What do you think of the “Montana Plan” to prohibit state-chartered corporations from spending money on political campaigns? Seems like a simple yet elegant solution for a significant portion of the problem.
Thanks for introducing us to it - hadn't heard of it. At first glance I like it.. however, it does seem vulnerable to arguments that would find it unconstitutional. Beyond the Disclose Act, I really like the For Our Freedom Amendment, which has gained more and more traction. We're up for all of the above!
I fully support such efforts at transparency of donation.
Even with transparency, it would rarely make any difference, because the people being influenced by such spending will rarely bother to learn who actually spent how much, or why, and even then the donors would commonly lie about their reasons. Why do I care if it was 'Steve Win' vs 'Bob Job' who donated? Will I try to figure out which companies they own shares of so I could boycott them? Really, I will not.
We have major problems which will 'soon' explode such that even the rich will not be happy. But sadly they have proven they do not care, nor have the focus to try and solve the real problems, so they focus on gathering more wealth to protect them from the impeding collapse. They can not remain as our de-facto decision makers. They are not competent and they do not really care about all the rest of us.
I also support getting rid of the idea that rich people have more 'speech' than anyone else.
Free speech should be about 'ideas' being spread about, among the people so they may consider and debate, discovering the path they want. Instead we are drowning in the firehose of the wealth spent to protect wealth. It becomes all about 'persuasion techniques' as apposed to enabling a useful debate by providing facts, with context.
Yes, the rich can buy airtime, but they also buy the media or become rich by creating media. Either way, and possibly even with 'good intentions' (though I remain skeptical) the rich own the messengers. If they disagree, they are replaced by people who will try to stay within the 'policies and values' of the owner.
There is a difficult, but essential solution set.
Get money out of politics, including third parties such as PACS or specific rich people just funding messages. Including blocking self funding (why should rich candidates have an advantage in our politics?)
Force the sell off of all Media Companies over a certain size to become 'publicly traded' with audited limits on how much any person can own. Sure, their brand may still be biased, but the employees will be motivated more by market share and advertisers, as opposed to management bias. Companies may be more motivated to buy ads on shows with popular hosts talking about popular ideas.
In addition, the 'Algorithms' in social media need to be modified to benefit the society as a whole and not just the profit margins of the companies involved.
Make LYING about politics or politicians illegal. Sure, you can still call them names, but don't lie when you do it. This will apply to the politicians themselves as well. Can manage this with mandatory delays in broadcasts with on-screen corrections, and lawsuits. Each lie starts with a $1 fee, which doubles each time the lie is repeated. For instance, with all the times Trump has stated that he won the 2020 election, there isn't enough money in the world to pay what he would owe. Other rules to cause doubling for excessive lies. Point is to call out, but tolerate occasional exaggerations, while punishing a deliberate strategy of lying.
Politicians need to be REQUIRED to divest (includes their close family as well) of their wealth, having it converted into general funds they have no control over, and no option to play in the 'markets'.
Get the politics out of the Courts, and enforce isolation from the generosity of the wealthy, enforcing the ethics rules for all judges/justices. One way would be to have each regional district select one judge to sit on SCOTUS, the position to rotate every so many years. Remove Judges more easily for violations of oaths and ethics, as clearly required by a plain reading of the Constitution. Require any and all questions of historical intent of the laws or constitution to be settled in trial with a jury in a lower court, with actual credentialed historians, or people who were actually there (in the case of laws especially) acting as expert witnesses. Recognizing there would be a 'healing time', correcting decisions that were fundamentally flawed.
What do you think of the “Montana Plan” to prohibit state-chartered corporations from spending money on political campaigns? Seems like a simple yet elegant solution for a significant portion of the problem.
Thanks for introducing us to it - hadn't heard of it. At first glance I like it.. however, it does seem vulnerable to arguments that would find it unconstitutional. Beyond the Disclose Act, I really like the For Our Freedom Amendment, which has gained more and more traction. We're up for all of the above!
I suggest what most every American agrees on is that the rich are not the ones who should be running everything.
I fully support such efforts at transparency of donation.
Even with transparency, it would rarely make any difference, because the people being influenced by such spending will rarely bother to learn who actually spent how much, or why, and even then the donors would commonly lie about their reasons. Why do I care if it was 'Steve Win' vs 'Bob Job' who donated? Will I try to figure out which companies they own shares of so I could boycott them? Really, I will not.
We have major problems which will 'soon' explode such that even the rich will not be happy. But sadly they have proven they do not care, nor have the focus to try and solve the real problems, so they focus on gathering more wealth to protect them from the impeding collapse. They can not remain as our de-facto decision makers. They are not competent and they do not really care about all the rest of us.
I also support getting rid of the idea that rich people have more 'speech' than anyone else.
Free speech should be about 'ideas' being spread about, among the people so they may consider and debate, discovering the path they want. Instead we are drowning in the firehose of the wealth spent to protect wealth. It becomes all about 'persuasion techniques' as apposed to enabling a useful debate by providing facts, with context.
Yes, the rich can buy airtime, but they also buy the media or become rich by creating media. Either way, and possibly even with 'good intentions' (though I remain skeptical) the rich own the messengers. If they disagree, they are replaced by people who will try to stay within the 'policies and values' of the owner.
There is a difficult, but essential solution set.
Get money out of politics, including third parties such as PACS or specific rich people just funding messages. Including blocking self funding (why should rich candidates have an advantage in our politics?)
Force the sell off of all Media Companies over a certain size to become 'publicly traded' with audited limits on how much any person can own. Sure, their brand may still be biased, but the employees will be motivated more by market share and advertisers, as opposed to management bias. Companies may be more motivated to buy ads on shows with popular hosts talking about popular ideas.
In addition, the 'Algorithms' in social media need to be modified to benefit the society as a whole and not just the profit margins of the companies involved.
Make LYING about politics or politicians illegal. Sure, you can still call them names, but don't lie when you do it. This will apply to the politicians themselves as well. Can manage this with mandatory delays in broadcasts with on-screen corrections, and lawsuits. Each lie starts with a $1 fee, which doubles each time the lie is repeated. For instance, with all the times Trump has stated that he won the 2020 election, there isn't enough money in the world to pay what he would owe. Other rules to cause doubling for excessive lies. Point is to call out, but tolerate occasional exaggerations, while punishing a deliberate strategy of lying.
Politicians need to be REQUIRED to divest (includes their close family as well) of their wealth, having it converted into general funds they have no control over, and no option to play in the 'markets'.
Get the politics out of the Courts, and enforce isolation from the generosity of the wealthy, enforcing the ethics rules for all judges/justices. One way would be to have each regional district select one judge to sit on SCOTUS, the position to rotate every so many years. Remove Judges more easily for violations of oaths and ethics, as clearly required by a plain reading of the Constitution. Require any and all questions of historical intent of the laws or constitution to be settled in trial with a jury in a lower court, with actual credentialed historians, or people who were actually there (in the case of laws especially) acting as expert witnesses. Recognizing there would be a 'healing time', correcting decisions that were fundamentally flawed.