What is Digg?92 Comments
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Lobbying does nothing for the people and only serves those with enough money to buy a politician. We need reform, now.
- cienfuegos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27This is the only way for people to take the power back... to remove politicians getting any kind of money from anywhere... only from the people.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17McCain got his ass handed to him when he went up against bush in the republican primary with this idea. It was a real shame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13No way the US RULES. You just need to make some changes in the decades ahead starting now.
I am rooting for you from here up north.. Go vote!!! - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Tv spots that just came out today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtRI-d82cxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXsIs5ouX8 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Well, in fairness McCain didn't get his "ass handed to him" over this issue, he was actually ahead in the polls, then had to go to court to even let the Republicans to allow him in the primary, then Bush did a bunch of push polling accusing him of having an out of wedlock black baby.
That, and the Bush team slandered him by repeating (ad nauseaum) that he was "crazy" from all the time he spent as a POW -- something that Bush naturally wasn't "crazy" from since he didn't go near Vietnam. - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You recommend talkshow hosts as a source?
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I take it you aren't from California or you don't understand the initiative process here in California.
- BadMonkey0001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I've been inside of Sacramento politics a very little bit (I've been through "the gate"). I'd like to remind everyone that a "documentary" like this was funded by a lobby. Somewhere some folks in suits had a meeting, came up with this idea for an "Expose" type ad and threw some funding at it. In that room was a lobbyist - I guarantee you. He was counting on visceral reactions just like the ones I see here - thoughts of them possibly making him giddy.
I'm not saying anything as drastic as "Never trust anyone". However, treat every political ad with more skepticism than trust. Always. i have worked on the ad portion of politics in Sacramento - everyone has an "angle".
For those of you in California (I still am), here's the PDF of the proposition from the Secretary of State's Office: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/pdf/proposition_89/entire_prop89.pdf
You don't even have to read all of it, but read enough that you can tell if an ad that hits you in the gut is telling the truths it says it is. As for me, I'm not sure this can prevent the creation of new loopholes for lobbyists to jump through. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Want to know who's AGAINST the proposition? Very trustworthy folks that have our best interests in mind, wouldn't you say?
• Chevron Corporation
• Occidental Oil & Gas
• State Farm Insurance Automobile Insurance
• Southern California Edison
• Mercury General Insurance
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
• Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
• Blue Cross
• Blue Shield
• Zenith Insurance Company
• California Bankers Association PAC
• Chamber of Commerce
• Baron Real Estate
• Republic Indemnity Company of America
• Safeco Insurance Company
• Great American Life Insurance Company
• Sempra Energy
• Sprint Nextel
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• California Restaurant Association PAC
• The Hartford (Hartford Life)
• Travelers Indemnity Company
• Waste Management & Affiliates
• Western Growers PAC
• Aetna, Inc.
• 21st Century Insurance
• Fireman’s Fund Insurance
• California Motor Car Dealers Association
• California Business Properties Association
• California Independent Petroleum Assn. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How about you tell us what Prop 89 does, without forcing us to watch a political ad.
- sandbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Long comment... apologies in advance.
I'm in Arizona, and we have a public campaign finance system in place similar to what Prop 89 proposes. It's worked in some respects, and failed in others. Here's my observations:
1. It does make running for office more accessible to more people. If you don't have an "in" with the local Democrat or Republican party, good luck being able to raise money the traditional way. However, under the state's Clean Elections laws, if you can raise enough $5 contributions from registered voters in the district you're running in, you'll get campaign money from the state. It's not enough to run a barn-burner campaign, but it's not a bad amount.
2. It also makes getting public financing very easy for those who are already connected. For example, Gov. Napolitano and her challenger, Len Munsil, are both running "clean." They had no difficulty at all raising the 4,000 $5 contributions. They both have networks - Napolitano has the unions and the hardcore Democratic party members, and Len Munsil has a church-based network that he once headed. If you're already one of the big hitters, you've got the campaign money you need in very short order. Meanwhile, the organizations that usually give you campaign contributions now have that cash to spend on other ways to support candidates, such as phone banks, get-out-the-vote efforts, voter guides and so on.
3. It also pushes races towards extreme candidates on both sides. The Republicans of late have fielded several "fringe" candidates, and some of them have met with success. The Democrats have had many "fringe" candidates running since the start of this program, and a few have made it into office. These are candidates who would never have run before, since raising enough money to win an election is very hard. Since it's the motivated party activists that dictate the primaries - especially in low-turnout elections - it can put far-left or far-right candidates on the general election ballot far easier than before.
4. The bureaucracy involved in running such a program can get very confusing very quick. For example, third-party attack ads can trigger matching funds for the candidate under attack. But how much cash do you give them? What even qualifies as something that triggers matching funds? This is not to mention the burden placed on candidates who choose to finance traditionally. There are disclosure requirements that get confusing in a hurry. (Treasurers for state campaigns are typically volunteers, most of which do not have a background in finance.) It's easy for these campaigns to get blind-sided by a reporting requirement that they missed, even if they're doing their very best to follow the law to the letter.
I do like this state's program. I just think it needs some tweaking to get the bugs out.
But if you think that Prop 89 is going to lead to wholesale changes and a better legislature, you're going to be disappointed. Much more drastic changes are going to have to be made in the ways we select our legislators before we see better representation. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is incorrect, once it passes, it passes. No governor approval is required.
- fourty_two, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.89now.org/facts/
- funhouse1970, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6 >2) If it were to pass, it would be ruled unconstitutional
You are probably correct but only because the Court ruled that MONEY = SPEECH. Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment correcting that fallacy. - thegoldstandard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This bill would accomplish nothing; it assumes that if the people speak someone will listen.
Clearly in these times, no one is listening. - deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Libertarian point of view only works if there weren't people actively trying to subvert the system.
- WildYams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The Libertarian Party of California is against Prop. 89, for what its worth:
http://www.ca.lp.org/voteguide_nov06.shtml - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Gerrymandering can be quickly eliminated by using county boundaries for district lines, and basing the number of representatives on population. It's so screwy in California that at one point Quentin Kopp's district included San Francisco, Daly City and part of Marin. That's 3 separate counties. Gotta love this state.
- koick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, firstly, California is a fairly progressive state, and there are *already* similar laws in a couple states. Secondly, I'm not sure if you are confused or I am, but Californians aren't "asking politicians to vote" for it, it's the people who are voting for it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition ). Finally, what do you propose the people in the US do to change the screwed up system, or, should they just throw their hands in the air and say "Well, there's just no changing anything..."?
- jarinudom, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5I love one-sided political propaganda in my RSS reader :)
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As long as we live, money will more important than humans.
Its as sad as it is true. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh noes! New taxes! That's a ridiculous statement when this legislation would be able to stop so much bad, taxpayer-funded legislation from going through that it would inevitably save the government massive amounts of money.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"a bad idea to me to let just anyone go into a politician's office and speak their mind about issues. If government ran like that nothing would get done."
That's why they have staff. Why do you think it costs so much to run the government?
The Governator doesn't do everything himself. - cienfuegos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31. You can't outlaw lobbying because the supreme court has said money=free speech.
2. The commission that will handle the funds will be totally independent from the executive, legislative, etc.
Come on people, lets be more optimistic here! We can't all throw up our hands and say, well the system is screwed up, there is nothing we can do... just leave it the way it is. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, the proposition was written specifically taking into account the Supreme Court's recent ruling about money=speech. The system Prop 89 sets up is totally and completely VOLUNTARY. Those who want to continue sucking on the corporate teat can continue to do so, but when voters are faced with the prospect of voting for a Certified Clean Money Candidate and a candidate who accepted private funds or used their own funds, who do you think they would probably vote for? Exactly. This system has been running in Maine and Arizona for several years with much success on both sides of the aisle and with third party candidates.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well if you're not willing to look at both sides of an issue, how can you make a reasonable decision? Don't you want to hear both pro and con so you can make up your mind?
- robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Its not lobbying per se which is bad. All of us are part of special interest groups, or support issues that are lobbied by special interest groups which personally affect us.Legislators neither have the time nor expertise to know everything about every issue which comes to their attention.
However, it is the perversion of the process by the more monied side of a particular issue, or a monied interest whose opposing view might be held by a poorly organized, or politically weak constituency.
Public financing of campaigns is a necessary remedy to the money's corrupting influence in modern American politics. Not only does money influence political outcomes, but, maybe more importantly, legislators spend inordinate amounts of time raising money. Time which should be spent on serving constituent needs, and working through difficult issues, free of unwarranted influence. - funhouse1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3here you go - Prop 89 http://www.89now.org/download.php?file=/content/pdf/prop89_text.pdf
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4well, considering libritarians view on most things is leave it alone, i wouldn't be surprised.
- Tarvok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31. Outlaw lobbying, and only outlaws will be lobbyists. That's no joke: money will still influence politics, just it will go underground, and the few honest lobbyests there are will be driven out of the game, leaving only the extremely bad ones in charge of politics.
2. Prop 89 won't be a matter of "The People" providing money for elections. Sure, the money will come from the people at large, but before it gets to politicians, it'll have to pass through the hands of some form of bueraucracy. The bureaucracy, of course, answers to the incumbants (particularly the Governor). Even if a court orders them to give the money to their challengers, they can still play a strategic game of delay.
The real effect of Prop 89 (and every other bill like it) would be to cement the positions of incumbents even more; and, perhaps, to increase the value of executive office. - Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is crazy I was just talking about the US Government needing a policy like this to give the nads of corruption a swift kick.
I hope this or something like it happens.
Soon. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hahaha... oh yeah Jon and Ken are for the people... those guys only care about ratings and their corporate sponsors... of COURSE they are going to be against this. In fact, most media outlets in general would be against this because 1. They are corporations and 2. Their corporate sponsors are probably all against it. These people at the top don't want to lose an inch of power and control, and Prop 89 gives a large measure of power back to the people.
- DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I love the CA way of doing things. If people do not like something then we can change it no matter what special interest (lobbyist, big oil, teachers, unions, etc) want.
So what if taxpayers are paying for it. I have no doubt that the amount wasted because of special interest far far exceeds what the taxpayer will have to pay out to free and fair elections.
Now if we can get the gerrymandering eliminated we might have a better chance of having a govt. that more closely reflects what the people want rather then the politicians - veritasempra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, United Teachers LA and other forward-thinking unions are for it. Those unions that tend to buy influence with their money are against it (for obvious reasons). The California Nurses Association is bankrolling almost the entire thing:
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/election2006/Prop89.html
The nurses did it because from what I gather they were sick of big insurance companies constantly lobbying to change the rules, get more money for themselves, and ultimately hurt nurses, patients and the whole medical establishment. The proof that things have gotten screwed up in California's healthcare system is everywhere, just read a few entries on this blog and you will see what I mean:
http://www.healthcareforall.org/blog/?cat=21 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The politicians are too corrupt to clean themselves up. Look at McCain-Fiengold, its an abortion. A horrible piece of legislation that is being used a device to stifle free speech around the country.
- veritasempra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And don't forget, they also are always buying politicians... the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobby are the biggest contributors in California politics. If you see this link you will see they are among the biggest contributors AGAINST the proposition.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/election2006/Prop89.html - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"this country blows"
...for the moment. i really think the pendulum is going to swing the other way very soon. people are starting to realize that the way we're going right now is a dead end.
besides, this country doesn't really blow. for the time being, anyway, you can still go on television and call the President an idiot without being 'disappeared' or shot. You can still say pretty much whatever you want, except for yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.
vote. - LordOfTheSponge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The add does a good job explaining the problem Prop 89 is trying to solve. But I have no Idea what Prop 89 actually is.
- aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just wanted to point out that "tolerant" appears to be astroturfing. It's a new account with only one post. Made just to sow some FUD here against 89.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Federalist Number 10...
- Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Gotta be careful though, those quotes were selected by the people pushing the bill. They would most likely chose the most hairbrained off the wall objections they could find.
I don't have time to actually read the law text myself, but if I were in California, I'd make the time. Publicly funded campaigns are needed across this country. With the income gap increasing at record levels, it also means the disparity of power is increasing at record levels. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, the proposition was written specifically taking into account the Supreme Court's recent ruling about money=speech. The system is totally VOLUNTARY. Those who want to continue sucking on the corporate teat can continue to do so, but when voters are faced with the prospect of voting for a Certified Clean Money Candidate and a candidate who accepted private funds or used their own funds, who do you think they would probably vote for? Exactly. This system has been running in Maine and Arizona for several years with musch success on both sides of the aisle and with third party candidates.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CNN or Fox? ;)
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a pretty good video explaining the problem. But I remain a little skeptical about laws promising to fix this. I mean I would really really like to see this kind of thing outlawed but most of the time bills introduced to stop it are so full of holes that they rarely do any good and often make the situation worse. Does anyone have any details about Prop 89? Is it really a good bill? I don't live in CA so I haven't heard a lot about it.
Actually I think that one of the best ways to prevent this kind of corruption would be full disclosure laws--where EVERYTHING has to be disclosed to the public--all meetings, all attendies of meetings, all gifts, donations etc. No privacy for elected officials while they serve. Everything they write or say or do should be open to public review, including emails, phone calls and staff meetings. - veritasempra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In my opinion you just made perfect points to support Prop 89 and change the culture of corruption (which is at a crisis level) here in California.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good idea and good ad. Might be more effective if it was edited a little tighter and a little shorter.
The interesting thing is it might point to a new direction in politics...the web video. Extended versions of the TV spots. It'll be interesting to watch this trend. - JaminBen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what you really need is DIGG for propositions, so that politicians will only see the 'dugg' ideas regardless of who proposes them in the first place. Then you could make 'digging' something public record so you could go back and see that all the members of the Car company lobby dugg the proposition against hybrids driving in the HOV lane as well as the rich HUMMER owners from Orange County.
The lobbyist could then spend their money on advertising and getting people to digg their proposition so that it would be the public making decisions and receiving some of the PORK as opposed to politicians..
An interesting idea... obviously money would still have a say, but it would be a new open approach to getting propositions on the ballot. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I should have said "corrupt lobbyists" or "lobbyists that corrupt politicians" which is what I really meant.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@"Legislators' offices are unable to do all of the research into his cause, so his work helps society as a whole by having the policy makers know what's going on."
I think you are missing the core problem. Lobbying is not the solution here, but better government understanding and research. If a congressman is unable to understand an issue that is important to his voters then they should vote him out... Not pay someone to help him understand. -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is