Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
carpe demi

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                         

A Solution to Lobbying

Ban the buying of politicians.
 
(0)
  [vote for,
against]

Some consider wealthy patrons circumventing the political process by bankrolling their own pet parties in return for tax breaks & other concessions when they get in (as well as the professional lobbying industry) to be something of a problem.

After all what's the point of one person one vote if whoever you vote for gets bought by someone else.

It does appear to somewhat invalidate the entire democratic process a little.

So a solution..

Legally limit the maximum annual donation of an individual to a political party (including campaign donations) to one weeks worth of the minimum wage (after tax) while also banning all contributions from corporations, charities, NGO's & any foreign nationals (anyone or thing that isn't a legal voter), make it a crime to circumvent this with some really draconian penalties (something on a par with those for treason, the whole dragged naked through the streets on a hurdle thing plus confiscation of all assets & possessions, no execution though, that might be going too far).

Enshrine it in the constitution (or locale equivalent) & make it a crime of treason to try & change it.

That should do it..

But / also..

Besides impeding the rich from getting the equivalent of a lot more than one vote (by just bribing whoever gets in to do what they want them to) it has another advantage..

We essentially just index linked every political parties maximum contribution receipts to the minimum wage ... which should concentrate their minds wonderfully on raising the standard of living & pay for those at the bottom.

Skewed, Dec 10 2017

Inspired by Inverse-Capital_20Vote-Weighting
Inverse-Capital Vote-Weighting [Skewed, Dec 10 2017]

[link]






       I have a friend whose favorite criticism of under-thought proposals is that they are "just" advice, as in a "why don't you just do xyz" as a response to a complicated problem.   

       Putting aside the at least currently demonstrated unconstitutionality of limiting money.   

       Putting aside that half our country is convinced that < $1M in ads by Russians changed the election   

       Putting aside that self-organization, whether for ISIS or for "pick hot topic of the day", including crowd funding of causes, will defeat any attempts to limit influence of money   

       Putting all of those aside, it's still a horrible idea.
theircompetitor, Dec 10 2017
  

       // Putting aside the at least currently demonstrated unconstitutionality of limiting money //   

       // Putting aside that half our country is convinced that < $1M in ads by Russians changed the election //   

       So you both approve of people buying government (over democratically voting for it) & disapprove of it ... it just depends on who's doing the buying does it.   

       // favorite criticism of under-thought proposals //   

       It seems your response was a little under-thought too.
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       Censorship? or accident? Seems my latest annotation was deleted
theircompetitor, Dec 10 2017
  

       accident, re-post & I'll be more careful where I swing my pointer.
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       OK, the previous version was much more eloquent :)   

       The point about Russian money was that even if you accept the premise, it was aiming, not amount, that mattered. It's universally accepted that the Democrats were both better organized and spent a ton more money.   

       Lobbying is necessary so long as politics actually influences money. It would be irresponsible for any steward of money to not attempt to protect it or grow it -- if government is a great way to do so, of course they will. That cannot be stopped any more than water can be made to flow up hill.   

       As an aside, eliminating earmarks can legitimately be said to have damaged out politics. That's a great example where the "just eliminate earmarks" turned out to be a bad idea because of the unforeseen consequences of not being able to get legislation through.   

       Undoing absurd gerrymandering can truly improve our politics. I'm glad Schwarzenegger spent his own money to help the drive get started, and I'm glad the Supreme Court is looking at it.
theircompetitor, Dec 10 2017
  

       // the previous version was much more eloquent //   

       sorry, rolling a cig in my right while waiving the mouse with my left wasn't the cleverest thing to do :)
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       Errr...don't have lobbies? It would save space as well..
not_morrison_rm, Dec 10 2017
  

       // Lobbying is necessary so long as politics actually influences money. It would be irresponsible for any steward of money to not attempt to protect it or grow it //   

       That's not actually an argument against this though, all you've really said there is "rich people won't like it"   

       To use the absurd to illustrate my point (about that particular comment, nothing else).   

       What you've said there is like saying those who kill people for fun & profit (in a world with no law against murder) won't like a law against it & would be sensible to attempt to influence law makers to prevent one.   

       It's not an argument against having that law, just a statement of what a (not yet a) murderer (because, no law against it yet) will prefer.
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       // Undoing absurd gerrymandering //   

       Gerrymandering is about manipulating votes so mentioning it (as you have) is an irrelevant red herring.   

       The idea is about preventing someone bypassing the voting system after the fact of the vote so gerrymandering can't be relevant to it, because (by the premise of the idea) the vote isn't relevant.   

       The idea is (if anything, given the premise behind it, that votes aren't relevant because the candidates are all bought men) about making votes relevant again ... so, a return to democracy, from the current (alleged, by Vernon, if I didn't misunderstand him?) undemocratic rule of the rich.
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       // earmarks //   

       No idea what that's about, must be a US thing?
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       Allow me to explain. "Earmarking" is an activity that takes place in the senate. Members who support a particular bill, prior to the vote on that bill, can wear an "earmark" (originally, literally a mark on the right earlobe; nowadays a green or orange badge on the right lapel, depending on whether they wish to see the bill promoted to the legislative assembly or commended to the upper chamber). If sufficient members wear a green earmark, or wear an orange one but have previously worn a green one in relation to a bill proposed by the same member on any day except Tuesday (which is, of course, Federal Day), then the person proposing the bill (or the endorsed second-party quarterback for that member, except in Alabama where it needs to be the antecedent's keyholder or baffle-guard) is entitled to a Huff, which passes them directly to a trinoval hearing in the Presidential Chancelry Room. Then, as long as it's not one of the Days of Recede, they can oatsack their proposal without fear of hall-warding from the opposing quarterbacks. Obviously this only applies to boundary divisions during any period of Sessional Contest.
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 10 2017
  

       So sort of like rugby then (before it got all the silly rules & terminology).
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       Yes, although I didn't really go on to explain the rules on Sledge Law or Privileged Readings, which are more reminiscent of curling. (Of course, that only applies to Third Representatives except, again, in Alabama.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 10 2017
  

       gerrymandering is a big problem because it reduces the number of representatives in the House that must appeal across partisan lines.   

       Lobbying is not a problem. Lobbying is the imperfect solution to a problem, which is access to power for those who are not themselves in power.
theircompetitor, Dec 10 2017
  

       // gerrymandering is a big problem //   

       So it may be but it's still entirely irrelevant to this idea as I already explained, until the vote itself is relevant it's a non issue, it certainly has nothing to do with this.   

       Your thinking about shoes before you've even put your socks on.
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       // Lobbying is not a problem. Lobbying is the imperfect solution to a problem //   

       At last!! finally, something relevant (edit: you finally addressed the idea rather than talking about something different as if it wasn't).   

       // which is access to power for those who are not themselves in power //   

       I'd disagree with the idea that the wealthy have any more right to access to power in a democracy than the not-wealthy.   

       Which is what the idea is supposed to address, by limiting cash donations (which should include entertaining representatives to lunches etc.) to a level affordable by the lowest paid all would have equal access.   

       But at least the point (if not one I agree with) is pertinent :)
Skewed, Dec 10 2017
  

       //I'd disagree with the idea that the wealthy have any more right to access to power in a democracy than the not-wealthy. //   

       Unions lobby.   

       Given that the US was started over taxation without representation, it is not surprising that money would seek to be proportionally represented if it is disproportionally affected by policy.   

       Let's stop pretending you came up with a new idea here, or an idea that would have any bearing on the result: in the US the maximum amount of money you can give to a federal candidate is $2700. Corporations and unions are not allowed to contribute directly at all.   

       so I stand by the criticism "why don't we just limit how much people can give to politicians" is neither a new idea, nor a good one, nor one that has been demonstrated to have any chance to achieve the kind of result the idea seeks to achieve.
theircompetitor, Dec 11 2017
  

       // If sufficient members wear a green earmark [...] period of Sessional Contest. //   

       Mornington Crescent.
pertinax, Dec 11 2017
  

       // neither a new idea //   

       Ah, you got me, a good point, a palpable hit sir :)   

       I can only put my hands up to that one (& hang my head in shame), this "idea" was really only started as a (sort of) response to Vernons (see link).   

       edit: though in my defense I would jut like to assert that I have no personal knowledge of it ever having been put about elsewhere before (mainly because I didn't bother to go & look, which was mostly because I was sure it would have been.. it is a pretty obvious idea after all).   

       // nor a good one //   

       That rather depends who you are & what you want.   

       // nor one that has been demonstrated to have any chance to achieve the kind of result the idea seeks to achieve //   

       Oh I don't know, it's not the idea that fails so much as the execution of its enforcement, not enough people being dragged through the streets on a hurdle (we should probably tar & feather them as well) while having all their assets seized.
Skewed, Dec 11 2017
  

       // Oh I don't know, it's not the idea that fails so much as the execution of its enforcement// yeah, that's right next to communism would work if it wasn't being practiced by actual humans.
theircompetitor, Dec 11 2017
  

       // right next to communism //   

       How's that?   

       Your last comment makes no sense accept as a lie & propaganda hyperbole, let me translate how that read to me.   

       I say: "well it might work if it was actually enforced"   

       You reply: "you're a communist"   

       So, we're resorting to the dark arts of propaganda, namely the "just call them communists or pedos or something, that always automatically wins every argument, yeah!" tactic.   

       Which can only mean you really have nothing better than name calling (which is to say, you have nothing) :)
Skewed, Dec 11 2017
  

       What I'm saying is that saying "this idea would work great if people would only implement it the way I envisioned it" is a weak argument versus the reality -- which is money is already limited in various ways in every democracy, and the influence of money on politics has not been eliminated.   

       In my view the point you made was quite similar to the argument that "communism would only work..." -- that is all I sought to point out.   

       I'd do a somewhat more thorough search of the HB before presuming that I would be conceding a debate loss, especially on something as intellectually lite as this.
theircompetitor, Dec 11 2017
  

       //a debate loss//   

       Just out of interest, what scoring system do you use?
pertinax, Dec 11 2017
  

       The easiest one would be by last annotation :)
theircompetitor, Dec 12 2017
  

       Ah.
pertinax, Dec 12 2017
  

       But couldn't we just buy all the politicians and use them as landfill / fertiliser ?
bigsleep, Dec 13 2017
  

       Unfortunately, anyone who mobilised / organised / motivated / inspired enough people to do that would ipso facto be a politician.   

       The anarchist's paradox strikes again.
pertinax, Dec 15 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle