Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: How do we clean up Politics?

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 16, 2011, 1:24 p.m. EST by mha (142)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  1. Provide that public elections are publicly funded;

  2. Limit, and make transparent, independent political expenditures, and;

  3. Reaffirm that when the Declaration of Independence spoke of entities “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” it was speaking of natural persons only.





Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

Public executions. It worked in France.

[-] 1 points by Jehovah (113) 10 years ago

ayin tachat ayin

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Nothing will matter until the people of this country start organically developing their own candidates. If you let the elites choose them, its game over

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 10 years ago

limited terms to 2 x 4 years? limited electorial donations by industry reduce the amount of lobbyists?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Organize to use the Write-In option aggressively.

It is free.

It is easy.

And it is not controllable by the duopoly dollars that Wall Street buys the Democrats and Republicans with.

Many Americans have been brainwashed to believe the party propaganda that a Write-In vote is a wasted ineffective vote. Not so. And if it used used, unlike in the past, with intent by a large group of Americans, it can totally neutralize the corrupting effects that Wall Street has on the electoral process today.

No vote is a wasted vote when it is used to express your unique political perspective to the two dominance parties. A Write-In for someone who is hated and feared by Wall Street, especially in the primaries, tells the two parties what values you want in a political leader.

While I am an Independent voter I plan to register Democrat for the primary to Write-In Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold for president and vice president. Wall Street hates and fears Warren so a Write-In for her tells the Democrats what I want in a candidate for president.

Don't lock yourself into the two party horse race paradigm of democracy. That way lies self-imposed slavery. Elections are the ultimate moment of political expression and speech for the people. Use it how it will best express your values as an American.

[-] 2 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

Thanks! never heard of a write-in-voting before, but i will certainly spread the word about it!

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

An informed electorate empowered to vote independent of the two party dictatorship rules is the greatest threat that we can use on the status quo to force it to clean up our democracy.

[-] 1 points by guitarmywin (158) 10 years ago

A candidate could take the initiative to only accept $20 per individual, $50 per association and a max of $100 from any group in a fiscal year. If a company did not demonstrate good neighborliness, the candidate could refuse to take their money and put them on the naughty list.


[-] 2 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

it seems very easy for you to stay ignorant. which is of course your right. don't worry, be simple.

[-] 1 points by nograve (23) 10 years ago

By wiping the slate clean and starting all over again.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

In reading the interview he gave with Rolling Stone, it's clear he has some great insight into the problems of Congress and the current funding for campaign, resulting in legislation that is set to expire, providing in essence a means to extort campaign contributions.

But I think he has missed the obvious when he says:

Obama had a bunch of powerful rhetoric that excited a lot of people, especially young people, who came out and vote for the first time in their lives because they thought there’d be a real change. But when he got to Washington with that administration, it's pretty clear he had no plan for how he was actually going to change how Washington worked.

The whole economic meltdown wasn't an issue until late in the campaign, it wasn't even clear there was a necessity of bail outs until the collapse of Leman Bros.

I think his primary focus had been on Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think he has had a large measure of success in that regard. It's been messy success, and some of that success has had negative consequences as seen with our relationship with Pakistan - but at least now there is a bit more honesty in the dialog.

In addition to the economic collapse, there is the Supreme Court decision ending efforts at campaign finance reform - and that has hobbled his efforts to reform the electoral process or to run a campaign without corporate contributions.

So I think that Lessig is insightful, but writing for a conservative audience.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawrence-lessig-on-how-money-corrupts-congress-and-how-to-stop-it-20111005#ixzz1gj7WAXJG

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 10 years ago

Not voting for Obama again is a good start.

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 10 years ago

Because the guy on the other side of the aisle is better? Voting doesn't matter. Target WallSt. Target the puppet masters.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 10 years ago

How did Obama get in office and why did so many believe he was for change when his votes certainly said otherwise? He was always the corporate candidate, came out of nowhere at the 2004 convention, got the prime time speaking slot, someone threw him a million dollar party to introduce him to everyone...

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

well that can't be a solution. he is a huge disappointment. we need to stand up against this system. have you seen this lecture?:


[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

i do not agree with the Citizens United decision, in fact i deem it to be most dangerous to our democracy. have you seen this?: http://blip.tv/lessig/republic-lost-my-favorite-version-5697728

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

I am in the minority in agreeing with the Citizens United. If you read the post at the link I provided, you'd not only understand that it was not all that controversial, it was rooted in sound legal reasoning that, if changed, would have far wider implications than most understand.

Yes, I know about and support Prof Lessig. If you look at my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-want-my-government-back-now/ , you'll see I posted a link to his material over a month ago. Note, however, that his book is not about the Citizen's case. Our problems are far larger than that one relatively narrow decision.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

well the personhood of corporations is not the only part in the C.U.-case, that they ruled money to be equal to free speech is as wrong as it can get.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

No, they most certainly did not decide as you say.

Please take a moment to read my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-our-government-back-no-ammendment-or-article-v/ . I have spent a lot of time review the related law and rulings, and I found that most are operating based on widely spread but inaccurate information. It is critically important that people have a correct understanding of these issues if we are to have any credibility in opposing them. We can't just keep relying on the rumors and half-truths flying around.

I provide the links to the actual ruling. Read it for yourself.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

well then just look at the result of the ruling: corporations are now allowed to secretly(!) finance anyone in the electoral process, to spend as much money as they have(!) to get their puppet elected.

and you know very well that the amount of money available for a campaign has a huge impact on the outcome!

the result is that this system/this sort of "democracy" benefits the rich but not the prudential. and you know it.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

The ruling had nothing to do with campaign contributions, it addressed only the ability of corporations to publish political ads in the months before an election event. Corporations and unions are not allowed to give directly to candidates per current law, and that hasn't been changed. In addition, the current laws governing political speech require those presenting political ads identify themselves in public documents.

Do you bother to read anything about the law, or do you just repeat what i passed around ? Do you remember the old grade school game "I have a secret" in which one person whispers something in one person's ear who then whispers it in anothers' and so forth until the last person finally speaks aloud what he thinks was said ? It provides a perfect illustration why people who are interested in have sound opinions really must go back and read the source documents.

P.S. It is painfully obvious you didn't read the post at the link I provided. Please do so before assuming I don't understand the corrupting influence of money in politics.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

You can't ask the same people that have caused the problems, to fix them.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

You have no choice. As it stands, Congress must approve an Article V Convention and certify the resulting amendments have been ratified. Congress does occasionally reform itself when under political pressure; take a look at McCain-Fiengold for example. It can happen, but we need to speak with a unified voice and get a large part of America behind us.

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 10 years ago

By getting rid of the NeoCons, the Tea Baggers and the GOP.

[-] 0 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

can't get rid of our people. but we can show them whats going on in politics:


watch and spread it!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

The links below attempt to address the issue of money in politics:

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago


As you know, I was excited to see these proposals, but I remain concerned as to whether they can or will be successful. After an pretty in-depth analysis of the law, I have concluded that we don't need a Constitutional Amendment or Article V convention. I have further concluded the Constitutional Amendment path is simply not going to produce change anytime soon.

http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4359#p4359 captures my proposal for getting the money out with supporting rationale.

http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4387#p4387 describes my conclusions regarding why we don't need a Constitutional Amendment or Convention to get the money out.

http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4409#p4409 elaborates on the prior post to explain why we have to ban all contributions if we are going to get the money out.

http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4426#p4426 elaborates on the issues relating to Constitutional Amendments and Article V Conventions to show they are likely not the best way to get the money out.


[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

I'm not sure, but it may be that someone in my area has been advocating something similar - I'll take a look.

In any case, where alternative methods may be identified, they should be attempted. I think the opposition to revision of the funding process will do whatever it can, and they have resources to throw at the problem.

I don't see any reason to put all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

I do note there have been four Amendments to the Constitution since 1961, and there is currently enough public support for such a measure.

I'll take a look at your links.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 10 years ago

Congress is not following the laws that are already on the books.

Passing more legislation is a distraction, we must hold them accountable for their crimes right now.

Several Congressional members were caught illegally insider trading. Banks were caught using robosigners to steal homes and take the housing economy and they are still doing it!...

There are plenty of avenues to pursue justice that do not rely on this corrupt congress, who should be investigated by the SEC right now.

Once we throw them out we can have a new vote, paper ballots hand counted and posted at the precinct level before the diebold central tabulators.

I can't imagine how anyone would trust this Congress with an amendment anyway.

The Patriot Act is a blatant violation to our Constitution. They were caught violating the patriot act even with their illegal wiretapping..so they tried to make it legal retroactively. The constitution doesn't work that way, we still have a bill of rights and every one of those assholes in office should be thrown out for violating their oath of office.

Congress is a dog and pony show, you cannot trust any of them. I'm sorry to inform you that as great as Bernie sounds, when it came to the congressional discussion on election fraud in Ohio 2004, he came forward to say he supported John Kerry(also a plant of course) in saying that Bush won Ohio and we should all just 'shut the fuck up' What could be more important to a Democracy than a fair and accurate vote?

You can't ask the same people that have caused the problems, to fix them.

We have to throw them out and start over, and illegal insider trading is the perfect way to hold them accountable and put them in their place.

If we take some action here, maybe next time we will get some real public servants in office....

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

Passing more legislation is a distraction, we must hold them accountable for their crimes right now.

I do agree it can be, and I think it was with portions of the NDAA bill. The provisions that have become so controversial weren't even necessary, unless the intent is to:

  • create confusion over the authority to pursue terrorists - and so help terrorists by giving them time to reorganize while we settle our confusion

  • discredit both sides of the aisle in the mind of large segments of the population

Several Congressional members were caught illegally insider trading. Banks were caught using robosigners to steal homes and take the housing economy and they are still doing it!...There are plenty of avenues to pursue justice that do not rely on this corrupt congress, who should be investigated by the SEC right now.

Let us demand Justice. Those who have broken the law must have their day in court. Failure to hold criminals accountable for their actions erodes the legitimacy of Justice, leaving the public with little recourse beyond vigilantism.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 10 years ago

This all comes back to the corporate media.

A free press is what holds our politicians accountable to the public.

That is why they had to get it under their complete control. Now it is so bad the politicians feel free to insider trade, making money based on their congressional votes, and they and all the talking heads on the corporate media say it is perfectly legal.

The politicians are no longer afraid of being exposed by the media, instead they rely on the media to cover their crimes.

We have a Constitution that is not being followed, and people want Bernie Sanders to write an amendment? What is the point, if they are already breaking the law?

If we had a functioning free press, these criminals would be held to account for the laws we already have.

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but it all goes back to the media...this needs to be the focus of the occupy movement.

Occupy the TV stations- Surround the stations-Don't let them come or go until they tell the truth http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-the-tv-stations-surround-the-stations-dont-/

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 10 years ago

i think you're right. and we ourselves have to inform our environment. word needs to go round. we can use the internet. grassroots!: spread this vid: http://blip.tv/lessig/republic-lost-my-favorite-version-5697728

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 10 years ago

It will cost billions of dollars to clean up politics.