roberts Court.

Scalia or Thomas must be impeached.

Scalia spent the night with a defendant in a case that was before him, then refused requests to recuse himself from rendering a decision in that same case.

Thomas has lied on his financial reporting.

They both should go, and this a fight we should welcome.

People still know the difference between right and wrong, even if the media and the politicians don't.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. no doubt! that is the single biggest contaminant that poisons the democratic process

[djean111]

26. Well said!

Yes, social issues are used as shiny objects.
I expect that pretty soon I will see "didn't get to inflict chained CPI" on The List.

[OneGrassRoot]

29. Huge K&R, with suggestion...

Given the other comments suggesting similar reforms which speak to the core problem with our government ($$ in politics), maybe we can create a list of three actionable items, find corresponding efforts focused on those actions, and put our weight behind them.

IMHO, while the Internet makes so much possible, it also leads to a lot of fracturing of efforts, with so many groups doing the same thing, diluting the effects.

[Quantess]

31. Agreed. (no text)