To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[grumbler]

I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. 

The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo.  Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking?  Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?

He's created a strawman.  Just ignore it.

[Hansmeister]

I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. 

The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo.  Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking?  Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?

I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power. The. only way to reduce the influence of money in politics is to reduce the stakes. If politicians have less ability to hand out favors to crony capitalists the amount of money flowing towards politicians to curry favor would diminish. Everything else is a fool's errant. We now have had 40 years of government regulation of campaign financing and the result has been essentially nil.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.

There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.

One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs.  The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,

[The Minsky Moment]

I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power.

I find it mock worthy that people have the cynical belief that law or regulation can do absolutely nothing to stop the nexus of money and power, when cross-country comparison demonstrates conclusively that some institutional designs are superior for controlling that nexus than others.

And I find it disturbing that there exist libertarians so fanatical that they are perfectly content to accept rampant corruption in public life, on the theory that the existence of that corruption can be used to support their ideological goals.

[Hansmeister]

I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.

There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.

One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs.  The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,

As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. 

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

[Valmy]

I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power

I believe we (well Berkut and I) stated just the opposite.  The corporations are doing what they are designed to do under the current rules of the game.

[Valmy]

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

Sounds good to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. 

I assume it was directed primarily at Berkut.  And as such, misplaced.

[The Minsky Moment]

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

Sounds good to me.

It would work, but at the pretty steep cost of eliminating all experienced elected officials.

[grumbler]

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

I'd think that you would need to increase the term of office of Member of the House of Representatives to four years (perhaps staggering the elections every two years) if they cannot serve consecutive terms, but I like it.  It goes further than my suggestion, but in the right direction.

[Razgovory]

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

Sounds good to me.

Seems to be designed to destroy incumbency more then anything.

[Berkut]

I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.

There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.

One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs.  The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,

As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. 

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

Then you support my call for an amendment to make that possible. Glad to have you on board the shrill machine.

[Berkut]

My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office.  No other limitations are necessary.

Sounds good to me.

Seems to be designed to destroy incumbency more then anything.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

[Razgovory]

It's not really a good thing.  Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned.  It's harder then you think.  If you prevent people who in office from running from office, all you'll have is inexperienced people.  It would be like the major shift elections every two years where whole of government is made up of what you call "move on.org types" and Tea party fanatics.  The government shutdowns were a direct result of inexperienced lawmakers not knowing how the system worked.  The same thing occurred in the 1990's in the aftermath of the "Republican revolution".

[Valmy]

It's not really a good thing.  Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned.  It's harder then you think.

Maybe we could set up a counsel of former officials to act as a consultative body?  Maybe they could serve for life and wear togas.