I realize it has been awhile and I want to whole-heartedly apologize my legion of fans (all two or three of them) for my absence. As you might imagine, I've been doing a lot of book stuff, but I've always entered into dialogue with our favorite Tea Party people from the north. While we disagree on a lot of issues, I found one issue where we (progressive type people) and them are in complete agreement: there is too much money in politics.
If any of them are reading this, I invite them to join us in our efforts to remove money from the elections. Interestingly enough, our dialogue didn't make it completely where it needs to go because we are still hung up on who gave to what. I'm past that. Most corporations and rich individuals give to both sides so they can hedge their bets. The donation of money itself is not so much an expression of free speech as it is bribery. Don't we expect something in return when we donate to political causes?
Here is my fairly simple plan. Like most plans, there need to be details added and I'll allow the peanut gallery to come in on those. Simply put, you can donate as much money to a candidate as you want while he or she is in their party primary. Once they are out of the primary, the general election is publically funded. Therefore, the parties can fight all they want, but in the general election, both must listen to the people. Here are some detail questions to work out and I welcome our tea party people to the discussion.
1) What threshold of signatures/votes do we want to use to include independents and minor parties?
2) Do we close the door completely on contributions to political parties? I say yes.
3) Do we keep a cap on individual contributions (or PAC contributions) in the primaries?
That is all. Have at it.
Hey, I'm on a pharmaceutical cocktail, so everything feels better.
Hey.........where is everybody? I'm gettin' more replies over at Spackle's place.
ALERT!!! Topic Change:
I hear that both Obama and McConnell/Pumpkinhead publicly state that today's meeting of the "minds" (and I use that term loosely) went very well. Hey........I'm rejuvenated and overjoyed. But, then again, I keep a bottle of Canadian Club in my desk.
Regardless, I think my advice to President Obama.......don't drop the soap in the shower.
f*ck 'em...
Still waiting to get my hands on my copies. First ones go out to media types that can help promote it. In terms of this issue, I was pleasantly surprised at how much reception I got from the other side. I don't see this as much as a compromise issue as a mobilization and trust issue. Both sides (progressives and tea party) believe the same thing. The key is getting both sides to trust each other long enough to work on this one issue. If both sides applied pressure we would get progress on this issue.
We just might need some wikiliquor to get us through to the other side...
There is a fella named Bob Schulz who has a site called We the People wherein he has been trying for years to present a 1st Amendment right to petition the government so far unsuccessfully.
You can google him if your interested in checking this out. I'm passing on comment regarding this site for now except I encountered this site on another gov't mission.
A person may have a right but the cost of defending that right may become prohibitive if someone else's bull is going to get gored and that person has all the money in the world and you don't.
The lower and middle classes have taken such a "shellacking", Mexicans are going back to Mexico.
Hey, I'm FOR that. But, I've got a bad knee. Can we do that "on-line"???????? :-)
When will you have a sore handwriting hand from signing your book? Congrats again. That is wonderful.
I have to agree there is to much money that has been given out for the elections.
It is rare that free things are just given out.
Normally some where down the road is some sort of a pay back.
When there is a pay back, the elected people then stop working for the people, betterment of this country, and environment.
Changing all this money flying around (where it should not be) would be a feat that would be amazing.
The word 'compromise' has been made into such a degrading thing that it well may disappear from the English language soon. There is only concern for business health or wealth and it's support for political edge, and nothing more.
We are doomed to class wars as a result, and have already lost the major campaigns.
I seem to recall a provision in the constitution that allows the people to begin the amendment process through petition. Of course, it has been a few years since I've taught and most of the amendments originated in Congress, but there are multiple ways to get that done.
Quick comment Scott. I don't see what the value would be in allowing unlimited money to pick the Party's nominees. Then we would have two completely corporate owned candidates to choose from. Can you explain why you think this is a good idea?
I don't know Scott. We CAN come up with a plan. But I just don't see congress making ANY change in the status quo.
There's many ways we CAN fix what's wrong with our government campaign financing as well as the problems associated with uncontrolled lobbyists' lobbying. I think I can hear Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison saying, "We GAVE you a really good government blueprint. How'd you people screw it up so bad???"