What is Digg?332 Comments
- WordsnCollision, on 10/12/2009, -8/+295Ban ALL lobbying and political contributions, and pay all candidates and office-holders equally out of a tax-payer funded account. Our representatives should be accountable ONLY to those who elected them.
- cjjdnc1, on 10/12/2009, -11/+263Chomsky is correct (as usual).
How can we pretend we live in a democracy, when only those who are super-rich - or those who pander to the interests of the super-rich - have any chance at achieving major elected office? The barriers to participation are too great. - inactive, on 10/13/2009, -7/+178While taking money out of politics is a good idea, it's never gonna happen.
Here's the next best idea: make politicans wear clothing that has sponsorship patches on it, like NASCAR drivers. The bigger the contribution (bribe), the bigger the patch. This way, when a politican speaks about a given policy issue, one can check and see if his sponsorship patches give him away. - AntoineDigg, on 10/12/2009, -2/+117It would be nice to see more than 2 parties in US elections. Something similar to the French would help, where each candidates have the exact same amount of air time on TV (including ads).
- stoanhart, on 10/12/2009, -11/+99And let the pay be the national average, so about $30k. You want to try to make being a politician very unappealing, with as little perks, pay, and power as possible; maybe then you will attract people who want to serve out of a sense of duty, not people who want to be above the law.
- inactive, on 10/13/2009, -1/+79None of them would have.
- headradio, on 10/13/2009, -12/+63Chomsky is the best. Watch Manufacturing Consent.
- ManUnitdFan, on 10/13/2009, -5/+45Doesn't mean it has any less merit. Unless you're one of those people who thinks rich people (and soon, possibly corporations) should have more "free speech" than average people.
- fontez1, on 10/13/2009, -5/+40That's not true, only 26% of Obama's contributions came from donors who contributed $200 or less. Though I think the real problem here is that we have donors in the first place.
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID= ... - Ehmcee, on 10/13/2009, -8/+41Big banking in the US clearly saw the writing on the wall in 2007 and poured money into Obama's campaign. "Yes we can" was just another catch phrase, as trite and silly as the republican's "joe the plumber". Western people love a gimic, we are spoon fed this stuff like Coke and McDonalds. Just like advertising dollars, the more you spend, the more people take notice.
- Blinker1315, on 10/12/2009, -47/+77Hmm. I don't think Obama would've done so well without money.
- kanojo1969, on 10/13/2009, -5/+34What Chomsky said was that yes, it would definitely be a good thing to get these huge amounts of money out of politics, and yes, it is actually possible.
But the problem is that every fibre of the political system is moving in the exact opposite direction; to get MORE money into politics.
He mentioned a case that is currently before the supreme court, which relates to a political movie that was financed by a corporation and should legally be barred from distribution in the US because it's constitutes a political statement made with a loud voice back with corporate largesse.
If this case succeeds, as Chomsky thinks it will (and this was featured on Bill Moyers show a couple of weeks ago, where we learned that, yes, it is going to succeed), it will open the door for political spending an order of magnitude more extravagant than anything seen before.
When Chomsky says that political spending is a good indicator of electoral success, he basically means that whoever spends the most will win. Why this is true is a very complex topic but we can sidestep that and just accept that it is true.
In which case, the 2012 election is not going to be won by the Campaign with the biggest war chest. They don't need the money any more. The corporations can spend it directly and they will do so in staggering amounts. The 2012 election will see TV and Print advertising for political choices, 100% sponsored by corporations without the campaign comittee being involved at all. And whoever spends the most will win.
You may as well kiss goodbye *any* notion you may have had that the elections meaning anything at all. They do not.
If you watched the full program, another issue he raises was very interesting. Regarding the tea-party protests, he sagely advises us NOT to fall for the easy game of picking holes in the tea-bagger's rhetoric. That's clouding the real issue, which is that a lot of these people's complaints are valid. The government IS too big, it IS stealing our money and giving it to corporations.
The real problem is that Beck and Hannity and the corporate ***** like freedomworks have taken over the job of protesting and are using it for their own means. Where is the left? Where is the peace movement, the labour movement, the liberal press and all the other organisations who have protested in previous decades?
The whole tea-party phenomena is a result of a complete failure of the left to stand up for what is right. And it's just another sign that the corporates have got their claws dug into the liberal organisations just as much as the conservative ones.
Sad times. - inactive, on 10/13/2009, -2/+31You're really weird.
- dusanmal, on 10/13/2009, -9/+36Existing example (not with the same noble goal, but with same compensation type and resulting selection): Education. You pay teachers little. You get FEW who serve from sense of duty/want to contribute and love their job. However, majority are empty heads who shouldn't be let taking care of animals, let alone children.
Same would happen with politics.Very few good people would serve from sense of duty. Majority of low paid politicians would be even worse (yes it is possible) than the spoiled lot we have now.
So, yes, remove bribery but no, you cant expect anything run well by people earning little money. - ManUnitdFan, on 10/13/2009, -1/+27HOLY *****! HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN?!?! WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN TOLD!?!?!
- inactive, on 10/13/2009, -0/+26Your idea is better. Imagine politicians referring to one another as "the Representative from Monsanto" or what not.
- Kibitz, on 10/13/2009, -2/+23I have a feeling that you didn't quite understand the institutional analysis of the media presented in Manufacturing Consent.
- inactive, on 10/13/2009, -5/+25What's that supposed to mean?
- issachar, on 10/13/2009, -3/+22Okay, but that isn't the hard part. It's easy to say that "taking money out of politics" is a good idea.
So "how" do you do that? That's the hard part. The practical implications of any method I've seen proposed so far are rather nasty.
In Canada we have campaign contribution limits, which has some benefits. But it has the nasty side effect that during political campaigns we have a government agency that gets to decide what constitute political speech. So if I decide to print up a magazine to promote the issues I think are important, a government agency will then decide if my magazine violates the political contribution limit. Can anyone see the potential here for the established power to limit dissent?
I'm not saying that Chomsky is wrong. Taking money out might well be good. But one should seriously consider that we might create significantly worse problems if we try to do that. - inactive, on 10/13/2009, -3/+20I'd love to see it but the Dems/Repub powerhouse will never allow that to happen. For the record I won't vote for either party.
- JigoroKano, on 10/13/2009, -1/+17What kills me is that the Democrats and Republicans make the tax payer write the check for their primary costs. This country is ***** owned by those two parties.
- pintomp3, on 10/13/2009, -5/+21"Money is another form of speech" No, it's not. That's why we have one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.
- inactive, on 10/13/2009, -2/+18by "the only network that dissents", do you mean Fox News?
- joshmoney, on 10/13/2009, -4/+20If you haven't already seen it, Michael Moore recently did an interview regarding his new film where he discussed the same thing. As someone who used to strongly criticize Moore for some of his past deceptive editing techniques, I can honestly that he's reached a new level of maturity in his style and presentation and I've recently found myself agreeing with him more than ever.
http://fora.tv/2009/09/17/Filmmaker_Michael_Moore_ ...
/If there's ever been a time when the right and left could come together in agreement on an issue, it is now. The greedy ties between government and corporations need to be abolished. Stop fighting over issues that are inevitable. The majority of women that get abortions are Christian women - it's not going away any time soon. And while you're arguing over gay-marriage, you're the one getting ***** in the ass by people who are only using these divisive issues to immorally gain more illegitimate power. Peace. - zephyear, on 10/13/2009, -1/+16actually he's a libertarian socialist, or a left libertarian
libertarian of course in the social and not economic sense - hivoltage815, on 10/13/2009, -1/+16Facts suck.
- NorthMass, on 10/13/2009, -10/+25I don't understand how this would work if you still have the same corporations owning the news networks, and owning the FCC who allows TV stations on in the first place(figuratively speaking). Even if their is no lobbyists or money involved, the same corporations will still promote the same corporate-sponsered candidates.
- nofreedom4theUS, on 10/13/2009, -0/+14I've said this for years...lobbying is legalized bribing.
- s73v3r, on 10/13/2009, -0/+14And my axe.
- neo912, on 10/13/2009, -0/+13Money/Power = Corruption
Term limits for all offices. No special appointments (make it a vote every time). No benefits. I know all those sound harsh but until being in office ceases to be an unlimited source of money and power things will never change. - hivoltage815, on 10/13/2009, -0/+13Obama was NOT mostly funded by small donations. As was posted above:
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID= ... - digitalArtform, on 10/13/2009, -2/+15Knowing him, he probably was correct. Do you have any context for this? Here is what he said:
"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments."
"in the case of Cambodia, there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees"
"the record of atrocities is substantial and often gruesome"
"When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." - MistySteele, on 10/13/2009, -0/+12I agree. Now all we need to do is get that passed into law by the current officials who were elected through the old processes. Suggestions?
- LoveYouSomeEric, on 10/13/2009, -2/+14Your comment suggests that you either don't know anything about Noam Chomsky or you don't know anything about totalitarianism. Either way, I assume you know a lot about Fox News.
- Culyt, on 10/13/2009, -0/+12If no one got money then it would have been even to everyone. The problem is that is almost impossible to take money out of things.
You might be able to stop direct donations but how do you stop a company from spending heaps of money to organize a rally in favor of their candidate? or putting up an advertising campaign? In stead of the candidates getting the money and spending it on their reelection, the companies spend the money directly.
Or companies can setup a foundation that isn't directly linked to the candidate but is designed to promote them.
You have Lessig's http://change-congress.org/ the problem is that they are effectively asking their supporters to give up their power, which in turn gives more power to the people opposed to taking money out of things. The only way it would work is if enough of the general population knew about it and voted in favor. Unfortunately most of the population don't know/care of just accept it as the way things are.
I would prefer to see companies buy out politicians outright, at least then it would be obvious to everyone. Problem is there would still be the under table 'bribes' for things that you don't want the public to know about, like big oil paying off people responsible for the electric grid and so on. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/13/2009, -4/+16You should pay a decent amount.
Government used to be a temp job by concerned citizens -- but let's be honest; a lot of money can be made by decisions and power. So the payoff might be to work at the EPA, protect a polluter, and then reap the rewards as a Consultant (as many have done).
Government is complicated, and there are, contrary to popular opinion, many smart, thoughtful and well trained career bureaucrats who are trying to do a good job -- and it is worth being compensated. The problem is, we don't pay attention to the competent, and the lobbyist reward those who betray the public good.
There needs to be a bigger regulatory oversight of corruption and conflicts of interest -- but we have none of that now. People need real punishments for betraying the public trust and real rewards for good management.
Public financing is the first step. Get the money out of the system and we can work on the rest. Without it -- we are ruled by those who can trade the most favors for the most money.
Obama was an anomaly -- in that he was mostly funded by small donations. However, he works with people who moved up by selling out, and he is probably having to trade a few things to get support. At the end of the day, you end up selling out more than you achieved. - zip000, on 10/13/2009, -0/+11Wow, funny how that isn't being discussed anywhere.
- sodade, on 10/13/2009, -0/+11Better yet - read the book.
- s73v3r, on 10/13/2009, -3/+14Fairtax isn't as fair as you'd think. It causes those with lower incomes to pay more as a percentage of income than those with higher incomes.
Its kind of funny. Humans have been dealing with taxation for thousands of years, and we have yet to find an optimum solution to the problem. - yankeedollar, on 10/13/2009, -3/+14don't tell me what to do
- WhiteHatTrick, on 10/13/2009, -1/+12Obama also received many millions more than from wallstreet than every other candidate. Wallstreet owning the media explains why so many gullible regular folks also gave him money.
- archiesteel, on 10/13/2009, -0/+10I think the truth is somewhere in between.
The problem isn't the salary anyway, it's campaign money. Just put caps on how each side can spend. - Kibitz, on 10/13/2009, -0/+10What's your secondary beef?
- tidu, on 10/13/2009, -2/+12So why don't we go after the root cause of illegal immigrants (punishing companies that hire them)? Oh wait, that can't be the solution, it's against their interests. Let's just perpetuate the problem and use it to discredit everything else.
- funkyloki, on 10/13/2009, -1/+11You should change your name to palindrone12.
- joshmoney, on 10/13/2009, -1/+11says genitalben
- eh123, on 10/13/2009, -0/+10Everything is politics. We might as well get rid of air or water.
- Kibitz, on 10/13/2009, -2/+11The work by Thomas Ferguson that he mentions in this video is extremely good. Highly recommended to those who take this topic seriously.
- Kyzzyxx, on 10/13/2009, -0/+9Bribery is not free speech
- seltaeb4, on 10/13/2009, -1/+10Even though, last weekend the Equality march hit 100,000, which is 40,000 than the Teabaggers could muster.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 345 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is