Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Common ground: One Way Forward -- There should be no conflict between the Left and the Right on this

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 26, 2012, 11:24 a.m. EST by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

One Way Forward

Lawrence Lessig's new pamphlet/book has an exciting message about ideas that unite the 99%. Both the left and the right.

For until the giant recognizes that she has two hands, a Left and a Right, and two feet, a Left and a Right, and two sides of a brain, a Left and a Right, and that she needs both, the giant will do nothing more than flail—as every one of the waves of reform so far has.

...

The current system is biased in favor of large government and complex taxes not because liberals rule, but because complex taxes and invasive government are very efficient ways in which to inspire campaign contributions. The Right will have no fair shot at getting a smaller government or simpler taxes so long as the opposite is a surer path to funding congressional campaigns.

...

There should be no conflict between the Left and the Right on this: Both sides should favor reform that ends this corrupting influence. We don’t need to destroy wealth. We need to destroy the ability of wealth to corrupt our politics. We don’t need to kill capitalism. We need to kill that form of capitalism—crony capitalism—that uses its power to corrupt our politics.

...

So what would fix it? What change would end this debilitating dependence, this obvious corruption? Understand the source and you understand the solution. The source of this corruption is a Congress that is responsive to its funders but whose funders are not the People. The remedy is to change that source by making the funders “the People.” We can achieve that remedy by changing the way campaigns are funded.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/21/lessigs-one-way-forward.html

http://byliner.com/originals/one-way-forward

92 Comments

92 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

There is a "fallacy" which is that "the right represents the business side". The whole point - in my opinion - is that both Left and Right Hands are really the Congress as a whole - which is responsive to its funders (bundlers, pacs etc) and not to the People (tax payers) regardless of “Party” If those interested in true reformation of the political system would spend time researching actual campaign donations instead of listening to Left and Right Pundits as they spin the donations, I think there might be hope..

Let’s take a look at the 2008 Presidential Election – Who raised the most money in the Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Sector?

Obama - $42,047,073 McCain - $31,020,439 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=F

All corporations hedged their bets in one way or another by spreading the campaign donations around. And all of them benefited in some large way in TARP, in Stimulus, and in the Health Care Act or in appointments to boards and agencies and so on. How did they donate in the 2008 Presidential Election?

JPMorgan Chase $808,799 to Obama's 2008 Campaign $343,505 to McCain's 2008 Campaign

How did they benefit after the election? ://voices.yahoo.com/billions-special-tax-refunds-will-paid-jp-5705712.html

General Electric $529,855 to Obama's 2008 Campaign Not listed in top donators to McCain's campaign

How did they benefit after the election? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html

How about those Wall Street Corporations that are not considered in the top richest of corporations?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

Goldman Sachs
$1,013,091 Obama $240,295 McCain

How did Goldman Sach's make out after Obama was elected? http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/the-free-market-versus-crony-capitalism/

Citigroup Inc
$736,771 Obama $338,202 McCain

How did Citigroup benefit after the election? It took awhile but Citigroup took over Chief of Staff after JPMorgan left…. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_new_wh_chief_of_staff_and_citigroup/singleton/

What about the Bundlers? Obama’s record of welcoming bundlers into his administration is about the same as former President George W. Bush’s, a 2011 Center for Public Integrity investigation found .. Read more http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/19/7897/obama-rainmakers-enjoy-white-house-invites-appointments-and-contracts

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You are correct it is not their party but their policies, those willing to publicly say that they will strengthen unions, raise taxes on the wealthy, protect our retirement checks from being cut, we should support these people no matter their party.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I agree, except we should get rid of anyone who said they supported those things if their actions don't match their words.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The remedy of changing the way campaigns are funded is for the people to fund them. This is the only way we could have the, "consent of the governed", we desire.

There are many people who adhere to, "never talk about politics or religion". We can hope for change in that mentality but it will remain to some degree. Many people will choose a strategy of never allowing anyone else to know their political beliefs. We can count on their vote though if we assure them our goals are simple and pure and their vote is kept private. They are a significant group that will vote for what is right. Our job is to give them the right thing to vote for.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Agreeing not to acknowledge our differences won't work. Because eventually somebody will bring up abortion or labor unions or same-sex marriage or smaller government some other wedge issue that not all of the 99% agrees about. But we have to remember that if we focus on those wedge issues then we won't succeed in changing anything.

In Lessig's words, from One Way Forward:

It can’t be done, and won’t be done, by one faction alone. The Tea Partiers can well be proud of the success of their movement (even if it scares some of the rest of us). But the Tea Party alone is not “the Second American Revolution.” Nor are Occupiers on their own going to radically change the way society works. We must recognize that there is no 99 percent that shares a common set of substantive political values. We are, as Americans, different, even if there are dimensions (for example, constitutional dimensions) upon which we all agree. ... If we’re to be successful, we must not only:

(1) Identify an effective reform that the vast majority of us could agree upon; and then …

(2) Leverage the passion of different grassroots movements to support that fundamental reform; but we must do this …

(3) Without neutralizing or denying or ignoring the real differences that exist among these passionate grassroots movements.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

it is key that the wedge issues stay in the background until everyone agrees that it's wrong for our government to be influenced by money. If we delay in changing this, we risk collapse of the necessary trust any successful government needs. The vast majority would vote for it if they could.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, exactly. We don't have to ignore our ideological difference and pretend that they don't exist. But we do need to recognize that working together serves our ideological goals on both sides. Once again, I'll let Lawrence Lessig explain:

At the core of our government is a corruption. Not the corruption of criminals, violating the law by engaging in illegal bribery. There is some of that, but not much, and even if we ended all of that, we wouldn’t begin to solve the type of corruption that I’m speaking of. Instead, the corruption that I’m speaking of, and the corruption that debilitates this government, is legal corruption. It is the economy of influence that guides Washington to regulate or not to regulate as the funders of campaigns want and, more pressingly and more recently, as the barons of super PACs demand.

This corruption blocks both the Left and the Right. For different reasons, it blocks us both from getting the change that each seeks.

The Left wants climate change legislation. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. The Left wants real health care reform—with real competition for insurance companies and real competition in drug prices. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. And the Left says it wants a vibrant and modern broadband Internet infrastructure. But it will never get the competition it needs to inspire that building so long as the incumbents can spend less (through the regulatory system) to block competition than providing that service would cost.

The Right wants different things, but again, they are things it will never get so long as elections are funded as they are now funded. The Right wants a smaller government. But so long as a bigger government means more targets for fundraising (i.e., the regulated), the system is biased against what the Right wants. The Right wants simpler taxes—whether Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Rick Perry’s flat tax. But taxes—or, more precisely, the complexity of today’s taxes—are tools in the fundraiser’s toolbox. Got a tax benefit that’s set to expire? Expect a call from a congressman or his fundraiser, eager to enlist you in the fight to “preserve your tax freedom.” What congressman would simplify taxes when that only complicates his opportunity to raise campaign funds?

The key is for both sides to look at these failures and to connect the dots. Not to the one or two critical changes that never seem to happen, but to link the five or ten critical changes that never seem to happen, and to ask “Why?” If, to invoke the author of my one sacred text, Henry David Thoreau,

[t]here are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, the key is for this thousand to pause their hacking and to begin to go after that root.

The “root” is the role that money plays within this system. Or, more precisely, the role that money from a tiny slice of America plays within this system.

http://byliner.com/lawrence-lessig/stories/one-way-forward-excerpt

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The only thing missing is for the thousand currently hacking the branches to learn to hack at the root. When and how is that going to happen?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Lessig's words,yet again:

Understand the source and you understand the solution. The source of this corruption is a Congress that is responsive to its funders but whose funders are not the People. The remedy is to change that source by making the funders “the People.”

We can achieve that remedy by changing the way campaigns are funded.

We must move away from the world in which (a tiny slice of) the top 1 percent fund elections to a world in which practically all of us—let’s say, the 99 percent—fund elections. Until we do that, we will not have a republic “dependent upon the People alone.” We will instead have a government “dependent upon the funders primarily.”

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

How can we vote for changing the way campaigns are funded? It's clear changing the political process in a way that removes the influence of money is our first step. We've got the votes!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Lessig yet again:

Whether from the Right or the Left, citizens must agree upon a common charge: that this government is corrupt, and this corruption must end.

How we end it is something that most of us should be able to agree upon as well: We end it by removing the corrupting influence of money. Not by removing all money—not by pretending that campaigns cost nothing. But by removing the sort of money that makes outsiders like us wonder whether it is money—rather than principle, or reason, or justice, or even just politics—that is buying results in our government.

But a charge and a response do not constitute a plan. To actually do something about this corruption, we need a way into the mechanisms of government. We need a strategy for taking control of those mechanisms, fixing the problem, and then getting out.

We need, in other words, a plan for taking on the most powerful government in the history of governments—and winning.

<Sigh. Deep breath.>

There is no simple strategy for doing this. It will instead require the actions of individuals and the actions of groups. In the section that follows, I map four things that you could do now. In the section following that, I describe what we need to be able to do—together.

...

Engaging Congress http://TheAntiCorruptionPledge.org

...

Engaging the President http://americanselect.org/

...

Engaging the Constitution http://callaconvention.org/

...

Engaging Citizens http://rootstrikers.org/

...

These four steps are a start. They would begin a process that would push the politics of reform that this nation desperately needs.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You see, Congress is the recipient of the corruption. Indeed, corrupted by the corruption.

If you're making enough money to buy a Congressman. Or even a mayor, for that matter. You're making way too much money.

OccupyWallStreet.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

From the book that I've been talking about:

We don’t need to destroy wealth. We need to destroy the ability of wealth to corrupt our politics.

We don’t need to kill capitalism. We need to kill that form of capitalism—crony capitalism—that uses its power to corrupt our politics.

We don’t need to hate success. We have to organize against those who think that their success entitles them to special benefits and privilege from those addicts to fundraising we call congressmen.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What the hell does that have to do with what I said?

I didn't say I wanted to "destroy" wealth.

I didn't say I wanted to kill capitalism.

I didn't say, I hated success.

Don't be so divisive, as to put words in my mouth, or make assumptions.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

shooz - what you wrote could be interpreted that way....

"If you are making enough money to buy a Congressman. Or even a mayor, for that matter. You're making way too much money".

That implies - whether it was your intent to do so - that you believe that caps should be put on the amount of money one earns rather than that caps be placed on the means of how our elections are funded.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Could be, but it doesn't have to be.

Indeed, it's all in how YOU interpret it.

Getting the money out of the electoral process, is just one of the things we need to do, but it isn't the only thing.

The next thing is to completely re-write all corporate charters.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Okay, let's delve into that a bit....I wrote that one could interpret what you wrote as....

"caps should be put on the amount of money one earns rather than that caps be placed on the means of how our elections are funded."

Do YOU believe that caps should be put on the amount of money one earns?

And can you "flesh out" your belief that Corporate Charters (articles of corporation) should be re-written?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're the one hung up on caps, not me.

You're the one that should expound on that .

The privilege of corporatization, should be under constant scrutiny, and charters should be very fluid, according to the needs of the nation.

IE: The maximumization of profit in one corporation, can be very damaging to another. Not to mention the damage it can do to start ups and consumers.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Corporate Charters are filed with a "U.S. State". The details of a charter will vary based on specific regulations and the size of the company and includes the corporation's name, its purpose, the number of shares that are authorized to be issued and the names of the parties involved in the formation.

Corporate law is different from state to state but they all have four main concepts - Legal identity; limited liability, transferable shares, and management under a board.

There is already a "movement" from the typical corporate charter - four states have allowed the formation of B Corporations which ensures that the CEO cannot be legally held responsible for any losses of the corporation.

In certain states, companies that want to brandish their new-economy values can now also register as B Corporations. B Corp registration (the “B” stands for “benefit”) allows a company to subordinate profits to social and environmental goals. Without this legal authorization, a CEO could in theory be sued by stockholders if profit-making is not his sole objective. Such status ensures that specific goals are met by different companies (manufacturers have different requirements from retail stores). It also helps with social marketing and branding. Thus, King Arthur Flour, a highly successful Vermont-based, 100 percent employee-owned ESOP, can be explicit, stating that “making money in itself is not our highest priority.” Four states—Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey and Virginia—have passed legislation that permits B Corp chartering, with many others likely to follow.

More than one in three Americans are members of some form of a cooperative...... http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/publications/new-economy-movement

The change is already taking place. Its evolution is slow but, important in a country whose constitution protects "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "inalienable rights", it is voluntarily taking place.

Are you advocating the government force all corporations to become B Corporations by rewriting and re- registering their corporations?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I really don't care about the legal mumbo-jumbo.

Let the lawyers deal with that, it's what they get paid for.

I care about the damage they have already done, and the fact that it's a privilege, not a right.

If it needs to be investigated and done at the Federal level, then so be it.

I also think they all need to be separated. Let each corporation, take it's own risks.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26672) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Correct an often misunderstood point about a monopoly. You don't have to own the whole process to control it. Sometimes you may need a little help too, a little backdoor contract a fortuitous earmark of funds etc.etc.

Monopoly run by syndicate.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Indeed, the WallStreet syndicate is often very guilty of stifling innovation on many fronts, if it doesn't conform to their profit demands.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

no you just want to control other peoples efforts to distribute as you want.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Distribute what, exactly?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

People making way too much money is not the problem. The problem is the ability of people who make way too much money to corrupt our politics.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What do think you're going to do to stop them?

Put 'em in office?

On the other hand, I did finally get you to admit that some people make WAY too much money.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've never disagreed with that. You've made a lot of assumptions about what I think, solely based on the "R" on my voter registration card. But the left and the right have to find the strength to work together on this problem.

... For until the giant recognizes that she has two hands, a Left and a Right, and two feet, a Left and a Right, and two sides of a brain, a Left and a Right, and that she needs both, the giant will do nothing more than flail.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I based that comment purely on your response.

Stop being divisive.

So what? I said a long, long time ago " A bird doesn't fly with one wing" either.

It's the duality of the paradigm that's holding you back. Indeed the side to side aspect of it can only slow progress.

I am a forwardist.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, that's the whole point of the book that this page is all about. It's the duality of the paradigm that's holding us back. I agree. I highly recommend taking a look at One Way Forward.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The bird metaphor works better, I think that at least, it's a gentler propaganda term than "giant".

We as a society, should be learning to tone down the aggressive aspects of our language.

As you might now see, I've been thinking this way for a while now, yet I learn more every day.

I've read a few thing by Lessig, he's not bad.

Culturally, the left, right paradigm, is probably the worst one we could have chosen. The strength of the propaganda is clearly on the right.

Perhaps that's why the "left", always seems to have to fight harder.

Please remember that being "left" handed was considered a curse and worse for many centuries, and likely still is in parts of the World.

I'm not trying to be divisive now, just stating some facts.

I am a forwardist.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26672) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nothing wrong with feeding the inner child. It helps to maintain joy.


1 points by shooz (4254) 8 hours ago

I'm rightie, but some of my best buds are lefties......:)

I keep a spare joystick around, that works either way......:)

I'm gettin' old but I still play some need for speed.......:) ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks DKA.

I try and keep all the inner fires lit........................:)

I finished Dragon Age before my daughter did too............:)

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26672) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I'm left handed. I've been told that means that I'm in my right mind.

I try to be a positivist.


1 points by shooz (4254) 2 minutes ago

The bird metaphor works better, I think that at least, it's a gentler propaganda term than "giant".

We as a society, should be learning to tone down the aggressive aspects of our language.

As you might now see, I've been thinking this way for a while now, yet I learn more every day.

I've read a few thing by Lessig, he's not bad.

Culturally, the left, right paradigm, is probably the worst one we could have chosen. The strength of the propaganda is clearly on the right.

Perhaps that's why the "left", always seems to have to fight harder.

Please remember that being "left" handed was considered a curse and worse for many centuries, and likely still is in parts of the World.

I'm not trying to be divisive now, just stating some facts.

I am a forwardist. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm rightie, but some of my best buds are lefties......:)

I keep a spare joystick around, that works either way......:)

I'm gettin' old but I still play some need for speed.......:)

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I'm still reading, there is a lot on this post to read and learn and I agree with you a 100%. however on a side note when you" in lessig's words" and proceed to take excerpts from his book, do you have permmission from him to do so ? otherwise you in violation of copyright law. Within the context and forum I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem with it, but it would be polite as well as respectful to ask for permmission first before you use his material. it's also the law.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

ok I get it but it would still be polite to ask permission

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Seems pretty evident to me. Not sure why so many "supporters" on this forum feel justified in being divisive. Occupy has no party. Maybe they aren't supporters but rather wolves in sheep's clothing.

[-] 1 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

See http://GOOOH.com - That seems to be a good way to bypass the campaign financing problem, by selecting Rep candidates ourselves. It seems that GOOOH is a bit too complicated and it needs to attract more of the public instead of mostly activists and those willing to be candidates. They already have almost 100,000 members, but, if they modify their approach a bit, I think they can go viral.

[-] 1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

This is something I could really get behind. It doesn't go quite far enough for me in that it doesn't follow the money to the very top to expose the globalist oligarchs and monarchs to get them out of other people's countries. Having said that, Lessig is one of the few who are really working on steps to make a difference, not just sitting at a keyboard. Its a great starting point to get the money out of politics and we could move out from there to make changes in how humanity will continue to live on this planet. Much to do! If Lessig's work could get organizations like AIPAC out of the political landscape, I'm all for it.

[-] 1 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

The democrats are not left wing in any observable way and this is utter bourgeois nonsense. Campaign finance is not "the core of the problem", it's merely putting a bandaid on a cut arm. The system was intentionally rotten from the beginning, something Madison even said himself.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 2 years ago

"There should be no conflict between the Left and the Right on this: Both sides should favor reform that ends this corrupting influence. We don’t need to destroy wealth. We need to destroy the ability of wealth to corrupt our politics. We don’t need to kill capitalism. We need to kill that form of capitalism—crony capitalism—that uses its power to corrupt our politics."

I totally agree with you on these points. However, money wouldn't be an issue if the people made it a non-issue. If we, the people got rid of everyone in congress that has been there for more than 4 or 5 years and created this mess. Then support and vote for new people to replace them that have our views, we can have an influence to stop the corruption. It would take a massive effort on both sides to get rid of these criminals. And then a massive effort to promote people that share our views but masses of people could do this. In the end it's the votes, not the money that gets them in congress so we have to get out the vote to get the crooks out and the people that share our views in.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Getting rid of the people without changing the system would put us right back where we started. The 'crooks' are not to blame. The system that enables private interests to support the crooks is the problem.

[-] 2 points by SingleVoice (158) 2 years ago

The point is that you can't change the system until you get the people out that corrupted the system and elect people in that hold your views so the system can be fixed.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

There is no left or right anyways. It's all just a simple way to divide people so they can't even manage to talk to each-other.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, I definitely agree. It's very sad that so many people are unable to find the strength to set aside partisan bickering in order to work toward meaningful change. This web site is full of people who would rather talk about why Republicans are wrong than about how to reduce the influence of money over our political system.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

In order to do campaign finance reform, wouldn't we need our taxes raised? I believe for this bipartisan solution to ever see the light of day it would entail all Americans paying for the elections? In a nation that hates being taxed, I believe this would be a hard consensus to create. But if a party was formed with this goal in mind, I'd give it a try? It's a good idea.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Only if you accept the assumption that a presidential campaign should cost a billion dollars.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

so you are thinking a good way to go about it is to make media giants do elections pro bono publico?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I hadn't suggested that, but it's a pretty interesting idea. An extension of common carrier law. That would treat campaign media like the public interest that it really is, rather than the private interest that it's treated like under our current system of funding.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

holidays slow the economy by a day

I wonder if Martin Luther King would have wanted his holiday on an election day

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Yes! I have been suggesting this since I joined this movement a few months after it began. Our core goal should be something that deals with the root of the problem. Lessig articulates it brilliantly though.

Get outside money out of politics. Give the people back their democracy and power.

Good thread, Techjunkie.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You are right we should all unite and demand higher taxes on the wealthy!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Demanding higher taxes on the wealthy is striking at the branches, not at the root of the problem. Striking at the root of the problem would be to work toward (not to "demand") eliminating the ability of the wealthy to use their money to corrupt our political system. The fact that other people are more wealthy than us is not the problem. The fact that our system makes our government beholden to its funders is the problem.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If all we do is get the money out of politics then socity will still collasp because the insustaible path we are on is ever increasing gap between the very wealthy and everyone else, the path we are on leads to disator unless we actually move money from the wealthy to the workers. We can do it with unions or taxes either way we got to rid of the GOP.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

You have it all wrong factsrfun. You get outside money out of politics it stops corporations and wealthy special interests from bribing politicians and buying our democracy.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We have had public funding for over ten years in AZ, we recently got SB 1070, it takes more than just getting the money out.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Oh I agree that it absolutely takes more than just getting outside money out of politics but its the most important step. We also have to make it illegal to put out anonymous ads. When you give special interests the power to spend unlimited money AND to do it anonymously its a recipe for corruption and unaccountability.

In Arizona they are kind of going about it halfheartedly. Because in AZ you can still get around the rule with Super Pacs and loopholes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The state races were locked up pretty tight until the Robert's Court dismantled the matching funds, and the local people just gave away the matching tax deduction for some crazy reason, so it is all but dead now, the GOP have killed it, but for ten years it was strong as hell, but people stuck to their sports teams and kept voting GOP, and there isn't that much spent on state races anyway, it's just down ticket stuff. Here’s the ruling, people should be as upset about this as Citizen’s United, but hey there’s only so much people can take at once I understand.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Man, I actually remember hearing about that and completely forgot about it. You're right more people should absolutely be talking about what Arizona did to the campaign matching funds rule. Our political system has turned into such shit.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

I thought we were already united on ending the Wars/Empire?

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Why do you think those wars happen in the first place? Money. Until we not allow corporations and special interests groups to bribe politicians and control our politics and democracy there will always be pointless wars.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Specifically, these wars started because the members of "The Project for a New American Century" (also called "Neo-Cons") were put into power under the Bush Administration, and with 9/11, the "New Pearl Harbor" they needed to push forth their agenda emerged.

Their agenda was motivated by resources and power. Their purpose was to create U.S. military dominance in the Middle East.

The reason why these Wars still continue is because, it turns out, that the Neo-Conservative Movement didn't just affect the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, but Government in general. Thus, with Obama, more of the same. And, if Romney secures the Nomination, than the Neo-Conservative Movement has just taken over the "opposition." And these specific Wars will continue.

War in general is a means to power. Money is another means to power. But Power is what fuels all corruption.

We must stop the accumulation of Power, whether it be Government, Church or Corporation. We do that by taking back power individually, empowering others, and reducing the power of government in general.

Corporations and Special Interests Lobby ("bribe") politicians because politicians give them access to the power of government. And right now, our Government is getting very powerful.

There is still a chance Ron Paul can pull a delegate upset. But aside from that, we can push Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. If there was an actual, practical, push to elect a "non-neo-con" President, we could potentially, at least, upset Romney as the "opposition" and make the Election significant.

But there are also local and state elections coming up, and there has got to be at least 1 decent candidate running in everyone's area to help.

Aside from that, start growing your own food, start using Linux, don't buy products that are made by the companies that are blamed for all the world's problems. Starting thinking of Society as above Government, Corporations and the Church. Make your decisions based on the natural law.

We are powerful, they just told you you weren't...didn't Gandalf tell you not to listen to Sauruman's words?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

building bombs 'til bunkers boil

getting paid for shell filled toil

if I am to work tomorrow

lobe the load on foreign soil


yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget

World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations


TOP 10 Arms Produces

Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58 +L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

For some reason I couldn't connect to your first link here. But I'm with you on this one. Ending the corrupt process of campaign finance is the first and formost objective here, in my opinion, because all other reform flows from this first reform, due to the simple truth that this restores democracy to the people.

My objection has never been working with people on the right, but working with the Republican Party which I believe, given their loyalties, is simply an impossibility.

If the left and right can get together on this, we can make it a reality.

The question is, how can we work together without succumbing to bickering over our differences?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

We can work together without succumbing to bickering over our difference by focusing on our common ground. Not on wedge issues that divide us.

Lessig's book, One Way Forward, is all about that. It's only about sixty pages and it only costs two bucks. I strongly recommend it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Republicans are not opposed to campaign finance reform.

The most recent major federal law on campaign finance reform was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. It's also known as "McCain-Feingold", after its sponsors. McCain is a Republican.

Buddy Roemer is another example of a Republican who has recently made campaign finance reform a key issue.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Your first statement is no longer true. It was to some extent in 2002, but things have change a whole lot since then. Over all though this has been a good thread. You attracted the attention of the right people.

Buddy Roemer isn't an example of anything Republican except ex Republican's - - Like me. We are only memories of days gone by.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Some aren't anyway. Yet my question remains

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Good luck trying to get this forum behind this.

Too many are more interested in demonizing the millions of registered Republicans, Republican leaning Independents than in coming up with a united front that can address campaign financing.

They believe in the media invented "left" vs "right" and ignore the "flavors" of each party.... http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Only extremists worry about left - right, the folks in the middle worry about details.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

From Lessig's One Way Forward:

...to do this in the current political environment is extraordinarily difficult. If we’re to do it, we need a clear symbol or tag—a kind of Red Cross or UN flag—that we could show to people on either side and expect them to understand it to say:

I am here to have a constitutional conversation. I’m not here to convert you. I respect your position, even if I disagree with you. I hope someday to have a chance to persuade you of the error in your ways. That’s not my aim today. I aim today simply to talk about whether the system under which our differences get resolved is one we can trust or one we should change. I aim to talk about the rules of the game, and not about which side should win.

This is, no doubt, a complex idea. It can’t be explained in 140 characters. Yet if we’re to make progress in saving this Republic, we need to find a way to express it clearly. And then we need experience in practicing it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by totuus (8) 2 years ago

The traditional Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican dichotomy is a false and failing paradigm propagated by the powers-that-be to perpetuate division. The true political spectrum is not a straight line but a circle: There is a point where Far Left meets Far Right, where Anarchism merges with Libertarianism and these and the rest of our outmoded labels melt away. In that point must we place our hope, for only from that point can we build a better future.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

But, to transcend that dichotomy, people who are interested in changing the system will need to find the strength to work together with people who don't necessarily agree with them on the standard assortment of wedge issues. After interacting with people on this site for many months, I have my doubts that it's possible. Those wedge issues are simply too distracting for many people, and the resulting partisan bickering helps to maintain the status quo of political corruption in our country. People would rather argue about gay marriage and abortion than deal with the truly important issue of the corrupting power of money in our political system.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There are lots of grassroots groups working on ending political corruption. Mostly progressive/liberal groups. Even in government, it is only the Democrats that support publicly funded/election reform. (before someone else points this out - yes, Ron Paul supports/thinks the answer is term limits).

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=61&sectiontree=5,61&itemid=570

Every piece of legislation that has been introduced to address CU/election reform has been put forth by a Democrat (except Bernie Sanders-Independent, who caucuses Democrat). Sanders, Deutch, Udall, Sutton, Baucus, McGovern, Kaptur, Schrader, Kucinich, Yarmuth, Edwards, Ellison.

10 pieces of Amendment legislation to address CU/Election reform. All Democrat. So you tell me. Why don't Republicans support any of this? The Republicans are creating the partisanship, on something that should not be partisan.

I have yet to see one Republican who is interested in addressing government corruption. Or have I missed something?

Why is it that Congressional Democrats are getting the message about ending government corruption, but Congressional Republicans are not? I believe Congressional Republicans are hearing the message. They simply don't believe government corruption is a problem. Just like voter suppression. Republicans don't believe the "average" person needs to be involved in government affairs and decision making. The Koch Bros. know best. Let alone vote.

Like Mitt Romney said, discussing wealth inequality, "I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms." The average person need not be involved.

So forgive if I sound partisan. It's a reaction to the Congressional Republican partisanship mentality I see. On an issue that should not be partisan. I think you would agree. Why are Congressional Republicans not getting this message? Are they just slow on the uptake? I think they believe deep down that the Koch Bros know best, and the current system works just fine. That is the current mentality of Congressional Republican leadership.

Except John McCain. And even he can't seem to get through to the lunatic fringe that is the Congressional Republican leadership today. The only way I see this changing is for the Republicans to lose so many seats in the next election, that it will force some moderation. Get rid of the Right Wing lunatic fringe that is driving the Republican party. The Tea Partiers with their idiotic starve the beast mentality. And the Ayn Rand/Grover Norquist worshipers that think starving the poor (more!), taxing the wealthy yet less, doubling down on trickle down theory - will solve our economic problems.

Because it is wealth inequality itself that causes the bitter partisanship and dysfunction. Everyone wants to either keep more of what they've got (the wealthy), or get some of what they don't (the poor). Each side has it's advocate. And each side is at polar extremes to satisfy the extreme needs that wealth inequality is producing in the constituency. When the middle class can't afford healthcare anymore because of rising costs and 30 years of stagnant wages - the Democrats pass the Healthcare Act. The other side screams and yells "Socialist/Communist"! When the economy needs to be stimulated, the Republicans respond with lower tax rates for the wealthy. The other side yells - "stop coddling the rich!". Each side plays to the extreme needs of their constituency, which is at extremes - because of wealth inequality. When the truth is - the Affordable Care act is kind of extreme. But if middle class wages had not been stagnant for 30 years, there would be no need for this. And lets be honest, lowering tax rates even further for the wealthy is extreme as well. They have the lowest tax rates since the invention of the telephone I think! But this is a reaction to the - I don't want to pay for your healthcare. I want to keep what is mine. This is somewhat understandable. I really don't know how this cycle ends. Until one side loses so many seats, as not to have a choice. But somehow, I don't think doubling down on trickle down economics is the answer. How much lower can taxes go down on the wealthy "job creators"? Lowering taxes further on the wealthy or on corporations, is not going to stimulate demand in the broad economy.

Can you give me any other explanation for why Congressional Republicans don't support ending govt corruption? Either they are deaf. Or deep down they don't believe in it. They simply can't pull up, out of the obstructionist corner they've painted themselves into? They're slow on the uptake? They aren't hearing it from their constituency? Why? Why is the Progressive Caucus advocating for an Amendment to address CU, and not any Right Wing/Republican Caucus? Could it be that their constituency is the biggest beneficiaries of govt. corruption? What is it??

I'm sorry Tech. But Republicans are the problem. And its going to take some Republican voters - to switch sides, in order to start to fix things. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What's wrong in that thinking is that you're still thinking about the left side and the right side. You're not thinking about the inside and the outside. Most of us are on the outside, and our government is controlled by people on the inside. Because of the power of money to corrupt our political system.

I'm going to cede the microphone to Lawrence Lessig yet again, because he can explain why this is a problem for both the left and the right far better than I can.

At the core of our government is a corruption. Not the corruption of criminals, violating the law by engaging in illegal bribery. There is some of that, but not much, and even if we ended all of that, we wouldn’t begin to solve the type of corruption that I’m speaking of. Instead, the corruption that I’m speaking of, and the corruption that debilitates this government, is legal corruption. It is the economy of influence that guides Washington to regulate or not to regulate as the funders of campaigns want and, more pressingly and more recently, as the barons of super PACs demand. This corruption blocks both the Left and the Right. For different reasons, it blocks us both from getting the change that each seeks.

The Left wants climate change legislation. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. The Left wants real health care reform—with real competition for insurance companies and real competition in drug prices. It will never get that so long as this corruption remains. And the Left says it wants a vibrant and modern broadband Internet infrastructure. But it will never get the competition it needs to inspire that building so long as the incumbents can spend less (through the regulatory system) to block competition than providing that service would cost.

The Right wants different things, but again, they are things it will never get so long as elections are funded as they are now funded. The Right wants a smaller government. But so long as a bigger government means more targets for fundraising (i.e., the regulated), the system is biased against what the Right wants. The Right wants simpler taxes—whether Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Rick Perry’s flat tax. But taxes—or, more precisely, the complexity of today’s taxes—are tools in the fundraiser’s toolbox. Got a tax benefit that’s set to expire? Expect a call from a congressman or his fundraiser, eager to enlist you in the fight to “preserve your tax freedom.” What congressman would simplify taxes when that only complicates his opportunity to raise campaign funds?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I agree with all of that. But tell me why no Congressional Republican shows any signs of support for ending this corruption? I really don't understand your point. It is a Left/Right issue. Because the Right isn't listening.

John McCain suggested (very recently) that the only way real campaign reform will happen is for there to be a major scandal. Surely he has tried to get some Republicans to address the issue, but they refuse. Why? Because they don't think it's a problem.

Explain to me why not one Congressional Republican will address government corruption. How about sign on as a co-sponsor of any one of the 10 Democrat pieces of Amendment legislation? Why not? If they don't like the Democrat Legislation, how come they aren't writing up their own Amendment legislation to address CU?

How do you think there can be bi-partisan support for this when Congressional Republicans do not believe government corruption is a problem??

Forget traditional Congressional Republicans. How about the Tea Party Republicans? I don't see them taking any interest in this either. Because they don't believe in it either.

The Congressional Republicans will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming. They will have to lose a bunch of seats in Congress for that to happen. The ones that are left, will be forced to come to the table on it. Of course, we the people will need to keep forcing the issue. I'm not suggesting the Congressional Dems will keep moving forward of their own good graces, unless they are forced as well. But at least there are Democrats who are on record, with legislation, to move the ball forward. The Republicans are a million miles away. They have no interest in being anywhere near the ball park. Or they would be in the ball park! They don't believe in it Tech. They just don't. They will need to lose lots of Congressional seats. To get the message. How else do you expect Congressional Republicans to come to the ball park?

Do I wish there was one giant non-political, not left, not right, grass root effort (like OWS) to support this? Of course I do. But there are lots of groups pushing this. There are lots of grass roots groups working on this, support - with people that I'm sure vote both ways.

Congressional Democrats are listening. Congressional Republicans are not . They will have to be dragged there. The best way to make them listen is to vote against them.

Are you suggesting that I should vote Republican. To make them listen?? Or not vote at all? I'm not sure what you're saying.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Republican support for public campaign financing dates back to Theodore Roosevelt. Congressional Republicans drove the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971 that created the check box on your income tax for that every presidential candidate used since then -- until Obama. A Democrat. You've got Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who reversed his position on campaign finance reform because it's an election year. You know about McCain-Feingold. So don't pretend that Republicans are opposed to campaign finance reform in general and that Democrats are all for it. That's not the issue. It's a popular sport on this site to vilify Republicans and that only natural considering the generally leftist slant of Occupy. But this is not a partisan issue.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

So what you're saying is - you have to go pretty far in the way back machine to find Republicans supporting campaign finance sanity? My point exactly.

Whoa whoa whoa. Who took the checkbox off? I didn't know the checkbox was gone. My quick googling says that the public fund was going dry because less than 15% checked the box. Your comment - "until Obama", as if it's the President's fault the checkbox wasn't being used and the fund was going dry. ??? I don't know who got rid of it, but maybe that's why. Was it through Congress? I can't seem to find it. Or did the Treas. make this decision themselves?

I think the President has been pretty clear about his support for publicly financed elections. He also was strongly critical of the CU decision. Basically said it was a horrible decision for our democracy. I don't know or care what Cuomo's deal is, flip flopping around on it. The President has been clear.

Any RECENT Republican, besides the very lonely John McCain, speak out against CU? Short of resurrecting dead Congressional Republicans. What why or how do you suppose current Congressional Republicans are going to come around on this issue?

God Bless John McCain. But the poor guy can't get one of his own party to help, to agree with him? I'm not pretending Republicans don't support it. They don't. There is absolutely no evidence that they do. Unless you go back 40 years. Those people are dead.

I know this should not be a partisan issue. And given that there is like 80% general popular support, it's not partisan among the general electorate.

But current Congressional Republicans -the people that are alive in Congress today, not the dead ones from 40 years ago - do not agree that money in the political system is a problem.

They are making it a partisan issue. Because when both sides agree, it's not partisian. In this case, it's the Congressional Republicans that are the ones not agreeing. Not agreeing with you, me, many many Congressional Democrats and 80% of the general population.

I am not trying to be divisive. I'm really not. But the fact is, those Congressional Republicans that did believe in federal funding are dead. There's only John McCain left.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obama didn't use public campaign financing. He opted out. He's the first major party nominee since 1976 to ever do that. It's disingenuous to paint Democrats as champions of public campaign finance with Obama using a Super PAC and opting out of public funding. The $3 check box is still there on your income tax form, but it doesn't matter any more now that Obama pioneered a new kind of private campaign financing.

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/failed_promise_campaign_finance_edition

One of the reasons why we have the flawed system that we currently have is that people are very easily distracted by the false choice between red and blue, when really both sides have an interest in changing the system. Rationalizing Democrats or Republicans are 'better' than the other side on this issue doesn't further real change.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

So the President is a dick head for using private money instead of public financing. Fine. Happy? My husband is a dick head sometimes too. And puppies poop on the floor. Whatcha gonna do? Should I divorce my husband and kill the puppy?

You want me to divorce from Pres. Obama because he made a financial decision based on the political realities of the time? And if Sen. McCain had vastly greater financial prospects would he have turned down private money to opt in to lesser public funding? The entire system is screwed up about opting in or out. Choosing this or that. Choosing more money or less money. What dumbass is going to choose less money?? The whole thing is dumb.

What do you want me to do? Get out my pom-pons and do a cheeleader dance for Republicans because Pres. Obama is a dick head sometimes? Cheerleader for Republicans who don't even believe that campaign financing is a problem at all? Not be involved in the political process, not volunteer, not vote, not anything? Should I just go out there and block subways and bridges? : )

I'm not looking at the Democrats with rose colored glasses. But I'm not gonna opt out of the political process because both sides are dicks heads. Maybe it's you who are looking at the Republicans with rose colored glasses. When you have to go back 40 years to find Republicans who support campaign reform.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obama is currently the head of the Democratic Party. That's why it's relevant to your narrative about the Democratic Party being all for public campaign finance reform.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I don't think I ever said "Democratic Party". I said Congressional Democrats as compared to Congressional Republicans. And it just so happens that no current Congressional Republicans believes in campaign reform. It's not my fault they're wrong headed. And it's blatantly obvious. It's not my fault they're on the wrong side of this issue. Do they not read poll data that 80% of the general public believes there is a problem with money in the political system? . Did they miss that poll?? Do they not see the anarchy in the streets, hear people screaming and yelling about the CU decision and put two and two together? Even if this movement does not have that singular purpose. It's really not that hard to figure out. Congressional Dems figured it out.

Pres. Obama has been dancing around same sex marriage for years. Saying it halfway, until yesterday.

Perhaps in a second term, the President would address campaign reform more strongly. Just like he addressed same sex marriage yesterday. I find this possibility far more likely than Mr. Corporations Are People Too My Friend. Romney said there's nothing wrong with the current system. “I would like to get rid of the campaign finance laws that were put in place,” Romney said at a debate Monday night in Myrtle Beach, S.C. “ . . . Let people make contributions they want to make to campaigns, let campaigns then take responsibility for their own words and not have this strange situation we have.”

The only part he got right was "this strange situation". It is absolutely strange, distorted and sickening that the Koch Bros contribute millions and millions of dollars to him. And that Goldman Sachs contributed millions and millions to Pres. Obama in the last election.

But I still don't get what your point is. You want "solidarity" on this single issue? I think the general population is there already.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You started all of this by saying "Republicans are the problem". I guess you were referring to "Congressional Republicans", rather than half of the country.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You're right. I did say in the last paragraph that Republicans are the problem. Jeesh I wrote alot! You read all that?? I feel for you. lol.

As far as campaign reform goes - I did mean to specifically target Congressional Republicans. Not Republicans in general.

But in a broader sense, especially as far as economic policy, it's true. I think Republican policies are a big problem. I think trickle down theory isn't working, and has, to a large degree, caused wealth inequality. And now what we have is this extreme wealth inequality that is polarizing the two sides. Right is going further right and Left is pulling further left. To the point of total dysfunction.

The fact that half the country seems to believe that wealthy people and corporations are the job creators. I think that's a big problem. Wealthy people and corporations have the "potential" to create jobs. They will - if there is demand. Republicans leave out the word "potential", and basically ignore the demand side. Demand has to come first.

Why can't I be for campaign reform and also say that Republican economic policies and trickle down theory sucks? You can say healthcare for all (just an example, plug in anything you want here) is a sucky idea if you want to. And we can still agree about campaign reform and be friends can't we. : )

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"Why can't I be for campaign reform and also say that Republican economic policies and trickle down theory sucks?"

Because fixing the system will require everybody to learn to cooperate with people who they don't necessarily agree with on all issues. We have to learn to look past the fundamental ideological differences between the left and the right in order to look after our overall political system.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Fixing the political system, getting campaign reform - is a long term goal. I'm afraid it's going to take a very long time. I don't see how it can happen without an Amendment. Even if the Supreme Court were to review the decision again, by the Montana case or something else. Even this will take a long time. And there is nothing to say that the ruling will get overturned. Especially with the current Court. I think it will take a change in Justices. And I would prefer the new Justice (or 2) be chosen by Pres. Obama.

In the mean time, it's an election year. Those two things are happening concurrently. And like I said, I want to see a change in Justices. And I don't want Romney's choices (Robert Bork).

Even if it were not an election year, the world runs on a concurrent. The world is not going to stop turning for one thing to happen before another. You seem to be implying that the concurrent world must come to a stop in order to fix the political system. The rest of the world around us is not going to stop and wait for the political system to be fixed.

Example: You sign the ballot measure in your town, I sign the ballot measure in my town - to support an Amendment for campaign reform. And both our towns send it to our respective State. At the same time, I'm supporting Dems in the election, you support and vote for who you want to. It doesn't negate or take away from the fact that we both are supporting an Amendment for campaign reform.

[-] -1 points by torusngamble (9) 2 years ago

Forget the Rigged Elections.

Forget Obama and Romney.

Forget the rest of the Democratic and Republican corporate puppets.

Forget the feel-good mental masturbation of Third Parties.

Our system is broken and cannot be repaired from within.

FOCUS ON REGIME CHANGE.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Uhhh, let me think about that. ok I thought about it. No.