$20 Million on Lobbying Defeats CA Privacy Bill 193
sphughes writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that banks, insurance companies and other corporations spent more than $20 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to defeat a recent consumer privacy bill SB773. The story can be found here. These are preliminary figures through July and may actually run much higher. The bill had been modified from opt-in to opt-out but was still killed."
privacy bill (Score:1)
Re:privacy bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Speier's bill was designed to restrict banks and other financial companies from selling or disseminating information about customers' income and spending to third parties.
The banks already have most of your personal information. This is understandable, considering they provide credit cards, mortgages, loans, etc. Similar reasons apply for insurance companies. They need to know your personal info so they know how high your premium should be. This bill was designed to prevent said institutions from selling that information to third parties without express consent from the consumer. These institutions lobbied against the bill so that they can continue to sell this information to direct-marketing-type people. As much as I personally loathe this practice, it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. They trade bits and bytes for hard cash. They don't give any physical resources, and they get cash.
Re:privacy bill (Score:1)
Re:privacy bill (Score:2)
Reputations matter. So do references. Do you expect a bank to grant you a substantial loan if you refuse to provide references such as an employer or business partner?
Lobby the Banks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lobby the Banks (Score:2)
Smile [smile.co.uk] in the UK have an ethical investment policy, and they use that fact extensively in their advertising. They're actively hoping that you'll allow your politics to influence your choice of bank.
Cheers,
Ian
Simple way to end it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple way to end it (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish it could be that way. But until "campaign finance reform" is something other than a buzzword from the "let them eat cake!" legislature, dream on.
eGray (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like the banks are getting good use out of eGray [egray.org]. And who says the Internet can't be profitable.
Ah yes (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said it before yes but it seems particularly apt now.
Re:Ah yes , Campaign finance reform (Score:1)
Two legislators took the money, voted against (Score:2)
The end of the article mentions two legislators that took the banks' money but then voted against the bill. I'm not sure if we should applaud these folks for voting their mind or treat them as a pariah for taking the cash then not delivering the goods.
In one of Heinlein's books a recurring character defines an honest politician as one who "once bought stays bought".
They should be appluaded (Score:1)
The idea that contributions to a campain deserve somthing in return is an extremly faulty one (all be it prevelant). If somone gives you a million dollars to advance your campain it means at face value they believe in your campain stance and want you elected.
Now sure, there obviously is an underlying idea of bribes and of mutual back scratching, and that if such a thing isn't done then next time around maybe your oponent will be more open to the donator's position.
But all that only comes second to the fact that it *is* a donation to a campain, and can not be anything more.
If somone offers you $1000, no strings attached, but you know they want you to feel obligated to them none the less, then even if you take the money you don't owe them anything.
Re:Two legislators took the money, voted against (Score:1)
It's not true, if you read between the lines. The money was spent for general favors, bribes-as-usual, on an ongoing basis. Maybe a few lobbyists told the legislators in question "our clients don't like this privacy thing", but it's unlikely that they said "OK, here's a pile of money, now please vote no on this one and yes on that one...".
I may leave Citibank because of this and other offenses (though I must admit that the service in the bank is the best I've found), but this article is slimey.
A more useful article would have presented information on lobbying growth that could reasonably be connected to defeating this bill, maybe a graph of contributions by those banks and credit card companies over the last 5 years.
But maybe that wouldn't have shown anything specific about this particular bill, and thus would not have been published.
Re:Two legislators took the money, voted against (Score:1)
Well, November is coming up. (Score:2)
The reason the 2 from SF voted for the bill is because they know that their voting record will be an issue in the upcoming election. Also, once the politickians know that a bill will be defeated, some of them will vote for it if it looks good to their sheep^H^H^H^H^Hvoters, as long as their vote doesn't tip the balance.
Re:Well, November is coming up. (Score:1)
What have you done about it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you canceled your MBNA credit cards and told them why you were canceling it?
There are plenty of other banks and Credit card compaines. Time to move your account elsewhere. And vocally explain why.
Re:What have you done about it. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're just now cancelling an MBNA credit card for something like this, where have you been? I do believe that MBNA is about the most evil corporation out there. They are the ones that set up fake "credit counseling" classes at colleges which turn out to be "credit cards are your friend" propaganda presentations.
This company preys on college students and thier inexperience with credit cards. If you ever notice a credit card company doing something unethical on your campus, check it out, 99.9% of the time it will be MBNA. They also give out most of the t-shirts, hats and other goodies in exchange for your application, so they can't be all bad, right?
Posting Anonymously to protect my credit rating.
What's in YER Wallet? (Score:1)
Re:What have you done about it. (Score:2)
No thanks.. I'll stick with MBNA, who at least don't fuck around with my credit rating.
Point being, a person needs to look at factors beyond a "privacy policy" that you disagree with -- the other disagreeable aspects could be worse.
Until The Surpeme Court Restores Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Even insurrection in the streets is unlikely to do much, as the corporate rhetoric will simply change to "don't give in to mass terrorism, and by the way, here's another two hundred grand for next years campaign." The sole method by which this can be stopped is for the voters to turn these fuckers out for good and put them in the unemployment line, but alas, the latter is prevented by corporate favors granting these useless ex-politicos positions as "consultants," with most of their "consulting" done on the golf course or the beach, while the former is prevented by the Media Cartel's monopoly on widespeard information dissemination which effectively locks everyone out of politics at the federal level who doesn't have millions to spend, thus closing the circle on effective citizen participation in govrenment at the federal level completely.
The Internet may play a role is offsetting this
So, what have any of you done [eff.org] about it, beyond a moment's expression of outrage?
Re:The Supreme Court has Restored balance (Score:2)
Shouldn't have less, but shouldn't have 10,000 times as much either.
troll alert (Score:2)
Ha! Caught you, troll!
Money and Politics (Score:1)
No good news (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you were glued to the business and political sections of the news, the opt-out plan slipped by most of us until we starting getting all of those signature cards in the mail, discretely buried on the inside of the last page of a very boring policy pamphlet, which most people threw away.
Yet here we are today, struggling with the effects DMCA and meekly trying to fend off a slew of similar bad bills that are swirling around us like a bad storm. The pattern is the same - the general public is unaware, the entertainment industry has gobs of money and are buying our elected officials at every turn.
Now, where is that damn letter I've been working on for a month?
Cameras (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cameras (Score:2)
What really happened.... (Score:2, Funny)
Whoops.
The best govt. Money can BUY!!! (Score:2)
Re:Excellent Point... (Score:2)
I've been asked about three times as I've exited the grocery store if I'm a registered voter. "Are you freaking kidding?" I'd ask myself. It's just one more piece of information in all the wrong hands.
Corruption and democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
I am beginning to believe that corruption is the Achille's heel of democracy. South American nations are getting very disenchanated with their own experiements in democracy for this very reason, and America is currently struglling with it at the highest levels of government. Money is a corrupting influence when tied in with politics, and I believe it goes against the very principles democracy is based upon.
I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! It may not solve every problem, but strong, enforced CFR would at least help. The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important. This is not about freedom, it is about the health of the democracy. I, for one, reject the notion that spending money is covered by the First Amendment. Speech is saying something. Spending money is buying something.
GOD how did Bush get elected President? I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof.
... sorry, I seem to have drifted from my original point ...
Do you really think..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do you really think..... (Score:1)
Re:Do you really think..... (Score:1)
Word.
CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me lay out my assertions:
1) Supply and Demand - Supply always equals Demand, or rather Supply(price) = Demand(price), so solve for price.
2) Laws cannot significantly change Demand(price), all they can do is change Supply(price). Demand(price) is set by the consumers.
Now, in the case of campaigns, "price" isn't money, rather it is the availability of money. Demand(price) measures how much candidates (a.k.a. the consumers) and political parties are willing to sell favoratism for money, and Supply(price) is how much money donors are willing to give to get that favoritism. The Demand(price) curve is set largely by the political parties, while CFR would only change Supply(price) by making it harder for donors to fork over money.
The idea of CFR is that lowering the money supply, you will somehow make the candidates more responsive to the people. What will ACTUALLY happen is the big spenders will be able to ask for more favors for the same amount of money. They will find a way to funnel the money in - look at what happened when we started regulating "hard money" (money given directly to a candidate for him to use directly) - the big spenders simply invented "soft money" (money given to political parties and political action committees) to get around it. When we started regulating soft money, the big spenders simply started donating valuable services (while claiming the services weren't valuable).
OK, if you accept my premise, then CFR won't work. What would?
Remember, Demand(price) is set by the political parties. A candidate must run for two elections - the primary and the general election. Thus he must spend roughly twice as much money (increasing Demand(price)). Remember that the primary is not defined in the laws governing election - it is purely a party function (ther are laws regulating the primary, but there is no law mandating its existance). In my state (Kansas) you CANNOT vote in the primary unless you are registered with that party - thus I cannot pick a Democrat and a Republican that I like.
And that is how the parties control your options - when you vote in the primary, you can only select for one party, and when the general election comes around, you take the options you are given by each party. And so I assert that the primaries are part of the problem, and should be removed from the system.
Since there is no law creating the primaries, how can we get rid of them? First, do NOT allow the parties to use public facilities for the primaries unless they allow every eligible voter to participate. If they wish to exclude all non-party members, then let them use their own damn machines in their own damn locations!
Second, do not allow the parties to ask anything other than "Are you eligible to vote in this district?" Don't let them see if I am a registered Republican or Democrat. It's none of their damn business!
These two steps would greatly de-emphasize the importance of the political parties and their primaries (which is WHY you will never hear a Republican nor Democrat offering this idea up). It would lower the bar for independants, and it would remove a great deal of the cost of getting elected (lowering Demand(price)).
Next, how do we insure that the general election is more responsive to the people?
Binding None Of The Above
Require that for every race, one entry on the ballot be "None Of The Above", and that if there is no plurality (no candidate gets more votes than the others) or if NOTA gets the plurality, then all candidates in that race are disqualified from running for that office this term (that's the "binding" part).
I'd require the second election to happen within 1 month of the first - that way they cannot stall for time.
Consider the last US presidental election. Many of the people who voted for (Bush|Gore) were really voting against (Gore|Bush). Even within their own parties many people said "I really don't like (Bush|Gore), but I won't vote for (Gore|Bush), and I won't throw my vote away". Now, if one of the entries had been BNOTA, how would YOU have voted? I assert that we would have disqualified both Bush and Gore.
Now, some people have said "Yes, but then we might NEVER elect someone". I don't think so - the political parties aren't stupid. Again, consider the last presidential election: Had BNOTA been the law of the land, the Democrats would have said "Yes, he's the incumbent VP, but people don't like him. If the Republicans run anybody worth a damn they will win, and if they run Bush, then NOBODY wins. We'd better run somebody people will like." The Republicans would have reasoned simillarly.
Also, BNOTA makes it easier for third parties to come in. Let's say both the Republicans and the Democrats had run Bush/Gore. Individuals like Nader could have sat back and NOT entered the first race. Instead, they could have spent their efforts convicing people to vote NOTA. When Bush and Gore were knocked out, THEN they enter and campaign. Meanwhile the big parties are scrambling to get another set of candidates ready.
Now, back to the Demand(price) curve -when you have only a month to run your campaign, you are limited in what you can do - there's only so much ad time on the air, so many events you can go to, so many HOURS until the election. A smaller party can blitz just as effectively as a big one.
OK, that's my opinion. If you've read down this far, please think about it before hitting that reply button.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
The problem is that nobody gives a damn about politics. The damage has been done and the US is fucked. It's playing out the last days of Rome scenario, expect a long and lingering death.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:1)
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
If politicians
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:1)
Given that our two major parties are each rapidly becoming about as corrupt as the PRI in Mexico, we should welcome any type of progress that would weaken their grip on the country. First, we should establish Instant Runoff Voting [fairvote.org].
After that, we could look at other ways for more people to feel like they are represented in government. How about proportional representation? It won't work for every contest, but where it does, it would keep certain groups from feeling so alienated. The constitution is not enough to protect minority rights. Even if it was, somone should be looking out for the *interests* of minority constituencies and balancing them in a proportional way (I'm not talking about racial groups).
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:1)
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
In parts of the US where you have "open primaries" the situation might be closer to one party fielding two candidates.
Why do people believe that a two-party system is better? They use words like "stability". Yes indeed...a system that would allow consumers to rise up and protect their privacy could not be considered a "stable" place for corporations to do business.
You also end up with some things never being questioned. The classic example being the "war on (some) drugs".
After that, we could look at other ways for more people to feel like they are represented in government. How about proportional representation?
The problem in the US is something of a chicken and egg situation. Without being able to get an utter minimum of 3 candidates proportioanl systems tend to wind up being functionally equivalent to a simple majority voting system.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
I think there is one reform that you've missed that you'd probably like. Approval Voting [boulder.co.us] can help solve a lot of our problems. In approval voting, you can vote for as many people as you like. The person with the most votes wins.
Think about it. There is no reason why you should be limited to voting exclusively for one person.
With approval voting primaries lose their prominence. Defensive voting no longer becomes an issue. Third party candidates become viable. Your 'none of the above' option no longer is needed.
Approval voting is simple, understandable, and easy to implement using current voting technology. I'm a firm believer that implementation of approval voting will solve a lot of problems.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
I think I can agree with that sentiment. Even with approval voting, for current practical purposes, a finite number of persons must be listed on the ballot. Approval voting and 'nota' choice are orthogonal issues. Write-ins are nice in theory but really have little effect in large elections.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
I thought this was so a mess of democrats couldn't all vote for, say, Pat Buchanan (or Pat Robertson -- remember that?) for the republican nomination with the intention of completely f*cking up the republican primary. And vice versa. How would you prevent this scenario?
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
Simple - I wouldn't. If the (Dems|Reps) want to vote en masse to screw up the (Reps|Dems), then let them. The whole point of this exercise is to WEAKEN the 2 party system.
However, consider this - if the (Dems|Reps) are able to get enough people to vote for a bad (Rep|Dem) candidate, then they have enough people to vote for a GOOD candidate. Would it not make more sense to try to have 2 good candidates on the ballot - that way you win either way.
In many ways, the scenario you propose is already happening - each party tends to select the more extreme candidates, the better to lock in their own people. True moderates have about as much chance of being selected in the primaries as RMS has of getting a tongue kiss from Bill Gates.
"Open" primaries (Score:2)
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
As to "None of the above" -- it's required on the presidential ballot in Nevada. In 1992, another year where a lot of people felt no candidate was worthwhile, it got 8% of the vote. Not enough to have toppled the 2000 presidential race. Also, the multi-party alternatives have not really proven any better in other countries; indeed, common results are legislative deadlock and backroom alliances to a degree that a basically two-party system can't begin to accomplish.
About 4 years ago, IIRC as a ballot initiative (meaning a public segment had to stump for it themselves), California passed a law to let voters cross party lines in primaries. Couple years later it was repealed as unconsitutional, or unfair, or some damned ridiculous excuse. So now we're back to being stuck with our own party.
Yeah, there is a problem with people using their primary vote to dilute the votes for the enemy party's front-running candidate (by voting for whoever's dead last in the polls), but that evens out since anyone from any party can do it, and I don't know of any case where it's actually changed election results. (Anyone??)
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
1) Is the NOTA option binding? In other words, had NOTA won in Nevada, would Nevada's electors been prohibited from voting for Bush and Gore?
2) Was the low turn-out for NOTA due to the fact that it wasn't nation wide? In other words, had NOTA been on all ballots, and had people known it was on all ballots, would the results been different?
If NOTA in Nevada is NOT binding, then I find it astonishing that even 8% of people would vote that way.
Re:CAMPAIGN reform, not campaign finance reform (Score:2)
I suspect that 8% is higher than would happen if it were a routine, nationwide choice -- it probably got as much as it did due to being a relative novelty in a state not exactly known for its conformity to social rules that apply elsewhere (and the election system and process might be viewed as a large-scale exercise in social engineering!!)
And can you imagine mainstream politicos backing a binding NOTA election law?!! Ha!! no one passes laws designed to put themselves out of a job!!
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
The laws are a joke and I should know. All campaign finance reform laws have done is increased the amount of paperwork required to run for office. I have to file paperwork with the Louisiana Ethics Comission [state.la.us], the Clerk of the House [house.gov] the Federal Election Commissions [fec.gov], and I have to send a copy of FEC paperwork to the Louisiana Department of State. [state.la.us] All that paperwork does is provide another bureaucratic layer for the candidates to hide behind. Does it increase public access to information on my funding? Not really. Most people don't even know of the existance of these organizations, let alone how to obtain copies of the papers I've filed. It sure as hell isn't as informative to the general public as this [iwancio2002.org], but most politicians want you to know as little about them as possible. It seems that most major candidates spend more time running interference on each other than actually sharing information with the voting public.
"The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important."
You're not going to get it with the current batch of party sheep. If anything, they know what they needed to get into office themselves and aren't about to give it up easily.
"I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat."
Maybe too many Americans are too busy toeing the party line to see that most of the problems lie in the current two-paty system in the US. Guess how all those legislators probably got all their money? It was likely all funnelled through the state and national Democratic and Republican committees. All that most of the required election paperwork seems to have accomplished is to make sure more money is funnelled ("laundered?") through the party rather than going to the politician directly.
"Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof."
Which is completely different from what Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, or McKinley have done in office? Should I go through the nineteenth century as well?
Most of the "this president is the most lazy/money-grubbing yet" stuff is just talk from the other party. If anything it's just more politicians running political interference. We have an executive that is very much alone and very easy for the press to focus on, and we have 535 legislators that can easily hide behind each other and can generally get away with more individually and as a group than the president. In my opinion, all this party nonsense about bad-mouthing the president's policies is little more than Congress keeping the attention shifted away from the real seat of corruption in government.
And the same goes for the states as well. Most governors would know better than to shoot themselves in the political foot by vetoing a bill with a title like that. But if it never gets to the governor's office to begin with, who's the wiser?
The only real solution to this problem is both very simple and the one nobody ever brings up:
1.) Go find the California Legislature [ca.gov] on the internet
2.) Find the bill on-line [ca.gov]
3.) See which state Senators voted against it [ca.gov] (whoever is represented by Senator Haynes is in luck, otherwise...). The measure passed the State Assembly, but it might be worth seeing who voted against it there as well.
4.) Vote against them next election. In fact, tell them you're going to do so. Better yet, run against the bastard yourself. It's a cushy job and looks good on a resume at the very least.
It's that easy! And you're still not going to do it, are you? Most people don't even know their national legislators, let alone their legislators at the state level. Nobody even bothers to vote for anybody in the state governments, except maybe the governor. Maybe. This is probably little more than the state legislators showing the same contempt for the voters as the voters seem to have for the legislators. They listen to campaign contributors because they're usually the only people talking to them.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
Defensive voting is an abomination that we currently are forced to deal with. We should be implementing approval voting [boulder.co.us].
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
Except that defensive voting is a currently available option, while approval voting is not - yes?
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever tried taking a chunk of meat away from a tiger?
CFR could be a solution, but until the voters get some sense to not be blindly swayed by slick ads, nothing will change. With the First Amendment around, you won't be able to stop the slick ones from doing an endrun around CFR.
What we really need is a grassroots awareness of the issues. Democracy works fine if the people are aware of the issues and make sensible decisions.Now, obviously you can't wave a magic wand and make everyone more aware. But what you can do is "get out the vote". Make noises; talk about issues and convince more people to pay attention. The last thing a typical politician wants is a voter who's paying attention to whats going on. Once the awareness comes, these turds will listen.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
Yeah, well, the free market works fine if people are aware of the products and make sensible decisions, too. But in reality, they don't make such decisions because they're too lazy to research things for themselves -- and the marketing guys take full advantage of that.
The problems with election of candidates are exactly the same as the problems with free market economics. Both sound good on paper, but both assume a rational population. That assumption is patently false.
My solution to this mess? Eliminate advertising entirely. If you're a candidate and you want to get your name known, then your methods should be limited to talking with people face to face. No gathering of crowds, no billboards, no posters, nothing. You give your name and address to the election office and they put it on a list along with the rest of the candidates, and publish it on the web and on handouts (failure on their part to do so subjects them to criminal penalties). If people want to find out what you're all about, they have to come to your office and speak with you face to face. No speaking through representatives: face to face contact only. Since not everyone will get that opportunity, you'll have to rely on word of mouth to gain recognition. You'll have to rely on real grassroots support from the people. The way it should be.
Yeah, it's a restraint on "free speech". It's the one exception that I think should be made: if you want the power that comes with political office, you have to sacrifice one of the most important rights people have in order to get it. Perhaps that will teach you the importance of rights and keep you from legislating stupidly.
I can't think of anything that would make an election a truly fair one without restraint on political speech: anything else allows the person with more inside contacts and/or more money to dominate. Perhaps others who are brighter than I can do better than me in thinking of a solution to this mess.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
The problem with this is the same as the problem with the so-called "campaign finance reform". The need for advertising is still there; if it can't be paid for, it'll be done without cash (or someone who DOES manage to do it will win).
Or do you intend to also put a muzzle on "the press"? Remember what the press is: it's people who have enough money to buy a printing press/broadcast station and market it (even a website will have impact only in proportion to its marketing).
If you enact this without also muzzling the press, you're allowing that particular class of wealthy people to determine the outcome of elections. If you muzzle the press, of course, you're violating their freedom of speech in a very directly unconstitutional way.
Neither implementation has appropriate results; however, that covers all possible implementations for your idea.
Therefore, your idea should not be implemented.
(Your ideas about advertising are also badly wrong, but a rebuttal is badly OT in this case.)
-Billy
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:1)
Personally, I think that when introducing legislation to government, politicians should be required to come clean about all of their financial relationships with companies who stand to benefit from it. All such documents should be public, with heavy fines for cheaters. Since our interpid leaders in Washington do not seem inclined to wear f**k-me boots and day-glo miniskirts, this would be the next best way to tell the whores from that small, ineffective minority that actually has our best interests in mind. Chance of anything like this happening: same as snowball's chance in hell.
Re Bush: Mr. Bush got elected because his brother Jeb pushed through a new electoral districting scheme in Florida that negated the influence of thousands of lower income and/or non-white voters who traditionally voted Democrat. Yay democracy!
On the other hand, there's still a couple of years until the next election - plenty of time for voters to realize that Wubya is not a smart boy, and that more is needed in a President than Daddy's money and connections. Hopefully all the special interests who are running things today won't get us into too much trouble by then.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:1)
p.s. Bush WASN'T elected. Does that explain it?
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
There is a simple reason for this. Democratic governments tend to put the interests of their citizens and organisations before those of foreign businesses who operate in their country.
The US has a long history of direct or indirect involvement in governments, frequently democratic governments, being toppled. This certainly isn't restricted to South and Central America either. Quite relevent to current news events would be what happened in Iran.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:1)
I agree with you on the idea that a strong version of CFR could be a good thing - say a $1,000 limit (with inflation adjustments for the future) from any one source, limitations on what services can be donated by outside groups, and blocking of 'forced' donations by members of labor unions, etc. However, I don't agree with the idea that spending money isn't a form of political expression. If I give $50 to the 'Wont Somebody Please Think of the Children' foundation, I'm essentially saying that I buy into their ideas and want to support a group that is working on pusing those ideas. These groups then attempt to convince politicians to vote the way I want them to, just as opposing groups are trying to influence the same politicians to vote the other way. If such a group can form a powerful lobbying campaign funded by many small donations from equally many freely-acting interests, then I think that's just about as close to the essence of democracy as you can get.
On the other end of the spectrum we can see the bad side of the lobbying issue. A few very large donations funding lobbying efforts that overpower the smaller grass-roots efforts focuses power into the hands of those who have the money to make such contributions. This is the kind of behavior that a good CFR should work against.
If you can accept the above arguments, you have to think about the merit of some of the types of CFR that have been proposed in which campaigns would be entirely (or even partly) financed by the State. To me, this would put the power to fund any individual politican in the hands of the current political groups, and work to eliminate the expression of polical beliefs by average folks as they would otherwise choose to express it through donations. Instead, we'd have a situation where those who control the money would work to change the rules of the game to benifit their side, regardless of the wishes to the people.
I realize that the original post didn't specify that the CFR in question would go so far as to have government-sourced funding only, but that kind of thing has been put forward at times, and I decided to bring it up just to point out that anything called a CFR shouldn't automatically be assumed to be a good thing.
Re:Corruption and democracy (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet that if the politicos bought votes with lines of code, and us geeks wrote programs by arranging bits of green paper, the situation would be very different. (Does that make sense?)
Solution: abolish democracy, become a republic (Score:2)
President: chosen by a vote of confidence by each state legislature. Can serve one 5 year term and must be a military veteran.
Senate: chosen by state legislatures again, can serve up to 3 3 year terms
House of Representatives: chosen at random similar to jury duty from the part of the population of a state never convicted of a felony. Term: 1 year.
Before any bill goes to the President for signing a "Constitutional Court" must read it and vote on its constitutionality. Any act of corruption could be summarily punishable by the US Supreme Court if it makes a constitutionality ruling. Any lobbyist and his/her financial backers found to have been involved would receive the maximum penalty the law provides without any appeal. The message: if you aid and abet government corruption you will be punished VERY severely.
The fundamental flaws in democracy are that (a) it legitimizes any action a politician may take in the eyes of said politician if he/she wins by a strong majority, (b) it gives the majority the illusion that it has any moral authority by sheer fact of being a majority and (c) it establishes a political aristocracy that can't relate to either its working class our bourgeoise constituents if it tried. How many think the DMCA would have been passed if Joe Blow down the street was chosen at random to be the next rep for his district and then was asked to draft a law that would make his little Johnny or Suzy a multiple felon? Hint: it probably wouldn't happen and the lobbyist would probably have gotten a black eye just for asking for such a thing.
I stopped believing in democracy the moment that I realized it's natural conclusion. As Peikoff put it, the face of democracy is the execution of Socrates.
Re:Solution: abolish democracy, become a republic (Score:1)
Re:Solution: abolish democracy, become a republic (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I'd rather live in a country where we're citizens first and soldiers second, not the other way around. While I agree with some of what Heinlein was trying to say in Starship Troopers (not to be confused with the movie of the same name), the idea is to make the citizens value their own right to vote through service to the state (and not necesarily military service), not to create a military junta.
Secondly, the only thing preventing that now are the laws in fifty states that lock the votes of the presidential electors to the popular vote. And nobody involved in the process is interested in changing that. We're taught in schools that democracy is the best choice in all situations (even though it's not), while the politicians benefit from being able to rely on party mechanics to get them into office. The more voters you have to worry about, the more it "helps" to be able to herd the voters into larger and larger groups.
"Senate: chosen by state legislatures again, can serve up to 3 3 year terms"
If the seventeenth amendment were repealed, what's the point in having such short terms or term limits? The idea was that the state legislature could have more direct control over their Senators than, say, a few voters having to remember why they were pissed off six years ago.
"House of Representatives: chosen at random similar to jury duty from the part of the population of a state never convicted of a felony. Term: 1 year."
First off, I don't think anybody would be too keen on having to take a year out of their lives to live in Washington when they weren't planning on it. What if they live in Alaska? Or what about their old jobs?
Secondly, this is one of those cases where democracy is limited enough to be useful (unlimited democracy is about as bad as no democracy at all). The voting body is small enough that individual votes count and two-way communications between the representative adn the constituants are possible.
You know, just because you've been called for jury duty doesn't mean you're automatically on the jury. The prosecutor and defense counsel have to agree that you're fit for the jury. In what you're describing, who would play the role of the opposing lawyers in the House member selection process?
"Before any bill goes to the President for signing a "Constitutional Court" must read it and vote on its constitutionality."
Um... no. That's not how courts work. They don't look at a law and say "can I see any way this might violate the constitution?" They must be presented with a specific case; an example, if you will. Their job is to interpret the law, not to get involved in the law-making process. Doing what you're suggesting would give too much power to the court.
"Any act of corruption could be summarily punishable by the US Supreme Court if it makes a constitutionality ruling."
"Acts of corruption" like, say, impeaching a federal judge? Methinks you're being a little too naive here.
"Any lobbyist and his/her financial backers found to have been involved would receive the maximum penalty the law provides without any appeal."
So, you want to fix over-broad laws that leave room for too many loopholes by... introducing an over-broad law with room for too many loopholes?
The courts are there to decide guilt and punishment on a case-by-case, individual basis. Introducing a blanket law like this will simply be too harsh in some cases and too lenient in others. And we'll be right back where we started.
"The message: if you aid and abet government corruption you will be punished VERY severely."
And in your model, who decides what is corrupt government and what isn't? The government.
"The fundamental flaws in democracy are that (a) it legitimizes any action a politician may take in the eyes of said politician if he/she wins by a strong majority,"
That's what the constitutions and the courts are for. A properly-written constitution prevents the majority from exerting too much control over the individual. The federal constitution is still properly-written, but it's slowly being whittled away over the centuries. Most state constitutions, on the other hand, are not, and usually require a simple majority to amend them.
On the other hand, a government chosen by a democratic process cannot simply ignore the voters, which is liekly to be worse than having too much democracy in this case.
"(b) it gives the majority the illusion that it has any moral authority by sheer fact of being a majority"
Only for extreme sizes of "majority." If the majority is big enough to be treated like a faceless, nameless mass, it needs to be broken down into smaller voting bodies. Problem solved.
"(c) it establishes a political aristocracy that can't relate to either its working class our bourgeoise constituents if it tried."
Again, only for extreme sizes of "majority." The shear number of people voting for a particular federal political office makes true two-way
communications impossible. A democracy with a small enough voting body (say, at the state or local level) allows and even fosters a dialog between the voters and the government.
"How many think the DMCA would have been passed if Joe Blow down the street was chosen at random to be the next rep for his district and then was asked to draft a law that would make his little Johnny or Suzy a multiple felon?"
The DMCA would have had a tougher time passing if the House of Representatives were anywhere near it's constitutionally-mandated maximum size. The more members of the House you have, the fewer voters an individual congressperson needs to please, and the individual's voice becomes more important to the representative. Laws like that get passed because the majority just doesn't care, and having 435 people "represent" nearly 300,000,000 effectively mutes the concerned minority.
"As Peikoff put it, the face of democracy is the execution of Socrates."
There is a solution, and it's been around for 215+ years. It's called the United States Constitution. Your mention of the death of Socrates brings to mind Federalist number 63 [loc.gov]. Been there, done that, problem solved.
Democracy is like radiation therapy for cancer. Too much is just as dangerous as too little, but the proper levels can work wonders.
Please stop screaming it (Score:1)
It would do harm, not good. There are two types of campaign finance reform:
1. Reform where the only limits are on financial donations to political campaigns, and donors can still purchase advertising for candidates or issues themselves. This could be called, "ineffectual reform", or even "counterproductive reform" if it's effect is simply to shut out the voice of people who could previously have pooled their efforts in lobbying groups but who are not wealthy enough to buy a single advertisement.
2. Reform where people are restricted as to what amount or what venues of political speech they can purchase with their own money. This is called "unconstitutional reform", and moreover will simply ensure that elections get decided by the news media instead of by political organizations and other industries.
I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
In that case, I suggest screaming for a different kind of reform, election method reform [electionmethods.org]. Plurality voting is designed to force all voters to pick between two parties, and so ensures that the most important factor in an election is the party apparatus and it's funding. Anyone succeeding in the Democrat or Republican ranks has already been "bought", so if you want candidates who haven't to be electable then we need a fairer way to run elections.
Compaing finance reform is NOT a solution (Score:2)
But replacing it with a dictatorship is hardly a fix. You simply trade a system ran by 50 percent thugs and cronnies to one run by 100 percent thugs and cronnies. A dictatorship is only a "fix" by being able to hide the problems they create (for a while).
Like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others".
(* I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! *)
I don't think it would help much.
First of all, only the rich would be able to run.
Second, the "contributions" move progressively into more and more indirectness. If you ban *all* contributions to politicians, then the influence seekers will simply start funding ads that are favorable to your election positions.
For example, if you are not allowed to give money to the governer nor run ads for the governer, then you simply run ads that support the *policies* that he/she also supports. This will help the governer's re-election.
Elections are a relative thing. Even though supporting policies is not as strong as direct politician support, the other side has the same handicap. Thus, the *relative* influence will remain pretty much the same.
The only way you can ban such policy-supportive ads is to ban free speech by coorporations, and that will NEVER fly in the USA.
By allowing free speech, you allow those who can shout the loudest to speak the most, and those with money can yell louder/more.
However, I would like to try compaign finance reform just to see how it works out. Sometimes you just have to experiment to know what works and what doesn't. I doubt it will work, but realize I might be wrong.
Bookkeeping on paper (Score:1)
maintain their books on paper with teams of accountants, rather than having
one or two staff members keep it all in something like QuickBooks, which
would be much cheaper.
Their rationale? This way, they can correctly state that it would cost a lot
of money to transfer their books into some electronically accessible form.
$$$ has hothing to do with it... (Score:1)
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/376
Permit OK'd after donation to Davis
BAY AREA REFINERY ALLOWED TO INCREASE POLLUTION AFTER MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS, RECORDS
So basically... (Score:2)
How about a lawsuit? (Score:1)
Grab the nearest politician and ask him if money contributed to him/her can buy favors. I imagine the answer will be "no", because that kind of thing is illegal in most countries.
So as a shareholder in a company that makes campaign contributions, can I bring a lawsuit for misappropriation of company funds? After all, they're spending money on something that "can't" increase shareholder value!
Re:How about a lawsuit? (Score:2)
eGray (Score:4, Funny)
When someone finally in lucky enough to come up with one of the few business models that is actually successfully making money on the Internet [egray.org] everyone has to jumb all over it, and make them out to be an evil empire.
Sidenote: I have to hand it to the makers of eGray. Brilliant pastiche guys. Couldn't have better timing today.
I'd come to expect this out of D.C., but... (Score:2)
Man, that's depressing.
We have rights, it is our Duty..... (Score:2)
What is relavant:
law.emory.edu/FEDERAL [emory.edu] specifically the need to create a
Declaration of independance for the new borderless world of virtual
reality and the internet.
(quoting T.D. of I. July 4. 1776)
"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People
to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That
to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses
and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Security.
We all know this can be re-written in accord with the spirit of the above,
perhaps even better, but for the scope of the borderless world of Virtual
Reality and the Internet.
Meaning it is our right, our duty to make them go screw themselves.
If Laws are for sale, then when are we going to get a blue light special,
that we little guys can buy?
Referendum! (Score:1)
Damn that US of A (Score:2)
Re:Damn that US of A (Score:2)
Nobody has ever found a way to make a perfect political system. It is perhaps impossible. (It is probably impossible to define "perfect".) All we can strive to do is incrimentally fix it. Solutions which sound good on paper often create unintended consiquences.
I have heard plenty of horror stories from immagrants from other countries. Checks-and-balances, freedom of political speech, and voting are the bare minimum; but even those will not necessarily fix corruption.
Has anybody else lost all hope yet? (Score:1)
with money.
Our civil liberties are slowly eroding because
of money.
My favorite show is cancelled because of money.
The Internet is getting ruined because of money.
Politicians are bought and sold with money.
Consumers have less choice in the marketplace
because of wait for it............ money.
I'd go on, but I wouldn't want to become a
"person of interest" to anyone.
It feels like the world is slowly turning into
something from a pulp novel. Hopefully one of
those nice drug companies will come up with a
pill that will make us all good consumers, and
blind to what's going on. I'd be the first in
line to test it out.
Trading perks for legislation (Score:1)
Why is this not considered a bribe? An even better question - why are the politicians in question not being prosecuted for it. You'd think stuff like this would be illegal.
When is it going to be enough? (Score:1)
It's just depressing that people have lost so much faith in politics that they just vote for the person with the most ads on TV. Even though those are pretty much guaranteed to be the candidates receiving the most from special interest groups.
I just keep hoping that someday the American people will get fed up, take a stand, and do something about this corruption before it's too late.
DONT VOTE FOR THE MAJOR PARTIES (Score:1)
Or better, start the 'slashdot party'!
I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
Also, what's the big problem here? If you provide a company with information, then AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INDICATE OTHERWISE they have every right to do as they please with that information. If you don't like what they do, guess what--you're free not to deal with that company!
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:2)
Bear that in mind.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
So obviously, that's a problem with government, not businesses.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
Decide what you value more. The one performing the service gets to decide under what terms the service is offered. Same goes for everything else you listed.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
That's a sad state of affairs... The one performing the service and the one receiving the service are supposed to negotiate the terms under which the service is performed. This is how you do business.
Pity nobody remembers this.
Campaign reform: is free speech,remember? (Score:2)
All hail Bush! The Maximum Leader For Life!
Re:Campaign reform: is free speech,remember? (Score:2)
A dedicated Randian would rather shut down and leave instead of pay a bribe or in any other way acknowledge a "looter's" power over them -- because they'll operate only on their own terms and not live for anybody but themselves.
And as for money=speech, it wasn't just these folks that said so, it was stated by none other than the US Supreme Court in _Buckley v. Vallejo_.
Bypass the jerks and have a direct vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps politicians should be required to purchase their own fricken lunches and banned from constituant-backed parties. Then again, such legislation often borders on intrusions into personal freedoms.
BTW, why can't they put that bill up to vote? You only need a million signitures in CA for such. IOW, bypass the greedbags in the state capital by putting it on the ballot as a "proposition", as they are known in CA.
It would be interesting to see what kind of "lobbying" the companies do in TV ads. They have been known to confuse and bomboozle voters also. I remember the Gerymandering compaign where they showed bubbling chemical polutants in the ad when the proposition had just about zilch to due with polution.
privacy bill, part 2 (a dose of reality) (Score:1)
-- Frederich Nietzsche,
"Also Sprach Zarathustra"
Money Rules the WORLD (Score:1)
Specific Campaign Finance Reform Proposal (Score:2)
2) Limit the size of those individual contributions.
3) Prohibit donations of "services" (including advertising). All money and personal volunteering must be supplied by eligible individuals.
In other words, all Senate campaigns would be financed entirely by adult citizens living in the candidate's own district. PACs could only give money collected from citizens within that district. Phone-callers, leaflet hander-outers and other campaign workers would have to live in the district, etc. Outside entities could not sponsor "public service" advertising related to the campaign.
The media restrictions necessary to implement these rules would be attacked as limits on freedom of speech, but they would really be limits on buying air time. Defining freedom of speech as the freedom to buy the most air time is the key hack that has allowed PACs and others to beat the system, turning democracy into a system of legalized bribery. Gigantic sums of money and sophisticated psychological advertising are not what the framers of the Constitution meant by freedom of speech. Scoping campaign finance would allow democracy to function as originally designed, rather than in its present hacked form.
What you can do to prevent this kind of thing... (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
Maybe they haven't really given a shit about fighting for it, but do you really think they can match the financial backing that corporations provide to their lobbyists? Corporations have professional lobbyists whose only job is to prod congresspeople to vote their way. Add to that all the bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions, and you have something that is unfortunately much more powerful than a handful of Joe Sixpacks going in after work to talk to their representatives.
As another poster in this thread said, welcome to the Corporate States of America.
Re:Why don't we get it over with (Score:1)
Because only corporations would be able to buy it.
This [libertarianthought.com] is good reading for anyone interested in the distinctions between "capitalism" and "corporatism".
Re:You people still don't get it, do you ? (Score:1)
I'm sure you're out there tirelessly working against bills like to to hold back these corporations from their creeping encroachments into our personal information. Maybe you can give us some pointers, based on your own personal experience, of what we can do to help.
Unless, of course, you haven't actually done a damn thing except post insightful (albeit anonymous) messages railing against "Corporate Fascist Republic of Amerikkka"