Vermont first state to call for constitutional convention to get money out of politic

[yhelothar]

93% of the time in Congress, the candidate with more money wins the election, across the Republican and Democratic parties. People, policies, or parties aren't the determining factors in these elections; it's money. Corporate corruption is what has broken this system.

The imbalance of power towards the wealthy through crony capitalism has severely restricted the representation of politicians to a select privileged few. This is a huge milestone in from getting money out of politics. A constitutional convention is called forth by state senators who doesn't play a role in the croyism in Congress, and thus they are our best hope to bringing a change in law to our very own legislatures that are corrupt.

This constitutional amendment will mandate public financing of election campaigns.

http://vtdigger.org/2014/05/02/verm...constitutional-convention-get-money-politics/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

 

[davmat787]

As much as I don't like the idea of publicly financed elections in principle, I think making it law is one of the most important changes needed to restore some semblance of integrity to government. Besides, we have plenty of money to pay for it, so much is wasted on stupid shit much less important.

The proof that this is a good idea will be when virtually every member of Congress is against it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree that money has too much influence, however I would also like to see an equal curtailment of political influence. Two unchallengeable parties and no real accountability in office leads to corruption and incompetence. No more "Hobson's Choice" on election day.

 

[davmat787]

I agree that money has too much influence, however I would also like to see an equal curtailment of political influence. Two unchallengeable parties and no real accountability in office leads to corruption and incompetence. No more "Hobson's Choice" on election day.

Hobson's Choice? I think "Between Scylla and Charybdis" is a tad more accurate, but in any case you bring up 2 more very important problems that must be addressed as well. However, the quality of congressperson that would be required to enact those changes would never be voted in under current system. Maybe getting money out first would allow enough with integrity to get the ball rolling and shame the rest into action.

 

[BoberFett]

We exist for only one purpose and that’s to get a 28th amendment to get all money out of politics

So they want to eliminate government spending altogether?

 

[Incorruptible]

Bunch of pieces of crap. They don't understand that the reason there is so much money in politics is because the government spends so much money and has power. If these idiots actually wanted money out of politics then how about obey the Constitution.

It would be nice to see these idiots tackle the serious issues of cutting spending.

 

[yhelothar]

So they want to eliminate government spending altogether?

That's a funny joke. :biggrin:

Bunch of pieces of crap. They don't understand that the reason there is so much money in politics is because the government spends so much money and has power. If these idiots actually wanted money out of politics then how about obey the Constitution.

It would be nice to see these idiots tackle the serious issues of cutting spending.

93% of the time in Congress, the candidate with more money wins the election, across the Republican and Democratic parties. People, policies, or parties aren't the determining factors in these elections; it's money. Corporate corruption is what has broken this system.

 

[Thebobo]

This would be awesome.

 

[Jaskalas]

93% of the time in Congress, the candidate with more money wins the election...

GTFO... no... way....

It's really that bad?

 

[yhelothar]

GTFO... no... way....

It's really that bad?

It varies from election to election, but since 2008, it's been over 90%. Here are figures for the 2012 election.

 

[Subyman]

I would absolutely love this to happen. Politicians will still buy their way to the top of the political party, but at least between the two parties there would be some sense of equality when it came election time. The amount of money that is funneled through back channels to fund campaigns is sickening.

 

[davmat787]

I would absolutely love this to happen. Politicians will still buy their way to the top of the political party, but at least between the two parties there would be some sense of equality when it came election time. The amount of money that is funneled through back channels to fund campaigns is sickening.

I would love to see it happen to, but it will take a radical act or two to make it reality. The current type of politician would never make this into law, and the type who would could never be elected at the national level.

The kinds of politicians we really need in office would be deemed crazy because the reality of the situation is just that, and no one at the national level will have an honest discussion on the really important and screwed up issues. Too scary to put on your Sunday talk show circuit, easier to focus on stupid social wedge issues.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It varies from election to election, but since 2008, it's been over 90%. Here are figures for the 2012 election.

The question you are not asking is why has money flowed toward politicians?? The reason is that it is because the power and strenght of government to alter the economic and social landscape has increased along with the money inflow to politicians from any group seeking a insider in Washington be it private sector business, groups or public sector unions, etc. You can't deny that government has not turned into a power vacuum that is attracting all power interests as it grows and expands to consume, grow and monopolize rights.

 

[yhelothar]

The question you are not asking is why has money flowed toward politicians?? The reason is that it is because the power and strenght of government to alter the economic and social landscape has increased along with the money inflow to politicians from any group seeking a insider in Washington be it private sector business, groups or public sector unions, etc. You can't deny that government has not turned into a power vacuum that is attracting all power interests as it grows and expands to consume, grow and monopolize rights.

It's obvious why money flows towards the politicians - they are the ones who make the laws and shape the policies. They are the ones that decide how trillions of tax dollars are spent. And these decisions aren't made to represent the people but rather the interests of a privileged few.

 

[Dman8777]

It would be nice if something like this could be passed by a direct vote like in Switzerland. However, since the politicians who will be voting on it are all sucking at the teet of their corporate oligarchs, there is very little hope for this effort.

I would add something too. Election spending starts a maximum of 1 month before a given election. No more year-long marathons of mudslinging before a presidential primary.

 

[Paul98]

Yes please, it's sickening what's going on.

 

[boomerang]

It would be nice if something like this could be passed by a direct vote like in Switzerland. However, since the politicians who will be voting on it are all sucking at the teet of their corporate oligarchs, there is very little hope for this effort.

I would add something too. Election spending starts a maximum of 1 month before a given election. No more year-long marathons of mudslinging before a presidential primary.

As to your first point, remember that there is nothing unique about the legislature of the State of Vermont. They have passed this. Don't give up so easily. I think the average Joe might be greatly surprised to see the enthusiasm politicians would have for not having to kiss all the ass they do.

As to your second point, I agree but your timeline is too tight. The length of the election cycle should suit the office. I propose three months for President. The presidential election cycle was 24 months last time around. House and Senate should be one month. Three months is more than adequate in the times that we are living in. Candidates do not need to travel the nation by horse and buggy to campaign.

Take the money out of politics and we can have a part time Congress. They spend the overwhelming majority of their time raising money for themselves and their party right now. Have them meet quarterly for a week or two at the most.

We could also learn a lot from Canada and how they hold their elections.

 

[TheSiege]

So what can we do to get involved? Whats the best way to make the American voice heard?

 

[sandorski]

Wolf-Pac was created for this very purpose.

 

[boomerang]

So what can we do to get involved? Whats the best way to make the American voice heard?

Click Article V in my sig. I see it as the only way to take power away from our politicians.

We need to turn the system on its ear. There are so many things that could be done by circumventing Congress. Job one should be reducing their power by whatever means necessary using Article V. Be that through limits on spending for elections or reducing their term in office to name two. Eliminating the perks after leaving office - attract a different mentality.

Politician's would like us to believe that we need seasoned people in place to run things. We do, but they're not elected. They are the staffers that do the brunt of the work while elected officials raise money for their next campaign or for their party. We could term limit those elected. Return the job to one revolving around public service not a job to make a career out of. We could even term limit the SCOTUS. Why should one solitary person decide for potentially decades the biggest decisions in the land?

How about we restore the Senate to their original purpose? That being to represent the states. I can't think of any state that wouldn't like more influence in the land.

There are few limits on what could be done. And it would take a majority of states for any amendment to be ratified virtually assuring that any off the wall amendments would never make it through.

I don't listen to Mark Levin. I just consider him to be a screamer. But that doesn't mean I can't read his books. Read The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. He's got lots of very well thought out ideas and remember, they are just suggestions. The states will decide what needs to be done with input from the people.

 

[werepossum]

That's a funny joke. :biggrin:

93% of the time in Congress, the candidate with more money wins the election, across the Republican and Democratic parties. People, policies, or parties aren't the determining factors in these elections; it's money. Corporate corruption is what has broken this system.

Chicken and egg. The party likely to win gets more corporate money because if one runs a major business, one has to pay protection money. Government is in literally every facet of our economy, and government can and does choose winners and losers among both industries and even individual companies with spending and with tax laws. It's neither coincidence nor a secret why Caterpillar's effective tax rate is two or three times GE's effective tax. Additionally, individuals contribute, and if more individuals contribute to one party, likely more individuals will vote for that party as well.

Besides the insanity of a world where nude dancing is protected free speech but political and advocacy adverts are not, if only public money can be used to finance elections then the government, the media, and the parties will have all power, period.

 

[werepossum]

Click Article V in my sig. I see it as the only way to take power away from our politicians.

We need to turn the system on its ear. There are so many things that could be done by circumventing Congress. Job one should be reducing their power by whatever means necessary using Article V. Be that through limits on spending for elections or reducing their term in office to name two. Eliminating the perks after leaving office - attract a different mentality.

Politician's would like us to believe that we need seasoned people in place to run things. We do, but they're not elected. They are the staffers that do the brunt of the work while elected officials raise money for their next campaign or for their party. We could term limit those elected. Return the job to one revolving around public service not a job to make a career out of. We could even term limit the SCOTUS. Why should one solitary person decide for potentially decades the biggest decisions in the land?

How about we restore the Senate to their original purpose? That being to represent the states. I can't think of any state that wouldn't like more influence in the land.

There are few limits on what could be done. And it would take a majority of states for any amendment to be ratified virtually assuring that any off the wall amendments would never make it through.

I don't listen to Mark Levin. I just consider him to be a screamer. But that doesn't mean I can't read his books. Read The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. He's got lots of very well thought out ideas and remember, they are just suggestions. The states will decide what needs to be done with input from the people.

Bingo. Term limit everybody - no one needs to spend more than twelve years in the federal government, and six would be better. And remove lifetime benefits and retirement - a politician should at the very least demonstrate the ability to run her own life before taking on everybody else's.

 

[lotus503]

Wolf-Pac was created for this very purpose.

Donated and signed up to volunteer, thanks for posting this.