The Doom Loop of Oligarchy

[tschu]

Haha, considering how we've gone to the Super-PAC system and the SCOTUS just upheld a law letting us donate to however many candidates we want, that seems to be incredibly unlikely.

 

Somehow the plaintiff made campaign donations into a free speech issue. I guess the 1% has about a million times greater right to speak their mind in politics than I do. Free speech indeed! The fact that there was almost zero outrage over that decision was mind-blowing. If I wasn't totally numb to crap like this being a common occurrence I would have been appalled.

 

But I do agree with you absolutely. That would go a long long way.

[strigori]

The disclosure aspect does nothing to cap limits, it just says that the 'person' voicing their free speech, just cant keep it hidden. Spending money to influence a public election should not be able to be hidden.

[TGHusker]

Congress also has a nice little set-up with the banking and financial corporations and lobbyists. The typical career arc is that a committee chair or someone directly responsible for creating economic policy will "retire" from their government post and immediately take up a cushy top-level "job" with a large financial firm or bank. Not a coincidence, and certainly not because they're the most qualified. It's a reward.

This has been true of both parties for decades. I don't thing this is a repub vs dem issue - too simple of an argument. Both parties have there big donors, special interest groups, etc. I like the idea of setting election

time frame limits and maybe limits to spending by the candidate, their election organization and by any advocacy groups (regardless of type). I'd also do away with the free campaign ads that congressmen receive - the franking privilege of mail - . My only concern with limits (outside of free speech advocacy) is the issue of name recognition. How does the challenger with no to little name recognition be able get on a level playing field wt the incumbent??