Here's a solution for you. Are you ready for it?

[MadHound]

We all agree that corporate America has a stranglehold on our government, and hence on our society. Basically everything in government is designed to benefit the corporate and wealthy first and foremost, and everything and everybody else, you, me, the well being of this country, comes afterward, far, far afterward.

What is needed desperately in this country is to take corporate money out of government, and out of elections. The only way that can be done is via publicly funded elections for every elected office, from dogcatcher to President. Given the fate of the laws of various states who have implemented PFE's, this change would have to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment in order to make it stick. Which means that we would have to get two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate, and three quarters of the state legislatures to sign off on this amendment. A tough job I know, especially since we're going to be flying in the face of lots of corporately controlled politicians and all the power that they can bring to bear.

Which means that we have to start electing politicians who would be willing to vote for such an amendment. In fact, as much as people hate to do so, we would have to make elections one issue election. Wouldn't matter if they're Democrat, Republican or some other party, if they back PFE's, we vote for them. In the House, in the Senate, and in state legislatures, that would have to be the one issue that we concern ourselves with.

I know, I know, this could cause a lot of damage in the meantime. A Republican group who are in favor of PFE's could, while they are up there, vote to cut spending to the bone, limit women's choice even further, etc. etc. But, these are issues that would be reversed once we have the PFE Amendment in play. It would be short term pain for long term gain.

It would also give government back to we the people. Politicians would have to be accountable to their constituents, and if that is the case, then in the end, we wind up with a much more liberal government. Just look at the past few years, the liberal issues that a large majority of Americans favored, but were shot down by corporately controlled politicians.

I am working out the detail on this, funding mechanism, etc. And like I said, we would have to become one issue voters on this. But if we are ever going to regain our government, if we're ever going to wrest it away from the wealthy and corporate that are sucking this government dry, this is it, this is the only way short of armed revolution in the streets(which, despite many people's romantic notion of such an event, it would neither be pretty, nor possibly even successful).

On edit: One other thing, this effort would mean joining forces with conservatives in order to make it work. Trust me, I live in the midst of conservatives, and they are just as ticked about the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling as we are, and many would be in favor of such an amendment as I described. We would be making this a bipartisan coalition to bring real change for the entire country.

What do you think?

[peace frog]

1. It would be nearly impossible to determine

in advance of electing these saviors, which of them will actually follow through with what is essentially an easy promise to make, and then break.

[MadHound]

2. I realize that,

And yes, we would have to do some winnowing along the way. I'm not planning on this being a quick fix, Constitutional Amendments never are. But I think that it could work, given time and effort, and frankly I think it is our best, last chance to restore government to the people.

[peace frog]

4. Depending upon which offices you're speaking of

this "winnowing out" process could take decades, meanwhile nothing will be accomplished and our societal woes will worsen ever more rapidly. Nothing ventured nothing gained, but it would be no different from the chances we take electing anybody for anything.

[MadHound]

8. Decades, no

If there was a serious push behind this, I think it would take ten, fifteen years at most, as with most other Constitutional amendments.

And yes, things could very well get worse in the interim, but the fact of the matter is that things are going to get worse anyway, and if we successfully push this amendment through, we will have then created the mechanism with which to reverse that damage, to reverse it and to make real gains for the American people.

We didn't get to the position we are overnight, and we're not going to get out of it overnight either. It will take sustained effort on our part, but the reward is, in my opinion, worth it.

[peace frog]

11. I'm unconvinced

we can "find" these saviors of yours. Our local, state and national offices are littered with disappointmenting office holders the electorate were convinced would save the situation at hand. Same as it ever was.

[MadHound]

14. I'm not looking for "saviors", I'm looking for politicians to support a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, there are many politicians out there who are disappointing, but there are many who would support such an Amendment. Sanders, Kucinich, Cleaver, etc. Others that we can raise from the ranks. Hell, the teabaggers took a bunch of unknowns from the population and put them into the catbird seat. If they can do that, we can do this.

[peace frog]

16. Good luck, sincerely

you will need it.

[Township75]

3. I was thinking about this the other day...doesn't Europe largely have publically financed elections?

At least they do in England, and they still bailed out the banks and are having big time austerity. So what do the publically financed campaigns get them, and what would be different here?

[TBF]

5. I don't think we're going to have any peace until we get rid of capitalism -

it is going to ruin this planet and take us with it.

[pipi_k]

7. Probably, but...

what's the alternative?

And would people really want to go there?

[TBF]

12. Good question -

I've learned that I'm a bit of an anarchist myself and I'm not sure we're ready for that (so far our best example, the Paris Commune, lasted only two months).

But we've got to do something, try something new, or the next nuclear meltdown may not be as benign as the Japanese (and we're not even sure of how benign those were given the strange weather patterns we're experiencing this summer). Not to mention what we're doing to our air and water daily ...

[MadHound]

9. Capitalism is, in and of itself, not necessarily a bad thing,

Provided it is well regulated. As we stand now, capitalism has become less regulated over the past couple of decades and there is no incentive for our politicians to stop that practice.

But if politicians aren't beholden to corporations, if they truly have to answer to the people, then we can make capitalism in this country well regulated again.

[pipi_k]

6. As was pointed out...

in reply #1...

Assuming all this is possible, how do we prevent it from happening again with a whole new crop of politicians?


How can anyone know what someone else's secret thoughts or motivations are until that person is actually IN a given situation?

Yeah, someone might intend to do what's "right" and "honorable", but end up doing something completely different when he gets a bit of power.

[MadHound]

10. Like I said, there will have to be some winnowing involved

Remove those who are only paying lip service to PFE's and retaining those who genuinely support it. Yes, that will take time, but what other solution is there short of armed uprising?

[TransitJohn]

13. I think that it would be easier to

implement a simpler Amendment, that reserves all rights enumerated and unemunerated in the Constitution to natural persons, i.e., ending corporate personhood. Then it would be very easy to hammer them with specific legislation keeping their money out.

[MadHound]

17. We have tried campaign finance reform before,

Even before we had the Citizens United ruling, and all that happens is a bunch of lawyers get lots of money to figure out crafty ways around those laws. Not to mention those laws get taken to the Supreme Court and get ruled unconstitutional by the corporate friendly Court and voila, we're back to where we started, worse off even.

[TransitJohn]

18. Did you read what I wrote?

It doesn't sound like it.

[MadHound]

22. Yes, I did,

And you seem to forget that this notion of corporate personhood was not the norm, nor backed by the Supreme Court, until relatively recently. Yet even then it was the case that the corporate and wealthy could buy elections. It is also the case that campaign finance laws were weak and ineffective. Thus, what you are talking about would simply return us to those days, and while that might work as a short term solution, soon the wheels would be grinding, and those laws would be eliminated and done away with.

You've got to take Corporate money out of our government, and this is the only certain way to do so for the long term.

[divvy]

15. I think the Supreme Court would stop the effort.

[MadHound]

19. On what grounds?

Anybody can, Constitutionally, start a movement to amend the Constitution. Once that amendment is passed, then the Court cannot rule publicly financed elections unconstitutional. So how can they stop it?

[divvy]

35. That it would be an unconstitutional ammendment

The supreme's already voted to allow corporations spend as much money as they wanted on elections by saying that it was a form of "free speech".

You would have a better chance contesting and overturning that ruling than you would of trying to pass an amendment that ultimately (in their current view) would be deemed unconstitutional

[MadHound]

36. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Once it is passed, and is part of the Constitution, then it is, by definition, Constitutional, and supersedes any ruling or precedent made by the SC.

That's why this needs to be in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

[xiamiam]

20. i think we have to organize a write in vote..forget who the mmm and tptb want us to vote for

we each get one vote..somehow that's the only thing we seem to have left

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Ranked votng would be good too, along with a fairness doctrine of some sort so that

one candidate doesn't get more media exposure, etc.

There's a lot that needs to be done to right our messed up election system, but the problem is that the very people who would have to decide on making those changes are those who don't want the changes. :mad:

[MadHound]

23. Which is why we have to become one issue voters,

We would have to hammer this home no matter what.

And yes, we would need to work out the details regarding media, etc. But I think it could be done.

[pipi_k]

28. One issue voters?

Does that mean we would all have to decide on one issue out of dozens and all vote together on that one issue?

[MadHound]

30. What I'm saying is that we, for the time being, vote for the candidate who supports PFE

If they are a Democrat, great, if they are a Republican who supports PFE, running against a Democrat who doesn't, then vote for the Republican who supports the PFE, if neither Republican nor Democrat support PFE, then vote for the third party candidate who does.

Yes, we could see some short term damage from a Republican who supports PFE voting in even lower taxes or what have you, but if they help us get a PFE amendment passed, then the long term good far outweighs the short term damage, damage that in any case can be repaired once we have PFE.

[pipi_k]

37. OK, well good luck on that

Try convincing a few million voters, many of whom will either not understand the importance, or not agree. People vote against their own self interests all the time.

And it would be even more difficult if/when the guys we're fighting against figure it out and use their money to launch huge propaganda campaigns.

[FormerDittoHead]

24. There's only one thing we need to do - ban political advertising on the airwaves as we do cigarettes

First off, one does NOT have "free speech" on the TV or radio. By its nature, it is a regulated medium.

Only 30 years ago, there was a fairness doctrine. Things have not always been the way they are now.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF SPENDING for any political campaign is broadcast advertising. I worked briefly for someone running for congress and EVERYTHING else (outside of direct mailing) was immaterial.

IF WE TOOK BROADCAST ADVERTISING OUT OF THE EQUATION, politicians wouldn't NEED so much money.

It COULD be done, if we had the WILL to do it.

[MadHound]

25. That would get shot down by the SC in a New York second on First Amendment grounds

And given that the broadcast media is how most of us get our information, then it does serve a purpose. However with a PFE amendment, you can limit and equalize the access that candidates get to the media.

As far as the fairness doctrine goes, I agree with you, but do you honestly think that politicians beholden to corporations are going to reinstate that? No, the only politicians who will vote for that are politicians who are beholden to the people.

[FormerDittoHead]

27. I simply think my suggestion is more viable than publicly funded elections. n/t

[MadHound]

31. Except that it would be shot down in the Supreme Court,

The Court would scream "First Amendment" and away it would go.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. Snowballs chance in hell is what I think. BEAUTIFUL idea that will never be realized.

We couldn't even manage to keep a simple majority of a hodge-podge of a few good, several average and a smattering of really stinky Democrats.

You think we will somehow magically be able to elect a 2/3 majority in both houses of human beings who will look at big checks with giant rows of zeros behind them and say "no thanks?"

Not going to happen.

[pipi_k]

29. Thank you...about the gigantic checks, I mean...

Regular off-the-street people in politics (not people who already have huge bank accounts) will surely be tempted by those checks


And people with lots of money usually have it tied up in corporate interests and won't want to cut off their own noses, etc.


Money. Human beings.

Unless someone is Mother Teresa, it's always going to be tempting.

[MadHound]

32. Frankly I think it is our only alternative,

We can keep on electing corporately controlled Dems, and corporately controlled 'Pugs, and guess what, we're going to continue down the same path we're on.

The only other alternative to my proposal is a revolution, that is where we're at today.

I think that you would be surprised at how many people at the state and national level would vote for this. It would even out the playing field, and that is a political advantage for lots and lots of people.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. I agree it's needed, I just believe it's unrealistic and it won't happen. Past is prologue.

Look at the house. Bought and paid for by corporations who convinced a bunch of hapless bohunks that they were a "grass-roots" movement and patriots.

ETA: Getting Democratic appointments to SCOTUS is the only way I see any relief from current conditions.

[MadHound]

34. I'm not giving up hope on it,

Stranger things have happened in our history.

And given the current state of Democratic candidates, I wouldn't trust anybody they put on the Court either. Not on the issue of corporate personhood, etc.