Forum Post: Do Counter Arguments for Focusing First on Campaign Finance Reform Exist?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 2:10 a.m. EST by WhyIsTheCouchAlwaysWet
(316)
from Lexington, KY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think the logical first step of the Occupy movement is toward Campaign Finance Reform and ending the influence of corporate money on our government representations. However, I haven't seen many arguments AGAINST this. That's what I'm looking for. In my view I would be willing to compromise on everything below to each priority to pass those above it, i.e. I would compromise of 3 and 4 if that meant enacting 1 and 2.
First Priority- Ending massive corporate electoral campaign donations.
Second Priority- Ending corporate lobbyist culture in Washington. We need to get private money out of the public government. This is legal bribery and intolerable. Government for the people, by the people.
Third Priority- Term Limitations- Being a politician should be about representing the views of your fellow citizens, not a career. We need to compensate those who perform a public service, the current system is stagnant.
Fourth Priority- Public to private sector cool downs. I'm not really sure if this is even possible. I'm hoping someone smarter than me can make a consise but workable approach to it, but the basic idea is that should be able to pass laws as a public servant then jaunt off and reap the rewards in the private sector because of those laws. That's a basic conflict of interest.
This movement needs to score a run. This is something we can all get behind. By all, I mean everyone from the far right to the far left and everyone in between. Making progress on this would legitimize and significantly grow this movement. After that we can argue about the rest.
Does anyone out there disagree that this should be our first priority and why do you feel that way?
Hear, hear!
Thanks for the support!
I would rather have a voting system I could trust.
the easiest way would be to have voting made public
I have little reason to trust a secrete ballot
that will take a constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing republicans until the election but 99% need help now thats why we should push congress to end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
Why would Republicans oppose campaign finance reform? Hell, I've yet to find anyone from the Tea Party that disagrees with it.
tea party is not congress why would they oppose are you serious ever heard of Super pac strated by karl rove stephen colbert made fun of this by making his own get real for ows
Well if the Republicans disagree with it, let them come voice their concerns themselves. So far I've yet to see that.
ive seen no support either so lets stop letting the media say we have no message and push congress to end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message
I disagree. Those are issues that need attention, but there is not a clear consensus on those issues. The left and the right disagree mightly about most of those.
Campaign Finance Reform needs to come first. This is something everyone can get behind. This makes it the easiest to tackle issue where we all have common ground and logically the first issue we need to tackle. The other stuff can come next.
dylan ratigan i like but he blames both sides as equals which is misleading to what i believe and why would you focus on something that republicans wont support and will not happen until there is democratic majority in the house when ows can help pass the jobs 21st century industrial revolution
I'm pretty patient with most people on this forum because I think being inclusive is important... but seriously. Use some punctuation and capitalization. Every post you type is a run on.
AND FOR THE THIRD TIME, WHY WON'T REPUBLICANS SUPPORT CAMPAIGN REFORM?
republicans have demonizied the movement why would they give liberals a win when mitch mcconilll says our main goal is to make obama a one term president Ill put my message to yours and see how much republican support you get out of ows
No...... but its all the other crap that has everyone standing back and waiting to see what emerges.
Well in that case we need to make this what emerges!
Campaign Finance Reform first then once we have a working, representative democracy, the other changes can be phased in as per what the constitution and the founding fathers envisioned in the first place.
Some other ideas: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
Hear, hear! Thanks for the support!
end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.
Is that a disagreement? If so, what is your argument?
that will take a constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing republicans until the election but 99% need help now thats why we should push congress to end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message
Demands a la cart how 21st century!
If Article V is used, as far as this movement is concerned, war is first, then media, then elections, then economy, if I read the opinions well. I left out what I know MUST be the first action at Article V, which makes it so the public is informed for elections. All election reforms leave that out, so the public can actually be mislead by media and vote wrongly. We need to revise the First Amendment so that speech vital for survival can be shared and understood. Currently, you can yell in the park all you want and no one will hear or understand. This is how the human race goes extinct. There is an ancient philosophical doctrine of natural law that predates the Declaration of Independence called the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech". I have a page on it here. http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html The really important but hugely difficult truths we must know to make decisions will never be shared by corporate media. Citizens invoking the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" can do it.
National broadcasts will be available to citizens that have legally valid and factually substantial issues with a modicum of public support submitted to state officials to gain cooperation of metwork media in the states.
" which makes it so the public is informed for elections. All election reforms leave that out, so the public can actually be mislead by media and vote wrongly. We need to revise the First Amendment so that speech vital for survival can be shared and understood."
I don't think you will get much support if you want to trample the 1st amendment. I agree with what you are saying but we have to find another option to inform the public.
The comparatively minor issues which the varying spectrum of supporters and activists which comprise this movement hold as true can and must take a temporary back seat to the movement's dedication to clean up our government and electoral institutions.
It will be a long and hard and impossible fight, but so long as such a diverse coalition of people with their own vested interests and ideas for the future come together on this and fight it out, we will see victory.
And in this long hard impossible challenge, I am positive the discussions of differences and similarities in thinking will enlighten everyone involved as they eat and occupy together. By the time we reach our victory, imagine what our arguments and ideas will be...
Hear, hear!
I would love to ask Obama this question. Same with Rick Perry since he has gotten a substantial funding bump this month.
More and more I keep coming back to campaign finance reform myself. So no, no counter argument from me. It's going to be an uphill fight though because the ones getting their pockets lines by business aren't going to want to change that any time soon... much less actually do it.
I couldn't agree more. This WILL NOT be an easy fight, but I think it's our best bet.
Then I need to further educate myself on some of the ins and outs. All my points thus far have been about federal tax refunds to corporations that pay no federal taxes in the first place. MAYBE if We the People had actual representation that wouldn't be possible.
I think we have enough resources to address fixing Wall Streets problems in this grassroots movement AND address campaign finance reform in another grassroots movement.
Yes. No amount of laws will put a stop to Swiss bank accounts getting zeros added when the privately owned Federal Reserve has a printing press.
I don't think it is a reasonable expectation to think we can eradicate every trace of corporate influence over our government... Power corrupts and someone will always find a loophole.
However, SURELY we can do better than the present system? Shouldn't this be the exception rather than the rule?
I object to the fraudulent central bank masquerading as a federal institution and printing unlimited sums of money to buy influence.
Megacorps wouldn't exist without the private Fed backing them up. I'm ok with small businesses having a say in politics.
An interesting thought, but I disagree. Small businesses are still business interests. Let the owners of small businesses petition government just the same way their workers do. Just because you own a business of any size doesn't entitle you to a greater say in government.
I personally have not talked to any one that did not agree with the campaign reforms. Only small minor issues in the details but over all it seems like every one agrees with it.
Same here, i'm looking, but I've yet to find much of anyone who does.
Here is the argument against it
But if we don't buy the politicians, then how can we get the things we want? -big business
I think that sums up the counter argument.
Ha, touche. I should have been more specific, of course big business is going to disagree. I meant: Do ordinary people disagree... etc, etc.
David Walker, former US Comptroller General and chief of the GAO, warned before the 2004 election that if large economic changes were not made, by 2009 the United States and its taxpayers would not be able to afford the interest payments on the national debt. A study authorized by the US Treasury in 2001 found that in order to keep servicing the debt at its current rate of growth, by 2013 income taxes would need to be raised to 65%.
If the United States cannot afford to pay the interest on its debts, that would be the final stage of economic collapse and hence result in a total textbook bankruptcy. The systematic crisis would in turn spread to the rest of the world.
How did this happen? Why is the US national debt $14,819,350,000+? Of the 203 countries in the world today, only four (!) do not owe others money. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now above 40 trillion dollars and this number doesn’t include the massive about of household debt in each country.
The whole world is basically bankrupt. But how? How can the world as a whole owe money to itself? Obviously, it’s all nonsense. There is no such thing as ‘money’. There are only planetary resources, human labor and human ingenuity. The monetary system regulated by Federal Reserve is nothing more than a game… and an outdated and dysfunctional one at that. Those in positions of social power alter the rules of the game, at will. The nature of those rules is guided by the same competitive, distorted mentalities that are used in everyday “monetary” life, only this time the game is rigged at its root to favor those who run the show. For example, if you have 1 million dollars and put it into a CD at 5% interest, you are going to generate $50,000 a year simply for that deposit. You are making money off of money itself… paper being made from other paper … nothing more - no invention - no contribution to society – no nothing.
That being denoted, if you are a lower to middle class person, who is limited in funds, and must get interest based loans to buy your home or use credit cards, then you are paying interest to the bank, which the bank is then using, in theory, to pay the person’s return with the 5% CD! Not only is this equation outrageously offensive due to the use of usury (interest) to ‘steal from the poor and give to the rich’, but it also perpetuates class stratification by its very design, keeping the lower classes poor, under the constant burden of debt, while keeping the upper classes rich, with the means to turn excess money into more money, with no labor.
That reality aside, there are other games in the system which have worked for decades, but are just now starting to bloom into the inevitable mathematic disasters that should have been anticipated 100 years ago. The point is, our system is broken. Simple policy change will not solve our debt problem. We need to alter the governmental paradigm if we wish to repay our debt. First step: our government must fire the Federal Reserve Board.
Again as below, I agree this is an issue that needs to addressed, but as with most of Arod1993's proposals, our debt and what to do about it is a complex issue that people are not in agreement about. The right and the left have many and varied ideas about how to solve these problems. Should we first work to achieve a goal that all share before debating and hashing out the more separating issues?
Our government representation is corporately funded. Why will they, in their current state, act counter to corporate interests? (such as firing the Federal Reserve Board)
This is not about compromising. This is about illuminating the ever-present issues and taking the necessary steps to end all of the tomfoolery in Washington. The root of all evil is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private bank; our government does not have the constitutional authority to hire a private bank to manipulate global currencies. Thus, by taking down the Fed we will force the change of all changes to our socio-political system.
I'm trying to approach this as realistically as I possibly can. My worry is that regardless of the truth of it, you aren't going to be able to sell a single, clear, decisive plan to the American public without any credibility. I mean, ask yourself this, why should every day Americans who rely on the main stream media for their political commentary trust in us?
We cut our teeth on campaign finance reform. Once we've proven we aren't a bunch of entitlist, psuedo-intellectual hippies (like the main stream media wants to portray us) to the American public, THEN we can tackle the more complex issues. NO ONE aside from corporate interests themselves oppose campaign finance reform. That makes it the logical springboard issue.
The average America should trust in this because we represent them. We don't know the free market. We don't know true democracy. We are a movement for, of, and by the American populous and constitution.
The mainstream media is alllllll funded by the multinational corporations that we at OWS are protesting against.
Sure, we claim to, but the American public's jaded and skeptical for good reason. We need to give them a solid reason to trust us, back us and work with us, not just more promises. Every politician with corporate campaign cash in his or her back pocket makes those same claims day after day, election after election yet here we are.
Go to the protests. Watch videos on youtube. Don't listen to the mainstream media when you are researching this movement. There are a lot of intelligent people with a lot of good ideas behind this movement. The mainstream media is going to manipulate who we are and what we stand for. Do not be fooled. Educate yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFz1VVXsWRU
I don't personally support Ron Paul for President, but he's got a very well educated fan base.
I've been standing with my local movement, holding a sign that says "Democracy is not for sale" when ever I can. I agree whole heartedly that self education is some of the best education you can get, but for this to work we need to reach out to the American public. We have to be proactive instead of just expecting everyone to agree with us because we feel we're right.
We're trying to build a unified voice but that take's time. Have patience, we grow stronger with each day. I commend you on your protests, keep up the good work. Don't be discouraged, stand up for what you believe in.
Hey, you too. After all, we're all in this together. United we stand, divided we fall.
This is also about what we can reasonably expect to get done as a movement. If we get campaign finance reform through then we can get real 99%ers in office who see things for what they are and are willing to make the necessary changes to the government and the regulatory environment. You can't clean up the tomfoolery in Washington until and unless you have a real independent say in who you send there.
This doesn't mean all economic activity stops. This means the government makes a sound promise to develop an economy that is not based on the current fractional reserve banking system. The global financial market does not have that much time left.......
I know that; my point to you is this: neither you nor I as citizens can walk up to Bernanke and say "You're fired." Either we wait for his term to expire, and then the new guy has to go through both Congress and the President, or Congress amends the Federal Reserve Act. Either way, we'd need a number of senators and representatives in office who represent our views before anything of the sort happens, and the only way we're going to get those people in power is through campaign reform.
Is that not the point of this movement? A collective, unified group to tell Ben Bernanke himself "you're fired!" You're highlighting the issue of implementation. No one really knows. The current government is ineffective and inefficient; they are not capable of handling the issues that we the people present. Perhaps an impeachment will follow, perhaps Obama will come out of the closet as a true progressive....who knows. It's too early to tell. At this point the best thing to do is to spread awareness on the problems that we face.
I agree with you, and I do agree that a restructuring is in order for government-owned financial entities like Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed. I also agree that persuading other people to agree to such a restructuring is key to fixing the country. However, dealing with campaign finance reform is going to make restructuring these entities one hell of a lot easier.
I agree. Ending the Fed and separating money from state are the drivers of this movement. We can't fight one battle without the other. Go big or go home.
I wrote a lil something about this a couple days ago. Same major points.
http://sanityscribe.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/mad-at-wall-street/
I saw the thread you started about it and commented my support for it. I won't try to dictate the nitty-gritty of it, but I think this issue needs to be addressed first and foremost.
I do agree that campaign finance and lobby reform needs to be high up on the to-do list, but I also believe that the things I listed here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/idea-for-a-possible-general-set-of-goals/#comment-60386 need to be given almost equal priority, mostly because each of the seven points (I'm considering your proposal here as the Section VII on camapign reform that I forgot to write) can be pursued simultaneously with the other six. That is to say that the less far-reaching parts of both of our proposals can safely be pursued at once, and then the rest of your points here should get priority so as to make the more controversial parts of the other reforms I listed more possible.
I'd disagree with this mentality. This movement is in it's infancy. I don't disagree with your proposals... I just think that's running and we need to walk first. Baby steps. The majority of those issues are vastly more complex than what I'm proposing in terms of what the right and the left think we should solve them. i.e. there is not a clear consensus of the majority on these issues.
Shouldn't we go after the most attainable goal first, reap the rewards and attentions that attainment will bring, and THEN focus on the more complex matters?
Fair enough; if campaign finance reform in its entirety is the most attainable out of both of our proposals, then by all means let us focus on that. I suggested a more integrated approach in the hopes of getting maybe one or two points (like the federal sponsorship program) through early on but I am aware that the vast majority of my suggestions require a different political and electoral climate before they become passable.
If we can get this one thing through done I feel like we can reinvigorate the American public's faith in the political system. Once that happens and the playing field is leveled by removing private interests, we can engage the the country as a whole and work out some answers to the harder (and equally important) questions like those outlined in your proposal.
I'm not sure whether to take the lack of other responses as agreement, lack of counterarguments or just plain apathy.
I have read through all of your posts on this thread so far, and I stand with you on everything I did not specifically attempt to refute.
Oh, I know, I'll admit to shamelessly bumping my own thread a little. So far the only people I've talked to on here who disagree have been too partisan to accept working with 'the other side' (and I've heard that from both members of the right and left) or the hopeless (i.e. that's a pipe dream, get real).
Even then, that's been the vast minority. If people disagree with this I want to start a discussion it with them. Perhaps I can address their concerns or at least see their point of view.
Anybody?