Corporations, Unions And Other Organisations, and Politics

This is a thread, branching off the downgrade thread, to discuss the place that organisations, be they economic, social, political, religious, or ideological in nature, should have in the political process.

I don't like money being donated to parties. I certainly don't approve of money being donated to candidates. That is my line, and my reasons for it are that you cannot make an objective decision on your leadership if one side can pay for better, louder advertisement. Organisations are not people, and we should stop treating them like it. And even if we do, we don't let people bribe politicians, so why let them lavish vast sums on their careers? A simple manifesto, published in the major newspapers, on the net, and in places with organisations like the BBC, on national television, and a series of state-sponsored televised debates, should be all that candidates need. They shouldn't need extra funding.

That is my line. It is one of the few things I have set in stone, and I see very few things that could shift me from that view. So, having started this topic off with something to chip away at...

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

You're not going to find much disagreements with you in this forum here...

And yeah, corporations should stay the **** out of politics. Same with religion. Same with military.

Either of those 3 have too much money, and they only look out for their own causes to the point where it hurts the country as a whole.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Ban any organization from making donations. Personal donations, only, with a cap of some $5,000 or less. Make candidates hit the streets and get to know the people to fund their campaign—or at least be good at social networking—rather than just having friends in high places...

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's capped at $2500 or less now.

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Well, fine. I didn't know the exact number.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Thats a pretty sound train of logic there USAF. Thats actually practical.

In the USA?

edited 11th Aug '11 1:37:15 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

You sound surprised...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, I'd always pictured America as the land where dirty money ran riot openly, so hearing about a cap on personal donations genuinely stunned me.

Why would you cap personal donations but allow corporate sponsorship to run riot?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

You have to visit campaign websites to know. It was $2300 back in 2008. They must index it to inflation.

edited 11th Aug '11 1:41:50 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

I thought donations were unlimited now that corporations are now "people"

I support a full ban on all political contributions. Make it illegal to spend private money to publish any ad that supports or denigrates any political candidate, party, or issue, or to give private money to any candidate for office. Candidates may similarly not spend their own money.

Establish a public campaign fund allocated from general revenues and apportioned equally to all candidates who can meet a minimum standard to qualify for the ballot. Require that all regulated media entities give time equally and at going rates to any candidate who wishes to make use of it. Said fund cannot be "raided" by opportunistic candidates as they must give a full accounting and return any unused money.

Those would be forbidden under my rules.

edited 11th Aug '11 1:45:25 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's donations to PAC & SUPERPAC not candidates.

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

The international image of American politics tends to reflect on the people when there is a huge disconnect between the two. American politics hasn't accurately reflected any kind of majority opinion since the early 60s, at best. Most people in the US are disgusted by corruption of any kind, whether it is from corporations, unions, or religious institutions (especially that last one, though)...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Also: Ban lobbying of any sort. All individuals seeking access to a candidate shall be given equal opportunity upon submitting a request, said access to be decided by lottery. I admit that this one would be hard to enforce.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I can go for banning lobbying, Fighteer, but public campaign funding won't work. Too expensive, too many candidates. People who are against it will run just to defund the system, and, plainly, I don't think we should create a system that will be easily abused...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Good objections. Funnily enough I think it could be made to work in Britain, but America has such a complicated political system compared to us that you guys could have considerably more trouble.

Jeez, no wonder the American system is running into trouble. Its a freaking tangled web of local, State and Federal governments, and even at the Federal level you've gone and split it into three different jurisdictions on top of that.

edited 11th Aug '11 1:54:55 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Christ, our system is complicated? I've sat for hours studying the British Parliament, and I can't even bring myself to try and describe anything when I write about Britain because none of it makes sense to me.

Also remember, your country is tiny. I loved the comparison made in another thread: London and Manchester (I think it was) are as far apart as Dallas and Houston. Americans have a totally different thought process on geography than the British. Bigger area = bigger government.

edited 11th Aug '11 1:53:48 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

@USAF: Actually, Wisconsin, since the 70's, has set aside a large portion of the budget every year for use as public campaign funds. It's helped keep the money out of the elections, and actually helped one unknown candidate nearly win in a supreme court election, with 49% of the vote.

Unfortunately, its been stripped out by the republicans to pay for their deeply unpopular voter-id bill. Which doesn't even cover it properly.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

When I said objectives, I meant "good objections".

Damn foot in mouth.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Not if we set a minimum standard for admission to the club, like enough signatures to get on the ballot in at least 2/3 of the states.

Actually, you'd need a tiered system — one set of funding for people seeking ballot access in the first place — say, 10,000 signatures — and another for the general election once primaries have concluded. Or maybe you let the individual parties handle their own candidacy process with half of the fund and allocate the rest for the general election.

Raiding the fund isn't really a big deal because it would be a fixed amount of money - say $100m per year. More candidates just dilutes the pot for everyone else, and because of the accounting requirement, you can't just get a petition going and then blow all your seed money on hookers; you'd get thrown in federal prison.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Enkufka,

I know less about the Wisconsin political system than I do about the Federal system, and I live in Wisconsin. Sadly, nobody gives a damn about state politics, and it's coming back to bite us now that states want to be all important again...

I am now known as Flyboy.

@Fighteer: Genius.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Indeed, Fighteer. Now you have to sell it to the populace, who are only going to hear "wait, now paying for the greasy politicians is mandatory?"

Yeah, good luck.

I am now known as Flyboy.

...

This would admittedly be an easier sell in... well, anywhere but the states, really.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Exactly. It's 1) a tax-based system, so, "socialism" and 2) for the benefit of politicians.

You might as well ask for a pay-raise for Congress right now...

I am now known as Flyboy.