Anyone who receives over $100,000/year from the government must wear a propeller beanie when they appear on TV.

I think Max has the lobbying-related bits right. The polling out there shows that a whole lot of voters think both parties are at least equally corrupt. The options then are either to try and prove to the public that the GOP is more corrupt, or admit "hey, the current system is broken; let's propose sweeping changes and not just tinker around the edges". I think the latter is the easier and better way out. Politics is a messy business; if you make the case that you're trying to make sure politicians spend less time politicking and more time making decisions, I think it'll play well.

In addition, I would like to see some sort of Cronyism reduction proposal. Someone (Waxman? Wyden?) has proposed the anti-cronyism and somethingorother act. Some other sort of proposal to make it harder to put political hacks in important positions would probably sell well and might be good policy to boot. 

In the long run, for democracy there are only two things that really matter: eliminate, or at least limit, the ability to gerrymander districts, and eliminate the ability of people like Jeb Bush to purge legitimate voters.

The prevalance of safe districts is at the root of ALL of our current problems.

This is also a problem with a simple slogan: Count Every Vote. 

FOREIGNID: 80890
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10940
AUTHOR: numbertwopencil
DATE: 01/06/2006 12:14:31 AM

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lobbyists.

Seriously, kinda. At least ship them off to Abu Dhabi or something. Have them paint seashells for a living in Belize. Or, Siberia.

OK, I'm being serious now: a simple appraisal of the political climate should suffice for all of us to acknowledge that the first step toward meaningful political reform begins with public awareness. Until our politicians become deathly afraid of voter retaliation, they're too invested in the status quo to get wrapped up in an issue that drains all your political capital and makes you enemies with the broader establishment. That's why amongst the popular names only undefeatables (like McCain) and genuine outsiders (like Nader) have seriously broached the topic lately.

That being said, I think a fairly broad plan can be sold under an anti-abuse/anti corruption label. Make sure the public learns the details of the juiciest scandals over the next few months - FISA, Plame and Abramoff - then win back the house or senate, and package reforms directly related to those issues in one super-bill. A Patriot Act against political sleaze, focusing on lobbyist reform and government secrecy reform. Make it damn near impossible for Abramoff, DeLay, Libby, and Rove to do what they did, and it'll discourage a lot of others who toe the line without crossing it in such blatant fashion. Or at least it'll set the line back and give the honest folk some wiggle room. Use the opportunity to throw in some key reform nuggets (voting paper trails, giving the FEC a mission and some teeth, etc.) and dare the Republicans to vote against it. One in particular I'd like to see: whenever anyone speaks in the House or Senate about a issue affecting a particular industry, make them post a big sign behind their heads listing their top donors from those industries. With dollar amounts. Not incredibly realistic, but I'd love to see that on the evening news. It would be very educational. And it would force politicians to think twice before accepting that bundled million from Exxon execs.

But the key selling point is context. Look ahead at the future of entitlement funding, oil supplies, health care and education costs, debt repayment, increased competition from China and India, the continuous problems in the Middle East, the probability of a major terrorist strike, and so on. We desperately need a responsible and functioning government over the next few decades to get through what looks to be some extremely rough waters. We need to hammer the message of good government home before any of this becomes realistic.

The notion that political donation = free speech and corporation = person must be challenged explicitly to level the playing field.  For example, if political donations from all those associated with a particular corporation cannot exceed individual contributions, we are a lot of the way there.  In a like vein, if we restrict `bundling' as in the Bush pioneer spirit, so that no individual who is not an official representative of a given campaign can solicit contributions outside his/her immediate family, something to that effect.

Also, if possible, legal firewalls need to be set between news organizations and their corporate owners.  

Congress is to overwhelmed, Industry or Special interest will still write the language. Tax deductions is just one perk but the overall profit to be gained is the main goal.  

If you want a real radical idea for extensive political reform, it would be that the Democratic Party  first discover that there is a document, The Constitution of the United States, that they read it, understand it and follow it.  At present we have a man who holds the office of President who thinks of the Constiitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper". 

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml& nbsp;

Our founders knew that men such as those who hold power in the present administration  had destroyed governments and societies in the past and that is why they wrote the Constitution as they did.  The world has seen their kind before.  The Constitution was their reform plan is there is still no better plan. 
  

Well I just thought You were being a little harsh on the Donkeyparty. Obey and Frank indeed have a reform package out (see http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=biJRJ
8OVF&b=593305&ct=1660151 and  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/A
R2005120701892.html )

One poster mentioned our public airwaves. As part of their requirements giving those running for office airtime strikes me as a good idea. Also revive the Fairness Doctrine. Another poster mentioned simplifying the tax code, removing the temptation.  

laughs Monkyboy so has the right idea.

On a more practical level, though, I think we need to get away from the idea that campaigns need to cost tens of millions of dollars.  It's completely undemocratic for a wealthy politician to eschew public funds, buy huge amounts of advertising, and simply out-shout his opponent because he has the financial means to do so.  Congress should set real limits on how much money can be spent in primary and national elections, fund it to the penny, and be done with it.  No private campaign donations of any kind.  No soft money.  Force candidates to take advantage of the kind of free advertising (like televised debates) that emphasizes real knowledge of the issues and downplays the staying power of soundbites and bullshit (ie - Swift Boat Veterans, etc).

In one fell swoop, Congress will have eliminated both the need for large campaign donations and the means to accept them.  It will furthermore have increased the chances of getting a fair campaign run on the issues.  Gerrymandering is a separate issue (though no less important), and as such couldn't realistically be tied to campaign finance without scuttling the whole thing -- Congress won't take away all its power to protect its members simultaneously.

I'm not sure where I read it (it may have been here or at Kevin Drum's), but I like the idea of geographically limiting where a member of Congress can receive money from - no money from outside their own district.

Also, any money or gifts received by a member of Congress must be a matter of public record. An impartisan outside firm could be hired to serve as a clearing house for all donations. All donations should be posted to the internet prior to the politician receiving them - an independent clearing house could make every donation a matter of public record.

Any violation of the new rules should result in that member of congress losing a percentage of their salary. Taking money 'under the table' should be grounds for Congress members to lose their job, period. How many times have we seen people in government 'accept responsibility' for doing something wrong, only to face no consequences for their actions (yes, I'm looking at you, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush!)?

---

I like the idea of limiting how much money can actually be spent in a campaign as well - let's go back to the Equal Time rule, and require broadcast outlets to donate that equal time. All ads should be publicly fact-checked, as a requirement for broadcast stations to keep their licenses. 'Serving the public trust' should again be part and parcel of any TV or radio station's responsibility to their service area with no exceptions.

Sorry for being so wordy on my first post. 

=== Also, any money or gifts received by a member of Congress must be a matter of public record. ===

Or the opposite:  all donations to be blind.  No limit on amount, but the politician never knows who gave the cash.

sPh 

Some ideas

• 
  Make incompetence a capital offence.
  
• 
  Kill all lobbyists, slowly.
  
• 
  Any communication between a member of Congress or staff and any other person (including spouse and family) must be logged and published. Implement appropriate technology.
  
• 
  Make all political donations anonymous through a public trust.
  
• 
  Only physical persons have constitutional rights.
  
• 
  Constitutional amendment: The tax shall not be longer than 5,000 typographic signs. Any form of tax deduction is prohibited. Any recipient of public subsidies must be publicly named.
  

• The problem with having Congress investigate their own ethics has settled into the current stalemate. Eliminate the inherent conflict of interest and move ethics investigations outside of congressional purview, into a public bipartisan comission.
• The problems with election organization and vote counting need to be uniformly addressed. Voters should not be dependent on poorly supervised local bureaucracies to cast their vote. Local-only elections seem to run smoothly...is this real or underreported?
• Seriously increase the penalties for interfering with the election process, especially things like partisan vote-challenging. For that matter, things like Rove's whisper campaigns should probably be Felonies if proved to be the result of a consipiracy.
• Develop and promote uniform procedures for vote recounting. The Florida 2000 problem wasn't unique, and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

i agree that the cost of running for office is far too high...i believe the best reform is simply just simple......air time on tv, radio etc would be free with rules governing how much time etc...and all money contributed is reported publicly...possibly with a cap on spending.....the more transparent, the more honest, with no loopholes for "soft" money and "hard" money...money is money and if you received it, you report it.....i agree that no add ons should be allowed on any bill without everyone's knowledge....as for the "pork".....we all understand our representatives are working for us, our state, etc. so it's no surprise that they try to get what they can, that's the system, but it doesn't have to be so secret....there should be a very open "pork section" on the bill displaying just what it is.....in my opinion, if you were successful in getting something approved for your state or whatever, then you should have the intergrity and leadership (balls) to stand behind it publicly.....

The biggest problem is the amount of money that has to be raised to campaign. Solutions could be:

• Publicly-funded airtime, websites, and informational literature.
• Restrict campaign donations to individuals eligible to vote for the candidate, and to $100 per candidate per election.

Another possibility would be to go back to having normal people in Congress, rather than professional politicians. To do this, a number of things could be done:

• Term limits: two terms for Senators, four for Representatives
• Require all legislators to be bona-fide residents of the districts they represent, i.e., 180 days physical presence per year
• Don't pay legislators a salary, but instead (limited) travel expenses and per diem while Congress is in session.
• Don't allow former legislators to be lobbyists

I think the analysis in Off Center is essentially correct, and for me this means the problem has at least three major layers--the underlying layer of plutocracy that has always dominated our would-be democracy, the interlocking system of components the GOP has consciously constructed to organize plutocratic power against democracy, and Abramoff's playground atop it all, which grew so big so fast because the second layer existed to deny all accountability.

Although I'd dearly love fundamental reforms, it's utterly foolish to attempt them while ignoring the reality of the second layer that the GOP has constructed, since the existing GOP-dominated system will only pass legislation that they can game, and turn into a variation or enhancement of their existing system.

This doesn't mean that reforms shouldn't be proposed. But they should be a rallying cry for the next election. There is nothing more foolish than letting ourselves get snookered into "doing something" for the sake of doing something when the "something" is simply changing the procedures for  business as usual.

With that in mind, I propose:

1. Public financing of elections via the "clean elections" model to help level the electoral playing field with respect to money.  Pay for this with part of the funds generated by reinstating the estate tax.
2. Take all elections at all levels out of the hands of party officials. Institute a non-partisan electoral commission model, similar to that used in many other countries. End the use of private vendors for any election service, including evoting.
3. Reinstate the fairness doctrine to help level the playing field of public debate on the airwaves.
4. 50% tax on all broadcast media advertising by 3rd parties, initiative advocates, etc.--everyone not using public money from the clean elections system.  A similar tax on all mailings not paid for out of clean election money, paid one month in advance. Use money to (a) finance production of  public interest broadcasting [see (6) below], (b) finance local community voter education and outreach, spending the most in communities with the lowest levels of voter participation, (c) pay for franking privileges to help level the playing field in the direct mail arena.
5. Institute proportional representation once efforts under (4)(b) have reduced class and racial bias in voter participation to less than 5%. Reduceby 25% all federal subsidies  (including tax expenditures) to recipients above the median income in all states that have not reached this standard. Use this money instead for additional programs to increase voter participation.
6. Require--as a public interest liscencing condition--a structured framework of broadcast time in the public interest to cover elections via on-air debates, balanced candidate statements & ads (idea: make candidates stand up and represent themselves 3 times for every 1 slick ad they can run).
7. 50% tax on all lobbyist income. Use this to finance a robust system of public-interest lobbying.  Establish a nationwide system of citizen policy juries in all major issue areas to determine   public-interest policy priorities, and draft outlines of model legislation. Require all lobbyist income to be posted to a central database as soon as a contract is signed--and make it a felony to do lobbying work without a contract, so that the reporting obligation won't be casually subverted.

Mark Shields put it well last Friday on the Newshour when summarizing the winners and losers of 2005: "I'm disappointed in the Democrats. They are running ten points ahead of the Republicans in the four major nonpartisan polls held in December for 2006. But I think they missed the chance. I think they missed a golden opportunity. It's still there. But in the midst of this sea of sleaze not to become the reform party, Tom Allen of Maine, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Dave Obey of Wisconsin, and Dave Price of North Carolina, introduced a reform package, a very straightforward reform package, no more room, board and tuition from Jack Abramoff or any other lobbyists, no lobbying by former members on the floor during votes or anything of the sort - I mean, just kind of straightforward things. And the fact that the party has not embraced it and made it its own and become the reform party tells you something that there is something missing there in the Democrats."

I see lot's of good ideas here.  I'd like to see the whole campaign-election period shortened; it's way too long.  If the time period was shortened, candidates wouldn't need as much money.

I like this idea by joejoejoe up there regarding legislation:

1) All legislation must be made public for 72 hours before a final vote so the public can voice an opinion to their elected Rep. or Sen. on the details.

Put the bills out there and allow lots of people to comb through the details.

The voting process needs to be addressed.  Since the trend is toward electronic voting, I want some sort of verifiable ballot.  I absolutely do not trust the computers by themselves.

=== The biggest reform that Democrats could someday, but won't ever, make is a federal statute barring all discriminatory practices against third parties and requiring instant runoff/proportional representation for all federal elected offices except President ===

I have a technical degree and have done a fair amount of work in statistical TQM and engineering probability, and I can't frickin figure out who to vote for when confronted with a proportional representation ballot.  Not without getting out my copes of Arrow and von Neumann and crunching scenarios for a few hours.  Proportional voting just ain't gonna happen, so perhaps it would be better not to push that one?

From another thread:  I would be very very cautious about calls for greater public financing.  You need to think very carefully about how Rove manages to turn every cage put around him inside-out, every obstacle put in front of his candidate into a mirror that reflects on his opponent.  I suspect that he has a plan locked and ready to go to subvert public financing in favor of the Radicals - and the Dems would not be able to counter it because the basis would be their idea.

sPh 

After pondering this subject ("What is the fastest, most effective and direct way of returning the democracy to the people of the United States?") for a couple of campaign cycles now, I've boiled the fix down to 4 things:
1) Abolish corporate personhood - http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/http://www.poclad.org
2) Campaign finance reform - Publicly financed campaigns.http://www.publicampaign.org/http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/index.cfm
3) Paper trails on all voting machinery.http://www.verifiedvoting.org/http://www.blackboxvoting.comhttp://www.votersunite.org/
4) Join your political party's local organization, attend meetings regularly, work to influence the selection of candidates both locally and nationally (run for office yourself!), and remember that those at top of the ticket derive their power from those of us back home.
Any one of these would effect a stunning shift on the balance of power, but all 4 together?  It would be a 2nd American revolution!

A big part of the problem is that lawmaking - particularly regarding the budget - has become so unwieldy that it can be ridiculously easy for special interests to manipulate. So, let's get back to some unsexy but essential reforms that progressive states have shown can really clean up government:

* Budget forecasts developed by a bipartisan commission. No more magic numbers.

* Strict rules that forbid attaching provisions that have nothing to do with the stated intent of a bill (believe it or not, this can be made to work).

* Separate the capital budget from the operating budget, and put them both on a biennial cycle. This would make it harder to hide budgetary sleights of hand.

The thinking behind these reforms is that corruption and government ineffectiveness go hand in hand. We are in dire straits indeed where backwater states have better-run legislative processes than Washington, D.C.

To add to "A-D" above:
We need a multi-pronged approach here as so many issues are intertwined and huge governmental reforms are needed:
*** constitutional balance of power restored:  courts and congress keep the president's power in check
*** voting reform: end of gerrymandering; same day registration; fair access to polls and voting machines; verifiable voting throug a paper trail for every ballot
*** end of interim appointments: unless authorized by judicial process
*** election reform - with candidates held responsible
*** lobbying reform
*** universal healthcare - with possiblity of voter registration at points of healthcare delivery
*** reduction of cronyism, patronage
*** citizen panels to monitor ethics in all branches of government and agencies: members of panels recruited from ethics committees of various professions (I would volunteer)
*** strengthening of free press, free blogosphere - with punishments for accepting bribery to do articles
*** tax hikes - with wealthy bearing more of their fair share
*** military focussed on defense and disaster assistance globally, with reduction in delusional weapons systems, nuclear waepons, biochemical weapons
*** green energy 
*** educational focus which encourages INDEPENDENT THINKING, communal responsiblity, ETHICS, volunteerism
*** legislative process making use of open source assistance through internet communities such as this

Maybe we should just let the justice system play out for a while and then see what a post K Street political world looks like.

Agree, agree, agree. These is a criminal matter, not a policy matter right now. Reform proposals should come after convictions.

I just hope our team up there and out on the campaign trail will make damn sure that the media is browbeaten into submission if something like this happens.  You KNOW that the cons are going to try something like this....the only question is will we make sure that they don't get away with it.....and that means not letting the media in this country get away with glossing over any half-@$$ed proposals as real reform.

Seems to me that ANYTIME a lobbyist meets with a congressperson, it out to be noted and reported, either by the lobbyist or the congressperson, or better yet, both.  This ought to be made public along with all other contribution information.  Same goes for the executive branch....anytime a lobbyist meets with any executive branch agent, it must be reported and noted so that anyone can access the information....instantly.

All donations to any candidate or advocay group lobbying on behalf of an electoral issue in an upcoming election must be made by a registered voter, or at least someone who is eligible to be a registered voter! No corporate money, PERIOD! (The emphasis here is not to restict personal donations, but rather corporate donations. I realize that there should be some mechanism to allow donations to candidates or groups by children, or other persons who are not legally eligible to become a registered voter.)

Of all the good ideas posted here, Media Reform is at the top of my list.  It's just obvious that shrinking the cost of running a political campaign will reduce the level of corruption. The media is "gouging our democracy" while increasing the level of corruption in government.  Wasn't a billion dollars spent in the last presidential election? And didn't most of that enormous sum go towards confusing the voters rather than educating them?  The standard 20 second political spot inevitably presents a dumbed down message.

Media Reform should go beyond the Fairness Doctrine and change the format of political messaging away from the 20 second spot - towards a longer time frame allowing candidates to clearly present political ideas.  Political ideas shouldn't be marketed like drugs and other consumer products. And political programming should be part of media franchise agreements for the use of the commons - the electromagnetic spectrum.

I REALLY like these two.....especially that last one.  More congresspeople, like more doctors (competition, lower costs, etc), would make do wonders to clean up the system.  There is actually no way that a congressperson can "represent" the number of people in their districts right now.  I haven't checked yet but is this something that needs to be done by constitutional amendment??

I was watching Washington Journal this morning on CSpan and learned that when Billy Tauzin (R-LA) left the House and became a lobbyist for Pharma, the way around the legal way around the "grace period" was for ex-congressmen (Tauzin) who are allowed on the floor to glad-hand sitting congressmen, schmooze (not talk about business) and say "So-and-so (my co-lobbyist) will give you a call."
There is always a way to game the system, which is why I'm dead set against nips and tucks in existing legislation.  I knew that McCain-Feingold was a sham and was only passed because oppositional lawmakers realized ways around it.  
There are a few other memes that need to get launched:
1) Equal time provision has got to be reinstated in the FCC rules.
2) The League of Women Voters (or some non-partisan group) has got to retake hosting the Presidential debates.  That really needs to be codified somehow into election law. If candidates refuse to participate under the rules set out for debate, they shouldn't get to bypass those debates and create their own ridiculous format.  If they want debates where they get to negotiate format structure, that can be in addition to the official debates, but not in place of.
3) I would love to see a Special Prosecutor post established, career or opposition-party filled, any time that a President wants to take the nation to war.  An overseer, who has access to any and all information, data, that the Executive has access to.  A professional doubter with the power to test and assess the basis for a President's monumental ability to commit America's resources for decades and generations beyond his term of office.
4) Government service requirements for all citizens.  When you get out of high school, you have to serve time in the military, Peace Corps, Americorps, SOMETHING.  Americans need to be more directly connected to the decisions their elected representatives are making.  We need to have a more direct stake in what these people are doing in our name.  The privatization of our military and government services is neither cost effective or in our best interests.  
5) Elected representatives to Congress should get their housing in D.C. and transportation costs to and from their home districts provided from either or both state and federal revenue.  Each state can purchase a residential dwelling for use by whomever they elect.  It doesn't have to be palatial, but also shouldn't be a dive.  This would encourage more real Americans into the process, relieving some of the financial burden of office-holding. 

I almost forgot,
6) CSpan, House & Senate coverage, has got to be accessible and free for everyone.  
It's insane to me that people can only see their government in action if they pay for cable.  

First all contributions above a certain level, $100.00 should be reported quickly and made public.

All gifts over a certain amount to members of Congress, such a golf trips, meals should be reported by giver.

Television should me made to provide free air time for a period of time prior to primary and general elections.

After reading so many of your comments (some really great ideas), the two biggest stumbling blocks facing us are the Democratic leadership in the House and in the Senate.
Pelosi and Reid have to go.  They <span class="Apple-style-span">are the wrong people for the </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">jobs.  It is absurd that Pelosi can't craft a single position that </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Democrats stand for on the war in Iraq, or how the U.S. should be </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">addressing terror attacks.  It's really not that difficult.  The </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">problem is with the leadership.  Neither Reid nor Pelosi is an </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">alpha</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">,
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">as in wolf packs.  They're barely even betas.  Reid happily enjoys </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">omega status in the Senate.  Even though Democrats are the minority </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">party, the leadership must be </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">alpha</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">.</span&gt

Here's a DRAFT package of reform proposals --would love feedback.

Cut lobbyist influence.

• No free travel for Members of Congress, spouses, or staff.
• Ban all gifts, including free meals, from lobbyists.
• Require lobbyists to disclose all fundraising activities on behalf of candidates.

End money's stranglehold over Washington.

• Public funding for congressional candidates who limit spending.
• Fix the broken presidential public financing system.

Get the foxes out of the Ethics henhouse.

• Create a new independent ethics prosecutor for Congress.
• Strict and serious punishments for breaking congressional rules.
  

Shine a bright light on Congress.

• Members of Congress and staff must disclose all meetings and calls with lobbyists, as well as likely beneficiaries of any official acts. Reporting would include purpose of meeting.
• Require that all reporting -- campaign finance, lobbyist filings, etc. -- be done electronically and on a weekly basis.
  
• Publicly post all legislation on-line at least 48 hours before vote.

The problem with these ideas is that they are all fine concepts, but what specific, actionable things can you do to bring these about? This was the point of my post, what I think we really need to do.

 Saying "Fix the broken electoral system" is just a general pie-in-the-sky concept. But saying "Abolish the electoral college and move to a strict popular-vote system" is something specific and actionable. This is where the focus should be, I think.

The result of elections has been a government of white, wealthy, male lawyers, hardly representative of america, and clearly not working in the interests of the country as a whole.
My idea is to do away with federal elections to congress.  Members of the house could be selected by lottery or some other mechanism of random sampling, thereby ensuring representative government.  The selection of senators could be done by state legislatures, thereby ensuring the interests of the states would be represented in the senate.
I realize this sounds a little retrograde, but ask yourselves, what is so democratic about elections?  especially when the result is the same wealthy, white, male lawyers who have always been there. 
btw, I am a middle class, white, male professional.  I don't want to "serve" in congress, but I think more women, people of color, and working class people in congress would result in a government that represents my interests.

This may have been mentioned already, but government officials peddling influence after they’re out of office is not much more democratic than taking covert bribes while in government. There is a financial incentive for an official to serve in government knowing they can trade on their influence when they are out. The revolving door must be locked shut.

Casting more effective light on Congress:

Aside from the power of money and influence on the votes on major issues, the really ugly special interest Congressional activity is hidden away in opaque provision, earmarks and amendments. You would provide time to read them.  That would be nice.  But it woould be more important and cleansing to obligate the sponsoring member(s)to disclose in writing to the rest of Congress (and public) who any such provision will benefit and how.

=== Members of the house could be selected by lottery or some other mechanism of random sampling, ===

Philip K Dick wrote a number of stories and novels exploring that theme in the 1950s and early 60s (the heyday of von Neuman's game theory).  Well worth finding copies at the library and reading them - he was an odd guy, but with very brilliant insights into how human beings will eventually corrupt any system designed to contain corruption.

sPh 

Noooooooooooooo!

No wonky "reform" proposals, please. Why do progressives always, ALWAYS, fall for this? I guess it's our weakness (and Lord knows the other side has them, too). It's our siren calling out from the political rocks: A chance to talk policy! To propose something! How good that makes us feel! How virtuous!

Unfortunately, the political reality is that if congressional Dems start pushing a "reform" agenda, two things happen: First, the notion that "all of Congress -- not just the Republicans -- need to be cleaned up" gets reinforced; and second, we lose our message on the corruption of power, which is what tends to produce power-changing, or power-equalling elections. 

I know it's just boring to hammer DeLay and Cunningham and friends over and over. We're above that. We want to talk about bigger, cleaner things that are farther from the gutter. But resist, people, resist! We still haven't reached the vast majority of the public on the fact that the current REPUBLICAN leadership is corrupt. We need to keep at that message for at least another six months or more. Don't fall for the "we need a proposal" crap this time! We managed to hold off on Bush's Social Security plan and won a huge victory. Let's not blow this one!

What would stop that entity from then contacting the candidate and telling them "We just donated X dollars."?

The most important reform would be to enforce the second section of the 14th amendment --<span class="Apple-style-span"> But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens (as amended by the 19th) shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.</span&gt

Sounds like a great idea to me. Nothing would keep a private interest  from telling a candidate they gave a big sum, but since everyone could claim they did so (even if they didn't), the claim would be ineffective.

To reform our political system, we have to make campaigning for office less expensive. The need to buy air time is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that can't be ignored.  As long as politicians need money to run for office, people with money will find a way to buy influence.  Trying to control the situation without addressing this problem would be like trying to stop the drug trade without drying up the market for illicit drugs, something we have tried and failed, inspite of spending billions of dollars trying.

Solution:  make it illegal to sell air time for political messages, and at the same time, make ample public radio and TV time available to all candidates for free in the appropriate markets relative to the office.  
This may seem like an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech, but it is no more so than the law against child pornography.  Recall Martin Luther's criticism of selling indulgences:  Money has legitimate uses, but buying salvation offends justice.  Selling air time for political messages is like selling salvation or sex and there is a remedy.  Those who wish to explore this argument would benefit from reading Michael Walzer's "Spheres of Justice."
Implementing this proposal would have an important secondary effect. It would make it possible to address the sorry state of political discourse, marked as it is by evasion, spin and scandalous lies (e.g. the Swift Boat Veterans).  We, the public, should take matters in hand and force politicians to actually confront issues and submit to follow-up questions and bring the spin machine to a quick stop.  The air belongs to the people.  We need to take control of the air waves back and see that they are used in a way to support good government instead of subverting it.  

FOREIGNID: 80992
FOREIGNPARENTID: 80943
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 6165
AUTHOR: Liberty Tree
DATE: 01/06/2006 12:21:25 PM

Congress should set real limits on how much money can be spent in primary and national elections, fund it to the penny, and be done with it.

That's a great idea; unfortunately, the Supremes have consistently ruled mandatory spending limits unconstitutional.

You may think that's ridiculous. I certainly do, but we have to live with it.

The alternative? Voluntary spending limits, as have been adopted in a few states (Maine, Connecticut, and Arizona, as well as judicial races in North Carolina. I'm sure there are others I can't remember at the moment). The basic idea is, if you agree to take no donations and to spend no money of your own, you get access to a reasonable amount of public financing for your campaign. If you agree but your opponent doesn't, and (s)he exceeds your public financing amount, you get a bit more to respond (so you can't easily be outshouted by a Bloomberg, for instance).

This wouldn't solve everything, but it'd be a good start. We'd end up with several Congressmembers who weren't beholden to any special interest in order to get elected. 

Exactly.  And the reason for pooling the money into a lump sum is so that a contributor can't prove he made a contribution by giving an odd sum.

Such a policy would decimate campaign funding, though, because people wouldn't give nearly as much.  But that would be the point, wouldn't it. 

<h1>Josh’s original question “where is the plan” Where are the Democrats?
</h1&gt 
Be careful. Are we really going to give the Republicans another bite at the apple of campaign finance reform?
 
Remember if we get bogged down with making this corruption scandal a priority requiring hearings to create new legislation,  we will not address other priority issues .
 
 Isn’t this what the Republicans want, less government. If we don’t move forward with other issues they get what they want.
 
Bring the full weight of the law, an independent inspection. Not overseen by the ones with things to hide.
 
Could you imagine, that if you were complicit in this corruption and you had the ability to determine what was investigated or what punishment was to be meted out. Would you not CYA?  

Josh,

If you don't know by now, the New York Times wrote an article describing some of the proposed Democratic reforms.

<blockquote>House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to unveil extensive lobbying changes later this month. Like other proposals, they would extend the prohibition on lobbying of Congress by former lawmakers and staff members to two years from one, eliminate floor privileges for former members who are registered lobbyists and put new limits on gifts and Congressional travel. Penalties for violations would be significantly increased.</blockquote>

Personally, I think the former Congress member and staffer lobbying ban should be extended to five years instead of two.  Also, there should be a gift ban -- period -- as Sen. Feingold and Rep. Miller (D-Calif.) have introduced.

 Some other political reforms (this doesn't include voting rights reforms) include independent Congressional redistricting where districts are formed by adjacent entire counties, entire cities if an entire county cannot be included, or entire subdivisions if an entire city cannot be included.  This would make it such that very few Representatives receive 65 percent of the vote unless they are good candidates, poor candidates lose, and the House makeup can dramatically shift in certain years.  Also, we should pass the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" bill -- the gold standard of election reform that has been sitting in Congress for years.  The Allen/Frank/Obey/Price reform bill should be passed.  This is a start.