Third Party & Independents: Archives

There are in fact a huge number of laws and regulations (some proper and some highly improper) which limit how money can be funneled into politics.

One thing that the Supreme Court has never done, though, is “define money as speech.” If anything, it sounds like you want them to define speech as money so we can override the First Amendment while saying that we’re doing something else.

Speech is defined as speech. It’s pretty simple. The Constitution is very clear on this point: that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise or abridgement of speech. Unfortunately, they do it all the time—but that’s another story.

Saying that money is not speech is literally true. It’s not. But you abridge speech if you attempt to totally separate the two.

It’s as if the government insisted that while there is freedom of the press, the Constitution says nothing about any freedom to pay journalists, editors, and delivery drivers.

Why, that would be like defining freedom of the press as money, now wouldn’t it?

You’re proposing a very worrisome backdoor for abridging ALL of our Consitutionally protected freedoms. They’ll tell us that we can worship as we wish, run a press, freely congregate, speak out whenever we like. We’re just not allowed to pay for any of it, and if if we do, they’ll step in and shut us down.

David,

Sadly, you’re as right as rain!

I understand that the Senate is nearly tied and very little if anything will get thru the Senate without a lot of “gamesmanship” (re: minimum wage tied to war funding). That’s the way it’s done. I don’t like it and I doubt many of my fellow Americans like it, but that’s the status quo.

But the conduct of the House is downright shameful! We must remember however that our representatives are elected on a state by state basis. I’ve been in and out of the hospital a lot lately and I love to play the “Jay Leno game” of seeing who knows their arse from a hole in the ground.

My version of the game usually begins by someone on the hospital staff expressing concern over my declaration of Agnosticism. Once it quickly transcends beyond religion I begin with a few simple political questions. Easily 80% do not even know the names of their elected national and state representatives. Very few know how often our two senators are up for election, although I’ve been surprised that most do know our Senators names.

Overall I’d guess that 80% of Kansas voters would flunk a grade school history exam, and 90% would flunk a high school civics (or social studies) class. The integrity of our elected officials is our own dang fault. We must self-educate and start to really pay attention.

Not an easy task for someone that’s working and commuting 80+hours a week and still trying to be a responsible part of a family. Pretty darn easy to “dumb down” the electorate. It only takes money.

Kansasdem, I like what you say about the need to self-educate about political issues and leaders.

There is really no substitute for people taking responsibiliy for themselves and (a) not expecting or trusting others to tell them what or how to think, and (b) learning how to figure out for themselves what’s in their own best interests, no matter how much money is invested in trying to tell them the opposite.

A lot of talk about “getting money out of political campaigns” is based on the assumption that people actually know what their own best interests are but will suddenly vote the opposite if they hear too many ads on the radio or television telling them to. There might be some truth to that for some, but codifying laws which prevent people from exposure to information is not an only an insult to the dignity of the electorate but absolutely intrusive and totalitarian.

Loyal Opp, your comment and analogy is completely and utterly wrong. If you can’t see the difference between funding institutions and bribery and blackmail of politicians legally and illegally, then nothing I can say is likely to change your mind.

But, the simple fact is, there is a world of difference between paying taxes to fund government, or investing in corporation or making donations to church or religion, and using financing of a politicians election or reelection as bribery and blackmail to subtly coerce their vote and policy of office.

Lobbying should be speech, making a case for one’s interests and welfare, and that is protected speech available to ALL Americans equally. That is one of the cornerstones of democracy, whether it parliamentarian, republic, or direct democracy.

But, it is quite another thing entirely to establish a lobbying system in which only a small portion of the population have privileged access and coercive persuasive power over politicians by virtue of their wealth and willingness to direct toward or away form a politician depending upon their vote or policy position. That is bribery and blackmail pure and simple, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. And that is the cornerstone of Aristocracy and Plutocracy, not democracy, in which all of the people are to have an equal voice.

You will not likely adopt the truth of this, but, I offer it as counterpoint benefit for other readers.

LO,

“One thing that the Supreme Court has never done, though, is “define money as speech.”

Ever since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886, money has pretty much equaled speech.

It’s that “corporations are people too” thing.

Money talks, lots of money screams.

Kansas Dem, thanks for your comments and perspectives.

I still find amazement at the lack of motivated action by voters at the ever present and obvious disconnect between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The disconnect I refer to is how they use every issue to separate their two camps and the public, often not even on ideological grounds but, on political campaigning principle - and what they were sent to public office to do, which is to find consensus on the most appropriate and responsible solutions to our nation’s problems.

I define the word responsibility as the ability to respond appropriately. A definition alien to a majority in our Congress today.

And I hear you loud and clear on the issue of voter education and political awareness, when our lifestyles and the complexity of our lives make such tremendous demands on so many citizens in hours and effort, just to try to stay in the Middle Class. And being in the Middle Class or above is a huge, huge deal, since, mental and physical health are measurably and empirically improved in the Middle Class compared to that in the lower classes.

D.a.n used to stress Education, Education, Education. He was so right. I just heard yesterday that 3/4 of Detroits public school students who were supposed to graduate from H.S. this year, won’t, because they failed one or more classes. While Detroit is the worst public school system in this latest ranking, the problem is widespread in America.

When the wealthy special interests are able to get the government to help supply more than a half million top performing foreign students in our Colleges and Universities this year, and provide 65,000 H1B visas this year for brains and education from overseas, it is easy to see why their is no national program to vastly improve our public education systems. If the special wealthy interests aren’t clamoring for it, neither will government.

It is sign of the decadence to come in our not so distant future, where the poor and formerly working classes will be left with the remains of a nation ruined by short-term profit and personal gain interests having enjoyed such inordinate lobby power over our politicians. Of course, when this country is ruined, most of those who made their wealth will move on to other countries as Haliburton is now doing by moving to Dubai.

They saw the writing on the wall, so they are packing up their wealth and goodies and moving to a foreign country more accommodating to their influence, products and services.

Rocky, that’s hitting the nail on the head. The super citizens of Animal Farm, who are more equal than all the others, and thus entitled to more voice, more control, and more representation, and more consideration of their concerns than just regular citizens. George Orwell was such a visionary, though few ever really believed we would see his dark visions in our life times. Yet, here we are. Big Brother watching and data mining everyone and the elite buying the choices all others must live by.

David said: “Voting out incumbents, is the only path to restoring democracy to our republic and wresting control of government from the wealthy special interests that have corrupted it throughout. Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID) is the only Political Action Committee dedicated exclusively to this cause and purpose.”

No voting out incumbents does nothing (first let me state we are talking on the federal level, as I know most of what you mean is based on the federal level and not the state or local level).

If you only vote out incumbents you are doing nothing. You are merely replacing them with the same party machinery that is being trained today everywhere. You vote out the incumbents and you get what? Their younger versions of the two party duopoly? The two party duopoly is training (I am the first ever Independent at the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, over twenty years there has been one person the rest are duopolistic) harder than ever, they have their systems set up. They push their future incumbents and future staff around a very well thought out obstacle course too train them. Moreover they are smart, they don’t hire, ever, third party supporters, thus only their little trainees get the experience that is supposedly neccesary.

Voting out incumbents is a sham David, you should be able to see through this. The duopoly is training the next generation, when you vote out the current incumbents they have people in waiting. The answer is too vote out the duopoly. Too never vote for any Democrat or Republican. If they lose all their third party support, than at least a few of us will be elected. And I could care less if it is Libertarians or Greens. As long as it is not the duopoly. They are corrupt, and their trainees are corrupt, don’t be so damn naive. Do you think the younger generation is going to not listen to their bosses when it is going to help their career? Yeah right! Why do you think the nation’s number one school of political management has never had a third party loyalist graduate, I will graduate as the first in May of 2008? Because the duopoly is well set up, they know that through their spoiler system of giving jobs to their supporters they are training the next generation of their own. Woodrow Wilson warned us against setting up a system of spoilers, where party ID and loyalty meant more than skill, and Ralph Nader warned us again. Unfortunately this is the way that the duopoly functions, and to to many are completely blind to it.

David, The fact is The Hill is occupied territory it is owned and operated by the duopoly. And when you try to vote out incumbents for their younger versions you are only getting a prettier younger version.

Nader Raider since 2003
Vote Ralph in 2008

Richard,

No offence pal, but Nader is already 73 years old, and I think he would make a lousy President. His tendency to micro-manage makes Carter look like Reagan.

Nader is a man of great tenacity and vision and I do respect him for that. He has worked tirelessly to make America a better, safer place.
That said, he seems incapable of delegating authority, and the primary job of the President is too get things done. Nader though doesn’t seem to play well with other children.

Richard, America needs a President of Nader’s qualifications, and ideals, but by the same token, America also needs a President with the personality that will bring this country together, not piss people off.
In 1980 Nader expressed the opinion that Reagan was preferable to Carter because of his ability to bring this country together..
What America needs is a President with the brains of Nader, and the personality of Reagan, or even Eisenhower.

Where is that man?
I don’t know.
But if you find him, let me know and I’ll vote for him.

There’s an unconsidered possibility here, one that illustrates the difference between control and influence.

Put simply, can a special interest penalize a candidate for not getting with the program? That’s control, and that’s where the efforts to back off the special interests need to be focused.

What would also help would be a change of attitude from the politicians. Politicians who can keep their own counsel on affairs, who don’t dependably shill for their special interests have power over the interests. Control is a matter of who sets the requirements.

Richard said: “If you only vote out incumbents you are doing nothing. You are merely replacing them with the same party machinery that is being trained today everywhere.”

Sorry, Richard, you just don’t understand the logic or politicians. It is a RARE politician indeed that seeks to be a one term politician. The fact is, many one term politicians cannot pay their debts of getting elected the first time.

So, you are just flat out wrong. First you are wrong in creating the straw man argument that what is advocated is SIMPLY voting out incumbents. If you would read everything I wrote, you will see that the prescription is to vote for challengers to break the hold on incumbents by wealthy interests. Second, the prescription calls for voting, where, they exist, challengers who advocate and campaign for the Campaign Finance Reform issue. As more voters vote out incumbents, continuing what was started in 2006, more and more challengers will step up to the plate advocating for campaign finance reform. And finally, the voting out incumbents prescription calls for holding these challengers to their campaign promise of voting for campaign finance reform or making them a one term politician.

There is no rational nor logical flaw in this strategy. Yes, the current campaign finance system will help elect these challengers. But, if these challengers recognize that their predecessors are predecessors precisely because they favored the wealthy special interests, the challengers will not follow that same path to extinction of their political career.

Stephen, control is also who sets the agenda. The wealthy special interests have far more control of the agenda than the American voters and politicians themselves in too many cases. Illegal immigration is a perfect example and border security are perfect examples where the American people’s desire for reform on these issues waited years before being addressed because of special interests controlling the legislative agenda.

David:

What does a revolution grounded by voting accomplish when the very act of voting is being computerized, hidden, and denied to us?

I’m sorry to steer the subject astray, but since you adamantly push so hard for a revolution at the booth, how, I ask, do we use tools that we cannot master? Where then do we seek a peaceful upheaval while we are equipped only out of allowance by our oppressor?

It ain’t the 60’s anymore David. We should all be prepared for the last resort. Time is not on our side these days, and the nations of the world will, for many years to come, be far less willing to allow us the slack that you count on when it comes to control of our own country. Never again should an inhuman politician like George Bush be entered into our chief office, though they be lined up by the squack-box, awaiting the fruition of their deceptions come november.

I swore allegiance to the flag during a different generation than this, and so did you. I swear no more because I’ve come to terms with being a proud enemy of this country, and I believe that you feel close to the same as I. To play their game is the same as surrendering to the treasonous power of fascism, whether or not that word has any real meaning these days. We need to see the line beyond devotion and love for a country lost, and see the broad path of comfortable temptation that has been paved here where we stand.

V.O.I.D. is not the answer, rather, it is a continuance and an extension of the same losing game — we are checked. We give in, or we turn the table.

I like your energy, David, but you are being far too kind to these traitors, and you know it.

David, you toss words like “bribery” and “blackmail” into the discussion as if those who disagree with your position on this issue are in favor of them, or as if those things are not completely illegal.

The analogy to Orwell and Animal Farm is actually very apt:

The super citizens of Animal Farm, who are more equal than all the others, and thus entitled to more voice, more control, and more representation, and more consideration of their concerns than just regular citizens.

The “super citizens” under the system you’d apparently like to see are the media, who have more power and influence in the US than anybody else. The fact is that the MEDIA sets the agenda in this country.

Getting money out of politics—even if we got ALL money out, every single nickel—would not suddenly result in the “little guy” having a greater say about his own interests. It would merely mean that the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the editorial news boards of the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, Rush Limbaugh, etc would have the microphone all to themselves.

I’ll also add that any time anyone proposes taking away or limiting the freedoms of Americans—rich or poor—they do so in the belief that the ends justify the means and there are larger, more important issues at stake.

In this case, it’s the belief that we can ignore the First Amendment because we think that the wealthy interests have way too much opportunity to buy 30 second spots for their favorite candidates before the channel cuts back to uninterrupted, unregulated programming featuring Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann.

David R. Remer-
In contracts, it’s important what you have in writing. The corporations only have the power and the rights they have because of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that allows them to be treated as legal persons.

Yes, the corporations have been setting agendas, getting what they want. Their control, though, isn’t in the contract. Their control, at the end of the day, is throught us. If it seems like they have control now, we have only ourselves to blame. We’ve been the silent partner in the rise of their power, mostly, of course, by remaining silent. We bought their promises of increased wealth, bought the notion that we could have tax cuts forever and a solvent country. Simply put, it’s not merely the politicians who were bought and paid for in the 80’s and 90’s, but our whole society. There was a bit of a reaction to this in the early nineties, but as the economy experienced the growth of the dawn of the internet age, we laid back and let them further take advantage of us.

Campaign finance reform, and even voting out incumbents is a joke if people don’t become more alert and less materialistic about their approach to government. It also won’t do a damn bit of good if we don’t get off these trains of generalizations. Nothing blinds us easier than the thinking that we can improve things simply by shuffling the pieces on the board.

We got to understand the game, and break it at its crucial points, and failing that make it exhausting for those people to play games with us.

The great blinding lie of this new phase of our civilization, and every phase before it is that now that technology has come along, then we can lay back and take it easy. Truth is, we live by our knowledge and wisdom in this new world more than ever, and we cannot expect to wield our real power over the country as voters if we expect to be able to judge the quality of our candidates without knowing what they are doing.

“It also won’t do a damn bit of good if we don’t get off these trains of generalizations. Nothing blinds us easier than the thinking that we can improve things simply by shuffling the pieces on the board.”

I’ll take that, and seek to correct a generalization. Thanks, Stephen … this ain’t chess. Blood is literally flowing from the veins of our children. That blood is staining the lands of foreign countries which will NEVER be grateful for it. The blood is spilling in the name of coprorate interests — the same of which we speak. I’m not of the mind that revolt will happen overnight, but we should abandon the thought of waiting through endless corrupted election cycles in order for our sovereignty to be restored. It will never happen, because we cannot BUY IT. Not even the sum of all the nonpartisan truth in our country could ever afford a replacement government.

Our target, in my most humble opinion, should be the apathy and complacency that settles wieghtedly atop our anger. It is high time for us to get our heads out of the ball games, talk shows, american idols, and every other such silly distraction, and stand the hell up. We do this, not at the voting booth, which has been bought from under us, but behind the business end of violence. I am very sorry to say that, but I see no alternative other than retaliation on our enemy’s own terms of warfare.

No Border security, American freedoms diminished, sons and daughters sent to war for wealth, open divisiveness, disregard for oath, rejection of justice … what more do we need to set our anger ablaze?

Stephen, the “us vs. the corporations” way of thinking has some validity in certain cases. I don’t discount it entirely, but the way it’s usually framed is extremely reductive and simplistic.

Too often pundits make politics sound like a football game with the big burly corporations on one side of the line and the poor scrawny citizens on the other. But it’s just not like that.

Virtually every citizen’s economic well-being aligns to some degree with the well-being of one or more corporations or special interests. Take Michael Moore. His first big film came out of his anger over layoffs by General Motors. If the American auto industry had remained healthy instead of falling to pieces and running off to Mexico to try and cut labor costs, perhaps he wouldn’t be… well, come to think of it … making millions of dollars in another industry, the entertainement industry.

Even those who work in government are likely to have retirement plans involving publicly traded companies—even when they’re not fully aware of the details.

Another thing is that in most cases (with occasional exceptions), the corporations and their lobbyists are trying to gain the legislative, legal upper hand not on poor defenseless isolated citizens but on other corporations.

Much if not most of the corporate and special
interest money going into politics is about corporations and special interests fighting each other. In America, the line between citizens and corporations is more of a rhetorical line than an actual one. The actual one is extremely blurry, which is another reason I reject the notion that we need to step in and start regulating political speech more than we already do.

When corporations and special interests duke it out, most if not all of us have a dog in the fight. I’m not saying that aren’t exceptions to this, and my only point is that it’s WAY more complicated and nuanced than just “us vs them.”

David:

I am sorry but you are dead wrong. You do not think of the power of the duopoly in your analysis. The way the duoploy works is truly brilliant David, and you don’t even realize it. They have their future lackeys ready. Vote out incumbents and all you get is the new generation of the duopoly. As long as there are only two choices they can control us, because one will be more evil thus we will be forced to vote for the other. You do not recognize at ALL the power of the duopoly. They only allow their own bought and sold younger generation to make it through their own process, yet all others are a lesser cast.

Breaking the duopoly is our task, to hell with incumbents. The only thing that matters is breaking the duopoly. Never vote Democrat, Never vote Republican. Again why do you think our nation’s top school for political consultants has never ever graduated a Independent, yet they will in May of 2008.

Nader Raider Since 2003
Vote Ralph In 2008

Richard, my writings here since 2003 demonstrate clearly my understanding of the two party duopoly. So, your prejudging what I understand and don’t without having researched the issue, speaks for itself.

With Gravel and Ron Paul running in their respective duopoly parties, it is clear your argument is weak, because neither of these candidates tow their party line. So, reality and fact refute your entire argument that the duopoly parties are effective and complete screens against any candidates who won’t play ball on campaign finance reform.

Deal with the reality, not your projections. Money in politics is corrupting. An excellent start at removing the corruption of our political process is to address the disproportionate influence special interest money has. Incumbents are preserving this system. Hence, incumbents must be removed.

Their replacements recognizing they won because the incumbents wouldn’t reform campaign financing, will reform campaign financing. This is how issue politics works when a freshman politician seeks a second term. They will go for the votes. If the voters make it clear their votes require campaign finance reform, that will be the outcome.

But, it will take voters convincing more and more of each other to vote out incumbents until effective campaign finance reform is brought about. No tricks, no easy solutions, just plain hard work and effort by the voters in growing numbers.

“America’s ever dimming future?” Unless we turn to the ever brighter future of green party socialism?

If you diagnose the problem incorrectly how can you possibly cure it? Your description of corruption is animism. Assigning emotions and mystical, even diabolical, power to physical objects is not a basis for sound or rational policy.