Reform Measures & Root Causes

[chuck kottke]

I like feedback - don't we all! So, since our economy is on the brink of disaster, and our elected officeholders spend more time posturing than actually fixing anything, I thought maybe it's about time we Fix Them. Here's a short wish-list of things I'd like to see change with the US Congress - please add to the list & join in the discussion, even if you aren't from the US - because, as we all know, all the strands of the web are connected, so whatever we tug on here affects someone else, and vice-versa..

 

Reform List for 2008 and beyond:

+ Limit Congressional terms to 18 years max.

 

+ Make both the House and the Senate 6-year terms

(=time for stable thinking and action between races)

 

+ maximum donation allowed for individuals to candidate's race limited to 2/365th of median income (another words, 2 days' wages max for the average American, which comes to around $260 at the present). add to that only real people can donate; not corporations, unions, think-tanks, etc..

 

+ Equal, substantial, and free access for all viable candidates on the broadcast networks, including radio time as well as TV.

 

+ Campaigns can begin no sooner than 6 months before the election.

 

+ No outside money allowed. Meaning only district residents can donate to campaigns within that district, for offices representing that district.

 

+ No direct paid endorsements on TV/radio/internet/print media by groups other than the candidate's election committee

 

+ Groups can advocate for a viewpoint all they want on an issue, but they cannot mention a candidate or officeholder with their paid advertisements.

 

+ No revolving door - on money, perks, or positions. Officeholders leaving office cannot work for a firm that they have had influence over while in Congress (for example, the head of the Food and Drug oversight committee cannot get a job working for a pharmaceutical giant once out of office).

 

+ No staffing of agencies with individuals from companies normally regulated by that agency. If experience in the field is necessary, get qualified educated graduates in those degree fields closest to the area to be regulated; Better to have a less-perfect fit than to have nepotism.

[chuck kottke]

I'd like to add that the President's office has gotten wayy wayy out of hand; originally intended to be more of a final stamp on legislation, and as a foreign policy office, with strict limitations on power and influence, it has Unconstitutionally grown to be the monster upon the scene. From signing statements to executive orders to executive privilege - a huge excess of control and privilege that is explicitly forbidden by our Constitution, and yet the Presidents have gradually increased the power of the office (In my opinion illegally against the direct clauses and intent of the U.S. Constitution) to a point where we have a virtual elected King - the exact problem our Revolution of 1776 had intended to eliminate! For that, there aught to be some recall or turn-over process in the Supreme Court, so a hopefully more honest Congress could then appoint Justices that follow the intent of the Constitution, and not play political games and make a mockery of it, permitting the President to act as some pontiff.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I like feedback - don't we all! So, since our economy is on the brink of disaster, and our elected officeholders spend more time posturing than actually fixing anything, I thought maybe it's about time we Fix Them. Here's a short wish-list of things I'd like to see change with the US Congress - please add to the list & join in the discussion, even if you aren't from the US - because, as we all know, all the strands of the web are connected, so whatever we tug on here affects someone else, and vice-versa..

 

Reform List for 2008 and beyond:

+ Limit Congressional terms to 18 years max.

 

+ Make both the House and the Senate 6-year terms

(=time for stable thinking and action between races)

 

+ maximum donation allowed for individuals to candidate's race limited to 2/365th of median income (another words, 2 days' wages max for the average American, which comes to around $260 at the present). add to that only real people can donate; not corporations, unions, think-tanks, etc..

 

+ Equal, substantial, and free access for all viable candidates on the broadcast networks, including radio time as well as TV.

 

+ Campaigns can begin no sooner than 6 months before the election.

 

+ No outside money allowed. Meaning only district residents can donate to campaigns within that district, for offices representing that district.

 

+ No direct paid endorsements on TV/radio/internet/print media by groups other than the candidate's election committee

 

+ Groups can advocate for a viewpoint all they want on an issue, but they cannot mention a candidate or officeholder with their paid advertisements.

 

+ No revolving door - on money, perks, or positions. Officeholders leaving office cannot work for a firm that they have had influence over while in Congress (for example, the head of the Food and Drug oversight committee cannot get a job working for a pharmaceutical giant once out of office).

 

+ No staffing of agencies with individuals from companies normally regulated by that agency. If experience in the field is necessary, get qualified educated graduates in those degree fields closest to the area to be regulated; Better to have a less-perfect fit than to have nepotism.

 

I 100% agree with you. But this is impossible. American will not stand for it, thus it will never happen.

[chuck kottke]

Thanks! And although it might be unusual in ordinary circumstances, when times are tough, people wake up and look for the real, and seek answers. Maybe not everyone, but a significant number will, and perhaps more common pressure can be put to bear on changing both the process and the court, so as to get statesmen into office, rather than the usual politicians.

One good outcome of a bad situation - there is turn-over in offices, and it's often a good time for reform candidates & their issues to become more salient, and to take center stage. I'll keep writing those few I trust to put forth real reform legislation, and I would recommend that everyone else do the same - lest the good ship Liberty go down by the deteriorating forces that have corrupted this ship's hull thus far.

The candidates know what we want, and they speak to it; but they will only act if we demand it of them, and change the process to promote those higher ideals as a ticket to success. I have to believe we can do it, if for no other reason than we have managed far greater feats against the odds in the past.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Chuck we the voters have to purge the system of the corrupt politicians. I voted for change in the primaries and will in November. But I fear most our fellow citizens only talk of change too and are not willing to act on it.

 

My parents are like that, they hated the bail out bill and when i told them how our congressmen voted and to vote against anyone for it they said no. They will not vote for someone just because of a D in front of their name. And if it has a R they will vote for him even if he's a horrible corrupt politician. I fear that is how most Americans operate. Until this changes our nation will not change for the good.

 

We need a third party to win...that would be amazing. I'm hoping we see a massive amount of people vote for a 3rd party this november(not enough to win probably).

[chuck kottke]

Yes, I agree! It's pure crony-ism at it's worst, that's for sure!! Too many seats are secured against the best interests of the citizenry, and yet so often many citizens vote irrationally, maybe out of fear, or holding on to the belief that somehow things will change in that candidate's nature once in office? Our state has had a fair share of Democrats as well as Republicans found guilty of ethics violations, but it's usually some very minor things (using staff and staff-time to help with campaigns), all the while the big crimes go unnoticed. Actually, I think the whole thing right now is an unethical racket, and those little violations were just some superficial effort to cover up the larger, more destructive corruption in the whole process. A dog-and-pony show for the public, so nobody looks deeper at the kickback system.

I've never voted just for the party designation, as often that's a false front to their true voting record.. And I have voted for third-party candidates in the past, though very few of them end up winning, or even get on the ballot! So, I would like to see all the candidate races run on merit and true representation. I voted for Nader in 2000, and while some of my Democratic friends get angry to even hear that, I think then that if they wanted those of us who voted for a more honest candidate and reform of the system, then they needed to win our votes, not just take them for granted!

Even if Third Parties never get to the White House, or State House, they have always been powerful movements in our history, and have changed the outcomes in the nation as populist movements that were better for the country, at a time when lethargy and complacency had set into the major parties. So, I always consider the third-party candidates, because I know there are times when neither major party offers real change.

Yes, that's so true - the bail-out bill was, as most bills passed under "emergency" times, loaded with pork, and does not address the underlying problem of corruption that leads to financial houses of cards.

[chuck kottke]

Here's a letter to the editor of my local paper - fat chance that they will publish it, being the partisan paper they are - but maybe they will by sheer accident!

.. Dear Editor,

I'm a bit outraged at how long we've let big money influence politics, and now we're reaping the bad harvest of that corruption. We in this nation allowed the selling of sub-prime loans as Grade-A stock on the markets?? I'll cast my vote for the candidate offering better regulation & oversight! Firms that created a shadow market (derivatives) & lobbied to keep it deregulated, are now running for cover. The big nut to crack, as I see it, is Campaign Finance, and the dire need for Real Reform. When we allow those with the biggest donations to buy off legislators, and thus weaken oversight, it's bound to lead to trouble. (Ironically, even if it catches up to them in the end too!) So square one is getting honest government elected. My thoughts on this: Limit contributions to 2/365th of the median income (about $260 per voting age citizen), eliminate attack ads and any candidate endorsements on TV, open up the airwaves equally for all candidates of any party in return for broadcaster's use of the commons, and allow only real people to donate to a candidate's campaign. Democracy starts with the will of We, The People being expressed! The Right of Fair Elections, and the Right of Fair Campaigns or Contests for office is essential to safeguard all of our other rights combined. Another words, if the referee is working for the betterment of all, and has equal backing of all the fans and participants, then the refs do their job to keep the game fair, and raise the standards to a higher level. The ideal might be hard to achieve, but we need to move in that direction, or we'll be in for train derailment after derailment, as we are currently witnessing.

With All Sincerity,

-Chuck.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Chuck, If we want change the only way its going to happen if we vote 3rd party this election. I hope we see a large amount of voters wake up after the economic troubles and voted for Nadar or Barr. I consider myself a libertarian but I'd be glad to vote for Nadar just to see corruption being purged out of our government. I truly would rather die then vote for McCain or Obama, i'd be betraying the constitution, my nation and our founding fathers to vote for them.

[chuck kottke]

Well, perhaps you are right! I'm still holding out hope to go the grass-roots non-partisan citizen advocacy route, as it has proven effective in the past as well - but that's not to say that a 3rd party block wouldn't also be effective! Given the current roller-coaster economy, and the massive plunges we've seen, I would imagine there's enough voter anger to demand reform, and the pressure should be mounting for real reform.

Here's something on the Common Cause site:

"Gutting regulations that had been in place since the Great Depression, leading to a financial crisis that has us moving closer to a repeat of the Great Depression, all because of a 'pesky little' privately-funded campaign system in which Wall-Street used its financial might to keep Congress quiet (and I'll add this - to basically bribe politicians into letting it all happen).

 

One bill being offered which might help: The Fair Elections Act

-sets up public financing seed money to candidates

-grants to qualified candidates

-offers money for air time

 

But will Congress mess with it, or pass it? Is it even the right approach? What about the excess powers of incumbency? Last time we had Campaign Finance Reform legislation it was severely weakened along the way through Congress, and allowed anyone with the money to run an end-game around it. Hmmm... - keep an open eye on your Senator and Representative! Watch them like a hawk, and remember how they acted on reform measures - keep tabs on their amendments and votes.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Regulation caused the great depression...and made it worse. So removing regulation from it, would be a good thing.

 

keep an open eye on your Senator and Representative! Watch them like a hawk, and remember how they acted on reform measures - keep tabs on their amendments and votes.

chuck kottke is offline Report Post /QUOTE]

 

That I can definitely agree with.