What's your idea, your proposal for political reform? Not a whole piece of legislation with bells and whistles. But tell us a concrete idea or two that would help clean up Washington.
Anyone who receives over $100,000/year from the government must wear a propeller beanie when they appear on TV.
I feel like this suggestion is too heavy on symbolism.
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.
I think if PACs were banned, a set amount of airtime per candidate(it IS the public airwaves,right?) and taxpayer funding for campaigns would solve most of the issues in this Jack (Abram)off mess..
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.
It is difficult to come up with ideas partly because the existing laws were broken. Perhaps it is just as much the fault of the people involved as it is the system. Also I don’t really know what existing laws are in place the more so since they were flagrantly ignored but here goes anyway.
The only concrete thing I can come up with is to do away with lobbying altogether. I think that would go a long way in preventing special interests from wielding too much power.
I think this could be true because congress could pass legislation until they were blue in the face but guys like Abramoff would eventually find a way around it or just plain ignore them just as they have ignored any existing laws.
Some might argue that there is some value in lobbying and though that may be so it would seem any positive attribute of lobbying is far outweighed by the obvious negative impact it has had not only on our government but on the quality of life for Americans as well.
If we cannot control lobbying then let’s get rid of it altogether.
"the ability to gerrymander districts, and eliminate the ability of people like Jeb Bush to purge legitimate voters."
I agree except the "people like" statement. I don't want anyone stealing votes and cheating the true results. I know it was just a misstatement, but we all have to be careful about language when it's this charged. IMHO
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.
Enforce the Law Evidently the punishment is not a deterent China takes the corrupt politicians and executes them Eliminate the possibility of Presidential pardons, amnesty to those who assist in in rooting out this cancer on our governace Preempt President Bush, directly ask him not to pardon.See how determined he is to address this problem
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.
Get rid of "special interest" tax deductions/loopholes, and Corporate America has far fewer reasons to lobby politicians.
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.
The recently deceased William Proxmire was a reassuring voice in the wilderness from 1975 to 1988, with his Golden Fleece Awards. The function of this much anticipated, monthly announcement was to expose inane and/or extravagant pork barrel expenditures within the federal budget, and to embarrass those who sought to advance such schemes.
It was Capraesque in its idealistic simplicity, and remarkably effective in bringing some of the seamier methods and tactics of Washington insiders to the attention of the American public. In the end however, it was little more than a gimmick. It got lots of laughs; it saved a fair sum of money, and it successfully thwarted many instances of blatantly “off the reservation” egregiousness. But Proxmire’s one-man crusade never really posed a serious threat to the enduring culture of flagrant profligacy in Washington that has, of late, enjoyed a period of florescence unseen since Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920’s.
The imbroglio that brought down the Harding administration is widely regarded as a precursor to the Great Depression—the advent of which might explain why an outraged electorate did not rise up and insist upon drastic reforms to the status quo.
What America needed then, and needs now, is an ombudsman—a constitutionally ordained and protected, independent federal office that would be responsible for evaluating the federal budget on behalf of the people.
It would be akin to the Federal Reserve System, with both centralized and regional offices responsible for monitoring, appraising and reporting on the budgetary process before it becomes a fait accompli as is typically the case in the current system, in which “bridge to nowhere” projects are concealed in impenetrable, omnibus monstrosities that are passed by secret cabal under cover of darkness.
This Board of Federal Ombudsman (or, “Ombudspersons,” if we must) would consist of seven principle members, each nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a 14 year term. A chairman would preside over the central committee, and sub-committees would convene to contemplate regional and industry-specific matters.
Each year, before the Federal Budget is put to a vote in Congress, the Board would issue an advisory, which would be parsed by the media and widely discussed.
If it works out with the budget, perhaps the Ombudsfolk’s powers could be expanded to oversee the entire legislative process, so as to explain the actuality behind No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies and Patriot Acts.
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".
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.
Logos. Every speech, every mail out, every campaign commerical should display the logo of the sponsor that is paying for the politician.
This immediate focus on lobbying "reform" has the odd effect of suggesting that Jack was just forced to do it, that everybody is a little dirty and he just got carried away.
No, no, no. The K Street Project taken in its entirety was a criminal enterprise and needs to be taken down by law enforcement for the protection racket it was. Threatening companies who hired Democrats, insisting that specific companies hire specific Republican lobbyists who then were expected to kick back specific amounts to the Party, throwing five figure no-show contracts to Congressmen's wives, immediately hiring Congressional staffers into six figure lobbying jobs, much or all of this is illegal under current law and needs to be prosecuted as such.
Sure there is plenty of 'wink, wink, nod, nod' in the relation between campaign donations and legislation but it is not easy to separate cause and effect. I donate to people I am pretty sure will vote my way but I don't confuse correlation with causation.
Some people worry Democrats won't get a sufficient bump out of this, I don't, because one I think we will, two taking down Tom Delay is a cupcake all unto itself, the rest can be seen as frosting, and what is a repeat of point two, the dismantlement of the specific mechanics of the K Street Project is a huge fundraising boost for the Democratic Party, if only because Tom Delay will not easily be able to extort future Microsofts into giving future Ralph Reed a $500,000 lobbying contract (true example - and neither Microsoft or Reed has given a convincing explanation of what value MS got for that money) from which he will be explicitly expected to kick money back to the Party.
The real story here is that the Republican Party leadership found a way to directly extract money from government contracts and from corporations and in the process finance lavish lifestyles for themselves. This is Tyco and Enron territory and should not be confused with the low level influence peddling that is the current campaign finance system. We can take care of that by just bypassing the central party campaign funds and giving direct.
Delay and company (and I do mean company) found a brazen way to do an end-run on McCain-Feingold. And are in the process of getting burned for it. 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.
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.
publicly funded elections
free air time for candidates with tax write off for corp.
one person = one vote
demand paper trails on all voting machines
count ALL votes
money is not free speech
constitution applies to people not things or corporate entities. If it can't have a colonoscopy, it has no constitutional rights. (Randi Rhodes)
There's so many good ideas in this thread. Here's some of my own:
- Propose non-partisan commissions for goerrymandering of districts. There should be some sense to the district maps, and not to protect incumbents. I think Democrats could get ahead of this issue in states they control.
- Lobbying restricitions. I'm not sure what should be proposed here, but some restrictions should be. Also enforce the law with regards to staffers lobbying their former bosses.
- Bill-writing reforms. Some kind of "truth in laws" reform where things can't be hidden in the bill.
- Make rules that the bill must be ready at least 48 hours before voting on it. Post the proposed bills on the internet so citizens can read it and make calls to their representatives on the bills.
- Enforce the rules that the vote can't be held open longer than 15 minutes.
- Get rid of this "ethics truce" in Congress. It's killing us.
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.
David Price (NC-4) is also a co-writer and sponsor, as is Tom Allen of Maine. Unfortunately, the leadership han't picked up the ball yet.
In my opnion, the best part of that legislation is minimum time requirements for a bill to be publicly availble before a vote is scheduled, and the sunshine provisions for House-Senate conference votes.
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.
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.
2) Congress will be in session for 180 days per year. No more 2 1/2 day work weeks in the House. Get off the golf course, stay off the rubber chicken circuit and get into committee hearings. It's your job.
3) No provision not agreed upon in committee in either the House or Senate can be added to a reconciliation (no virgin births).
Lobbying rules will be always be circumvented. But Legislative rules address the problem from the other end - you can't slip pork and favors into bills with people watching.
=== 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
Fixing the structural problems, i.e. politicians engaging in self-interested redistricting, and being beholden to anyone with fistfuls of cash is necessary, but not sufficient. The crucial thing to work toward is an electorate that possesses critical thinking skills. I still can't get over the notion that South Dakotans chose to elect a Republican with no seniority rather than to retain the Senate Minority leader. We have been on this "dumbed down" slippery slope since the days of "read my lips, no new taxes." Only when legislators know that they will have to answer to an electorate that can't be snowed by some vague, empty, meaningless rhetoric and that they will be held accountable will we start to see any real change.
Most of my ideas have already been posted. A few have been implied but not so specifically stated, so here are some more:
1) Revolving door laws like those from Kerry 04 campaign. I don't remember his exact proposals, but the jist of them was: (a) there must be a grace period between when a congressperson can become a lobbyist and (b) lobby reporting must be done faster. I know the Houston city council has similar laws. 2) Barack Obama's election tampering proposal. This was up on the Common Cause web page a while ago. 3) Earmark reform. I went to an earmark proposal meeting, and afterwards I went home and took a shower. In general the nation would be much better served if this stuff went through an agency process instead of involving lobbying a congressperson. 4) Fair and open bidding on contracts. Serveral cities (I think Phoenix) has saved lots of money. Furthermore, any awarded proposal that does not include national security information should be made publicly available. Not only would this allow the public to see how it's money is spent, but it would also help other contractors to write better proposals.
1. publicly funded elections (or clean elections along the lines of state elections in Arizona);
2. former elected officials and members of the executive branch cannot work for any firm that lobbies for 3 years after leaving their government job.
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.
Campaign finance reform: 1. You must be a US citizen to donate money (no Businesses, non profits,Pacs etc.) 2. you can only donate if the race affects you. (IE-If I live in NY I can't donate to California race). 3. Donate all you want.
One problem with reform efforts will be to make proposals that apply to both parties. Republicans have managed to sell some of their abuses to the public as attempts to address abuses by the Democrats.
Any attempt to truly reform the political environment (campaign spending reform, lobbying reform, political patronage reform, etc.) should be party neutral. Unlike the Republican partisans of 10-20 years ago, today's talking heads will immediately jump on any reform proposals that provide an advantage to Democrats or only harm Republicans.
This is, of course, exactly how the Republican leadership has been running things. Anything proposed as 'reform' by the neocon crowd has typically been a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate a source of advantage for Democrats.
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.
While it is easy to spot and be outraged by current abuses, the reform process needs to be about honesty and fairness instead of punishing the successful. Remember that the neocons moved into power by selling the idea (true or not) that the Democrats had kept control of Congress by cheating. I expect that any serious reform proposals will be subjected to the same kinds of accusations.
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.e. a political antitrust act. More real competition reduces corruption by lowering the reliability of a long-term payoff, while also providing meaningful choices for more voters across the board.
Practical example. Right now Tom DeLay is facing an independent conservative challenger for his seat, but that challenger is spending money overcoming ballot access hurdles and will have a hard sell to many voters that he is not a spoiler. Removal of ballot access barriers (i.e. costs) and instant runoff (chance of winning by avoiding spoiler factor) would make DeLay face a real challenge. He may still, but only because DeLay is under indictment and may have to vote by absentee ballot from a jail cell himself.
Why are price-fixing, artificial entry barriers, market allocation conspiracies, bid rigging, etc., bad for Baskin Robbins and Pepsi and Sears but "good" for political parties? Jack Abramoff knows why; he made literally millions relying on a lack of political competition for his bought and paid-for hacks. The only losers under instant runoff elections and liberalized ballot access laws are lazy and corrupt incumbents like Tom DeLay.
Money corrupts. Why do the politicians need SO much money? Much of it goes to buy ads our OUR airwaves. So first we need media reform. (1) Change FCC rules to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and require much more FREE time for politicians to get their messages to the people in election years. (2) End Corporate Personhood. Corporations are not people, and should not have "human" rights. Corporations are formed to shield businesses from personal liability, so they shouldn't have personhood rights. See RECLAIM DEMOCRACY and POCLAD. (3) We are supposedly the employers of our elected representatives and their appointed staff. So like other employers, we should have the right to monitor their workplace to be sure they are doing the job they were hired for. Put cameras in all their offices and keep track DAILY of who they meet with, who they call, etc. (4) Create a new C.I.A. - a Citizens Intelligence Agency to balance government's intrusion on OUR privacy with our ability to keep track of what our representatives are doing in our name.
(5) As mentioned above, require a minimum time - 72 hours or more - between the posting of any bill online before it can be voted on - and allow no last minute changes without another public posting period.
(6) No unrelated amendments. Or give line item veto - the ability to vote for the portion of the bill you support and vote against the parts you do not support.
Back when the House Bank was the biggest fuss the GOP could find to make a scandal out of, members of both parties were equally "guilty", and more than half of the members of the House were involved.
As best I could tell, there wasn't really even any scandal behind the fuss, aside from a few congressmen who abused the privledge. The bank operated, essentially, with reserve credit, just like the bank accounts for most anyone else who checks the appropriate box when opening a checking account.
The fact that there wasn't much of a scandal to begin with, and that GOP house members were guilty in proportion to their number of reps didn't stop the GOP from turning that into a major factor in the 1994 election.
I don't know how the House Bank was used in individual contests; probably the GOP made use of it. At the national level, I recall it being more of a "we've got to reform this corrupt system that the Democrats support" thing rather than a "we've got to toss those theiving Democrats who bounce checks out of office" thing.
Maybe someone has better recollection of how the House Bank scandal was used by the GOP than I. But a couple lessons that I think might be learned might be:
Blow the scandal out of proportion. Propose a really simple solution. Don't worry about the fact that members of your own party were equally culpable, but do continue to blame the other party for the culture of corruption.
Meanwhile, if bouncing checks for $100 for lack of sufficient funds is a scandal, what is it when you bounce checks for $500 Billion a year?
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.....
Anyone who receives over $100,000/year from the government must wear a propeller beanie when they appear on TV.
January 5, 2006 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like this suggestion is too heavy on symbolism.
January 5, 2006 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 5, 2006 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if PACs were banned, a set amount of airtime per candidate(it IS the public airwaves,right?) and taxpayer funding for campaigns would solve most of the issues in this Jack (Abram)off mess..
January 5, 2006 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is difficult to come up with ideas partly because the existing laws were broken. Perhaps it is just as much the fault of the people involved as it is the system. Also I don’t really know what existing laws are in place the more so since they were flagrantly ignored but here goes anyway.
The only concrete thing I can come up with is to do away with lobbying altogether. I think that would go a long way in preventing special interests from wielding too much power.
I think this could be true because congress could pass legislation until they were blue in the face but guys like Abramoff would eventually find a way around it or just plain ignore them just as they have ignored any existing laws.
Some might argue that there is some value in lobbying and though that may be so it would seem any positive attribute of lobbying is far outweighed by the obvious negative impact it has had not only on our government but on the quality of life for Americans as well.
If we cannot control lobbying then let’s get rid of it altogether.
January 6, 2006 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 80890
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10940
AUTHOR: numbertwopencil
DATE: 01/06/2006 12:14:31 AM
January 6, 2006 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the ability to gerrymander districts, and eliminate the ability of people like Jeb Bush to purge legitimate voters."
I agree except the "people like" statement. I don't want anyone stealing votes and cheating the true results. I know it was just a misstatement, but we all have to be careful about language when it's this charged. IMHO
January 6, 2006 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently the punishment is not a deterent
China takes the corrupt politicians and executes them
Eliminate the possibility of Presidential pardons, amnesty to those who assist in in rooting out this cancer on our governace Preempt President Bush, directly ask him not to pardon.See how determined he is to address this problem
January 6, 2006 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get rid of "special interest" tax deductions/loopholes, and Corporate America has far fewer reasons to lobby politicians.
January 6, 2006 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was Capraesque in its idealistic simplicity, and remarkably effective in bringing some of the seamier methods and tactics of Washington insiders to the attention of the American public. In the end however, it was little more than a gimmick. It got lots of laughs; it saved a fair sum of money, and it successfully thwarted many instances of blatantly “off the reservation” egregiousness. But Proxmire’s one-man crusade never really posed a serious threat to the enduring culture of flagrant profligacy in Washington that has, of late, enjoyed a period of florescence unseen since Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920’s.
The imbroglio that brought down the Harding administration is widely regarded as a precursor to the Great Depression—the advent of which might explain why an outraged electorate did not rise up and insist upon drastic reforms to the status quo.
What America needed then, and needs now, is an ombudsman—a constitutionally ordained and protected, independent federal office that would be responsible for evaluating the federal budget on behalf of the people.
It would be akin to the Federal Reserve System, with both centralized and regional offices responsible for monitoring, appraising and reporting on the budgetary process before it becomes a fait accompli as is typically the case in the current system, in which “bridge to nowhere” projects are concealed in impenetrable, omnibus monstrosities that are passed by secret cabal under cover of darkness.
This Board of Federal Ombudsman (or, “Ombudspersons,” if we must) would consist of seven principle members, each nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a 14 year term. A chairman would preside over the central committee, and sub-committees would convene to contemplate regional and industry-specific matters.
Each year, before the Federal Budget is put to a vote in Congress, the Board would issue an advisory, which would be parsed by the media and widely discussed.
If it works out with the budget, perhaps the Ombudsfolk’s powers could be expanded to oversee the entire legislative process, so as to explain the actuality behind No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies and Patriot Acts.
January 6, 2006 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Logos. Every speech, every mail out, every campaign commerical should display the logo of the sponsor that is paying for the politician.
January 6, 2006 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
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 )
January 6, 2006 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This immediate focus on lobbying "reform" has the odd effect of suggesting that Jack was just forced to do it, that everybody is a little dirty and he just got carried away.
No, no, no. The K Street Project taken in its entirety was a criminal enterprise and needs to be taken down by law enforcement for the protection racket it was. Threatening companies who hired Democrats, insisting that specific companies hire specific Republican lobbyists who then were expected to kick back specific amounts to the Party, throwing five figure no-show contracts to Congressmen's wives, immediately hiring Congressional staffers into six figure lobbying jobs, much or all of this is illegal under current law and needs to be prosecuted as such.
Sure there is plenty of 'wink, wink, nod, nod' in the relation between campaign donations and legislation but it is not easy to separate cause and effect. I donate to people I am pretty sure will vote my way but I don't confuse correlation with causation.
Some people worry Democrats won't get a sufficient bump out of this, I don't, because one I think we will, two taking down Tom Delay is a cupcake all unto itself, the rest can be seen as frosting, and what is a repeat of point two, the dismantlement of the specific mechanics of the K Street Project is a huge fundraising boost for the Democratic Party, if only because Tom Delay will not easily be able to extort future Microsofts into giving future Ralph Reed a $500,000 lobbying contract (true example - and neither Microsoft or Reed has given a convincing explanation of what value MS got for that money) from which he will be explicitly expected to kick money back to the Party.
The real story here is that the Republican Party leadership found a way to directly extract money from government contracts and from corporations and in the process finance lavish lifestyles for themselves. This is Tyco and Enron territory and should not be confused with the low level influence peddling that is the current campaign finance system. We can take care of that by just bypassing the central party campaign funds and giving direct.
Delay and company (and I do mean company) found a brazen way to do an end-run on McCain-Feingold. And are in the process of getting burned for it. 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.
January 6, 2006 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 6, 2006 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 6, 2006 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's so many good ideas in this thread. Here's some of my own:
- Propose non-partisan commissions for goerrymandering of districts. There should be some sense to the district maps, and not to protect incumbents. I think Democrats could get ahead of this issue in states they control.
- Lobbying restricitions. I'm not sure what should be proposed here, but some restrictions should be. Also enforce the law with regards to staffers lobbying their former bosses.
- Bill-writing reforms. Some kind of "truth in laws" reform where things can't be hidden in the bill.
- Make rules that the bill must be ready at least 48 hours before voting on it. Post the proposed bills on the internet so citizens can read it and make calls to their representatives on the bills.
- Enforce the rules that the vote can't be held open longer than 15 minutes.
- Get rid of this "ethics truce" in Congress. It's killing us.
January 6, 2006 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Price (NC-4) is also a co-writer and sponsor, as is Tom Allen of Maine. Unfortunately, the leadership han't picked up the ball yet.
In my opnion, the best part of that legislation is minimum time requirements for a bill to be publicly availble before a vote is scheduled, and the sunshine provisions for House-Senate conference votes.
January 6, 2006 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbying rules will be always be circumvented. But Legislative rules address the problem from the other end - you can't slip pork and favors into bills with people watching.
January 6, 2006 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the opposite: all donations to be blind. No limit on amount, but the politician never knows who gave the cash.
sPh
January 6, 2006 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fixing the structural problems, i.e. politicians engaging in self-interested redistricting, and being beholden to anyone with fistfuls of cash is necessary, but not sufficient. The crucial thing to work toward is an electorate that possesses critical thinking skills. I still can't get over the notion that South Dakotans chose to elect a Republican with no seniority rather than to retain the Senate Minority leader. We have been on this "dumbed down" slippery slope since the days of "read my lips, no new taxes." Only when legislators know that they will have to answer to an electorate that can't be snowed by some vague, empty, meaningless rhetoric and that they will be held accountable will we start to see any real change.
January 6, 2006 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Revolving door laws like those from Kerry 04 campaign. I don't remember his exact proposals, but the jist of them was: (a) there must be a grace period between when a congressperson can become a lobbyist and (b) lobby reporting must be done faster. I know the Houston city council has similar laws.
2) Barack Obama's election tampering proposal. This was up on the Common Cause web page a while ago.
3) Earmark reform. I went to an earmark proposal meeting, and afterwards I went home and took a shower. In general the nation would be much better served if this stuff went through an agency process instead of involving lobbying a congressperson.
4) Fair and open bidding on contracts. Serveral cities (I think Phoenix) has saved lots of money. Furthermore, any awarded proposal that does not include national security information should be made publicly available. Not only would this allow the public to see how it's money is spent, but it would also help other contractors to write better proposals.
January 6, 2006 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. publicly funded elections (or clean elections along the lines of state elections in Arizona);
2. former elected officials and members of the executive branch cannot work for any firm that lobbies for 3 years after leaving their government job.
January 6, 2006 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 6, 2006 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. You must be a US citizen to donate money (no Businesses, non profits,Pacs etc.)
2. you can only donate if the race affects you. (IE-If I live in NY I can't donate to California race).
3. Donate all you want.
January 6, 2006 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any attempt to truly reform the political environment (campaign spending reform, lobbying reform, political patronage reform, etc.) should be party neutral. Unlike the Republican partisans of 10-20 years ago, today's talking heads will immediately jump on any reform proposals that provide an advantage to Democrats or only harm Republicans.
This is, of course, exactly how the Republican leadership has been running things. Anything proposed as 'reform' by the neocon crowd has typically been a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate a source of advantage for Democrats.
- 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.
While it is easy to spot and be outraged by current abuses, the reform process needs to be about honesty and fairness instead of punishing the successful. Remember that the neocons moved into power by selling the idea (true or not) that the Democrats had kept control of Congress by cheating. I expect that any serious reform proposals will be subjected to the same kinds of accusations.January 6, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Practical example. Right now Tom DeLay is facing an independent conservative challenger for his seat, but that challenger is spending money overcoming ballot access hurdles and will have a hard sell to many voters that he is not a spoiler. Removal of ballot access barriers (i.e. costs) and instant runoff (chance of winning by avoiding spoiler factor) would make DeLay face a real challenge. He may still, but only because DeLay is under indictment and may have to vote by absentee ballot from a jail cell himself.
Why are price-fixing, artificial entry barriers, market allocation conspiracies, bid rigging, etc., bad for Baskin Robbins and Pepsi and Sears but "good" for political parties? Jack Abramoff knows why; he made literally millions relying on a lack of political competition for his bought and paid-for hacks. The only losers under instant runoff elections and liberalized ballot access laws are lazy and corrupt incumbents like Tom DeLay.
January 6, 2006 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
(3) We are supposedly the employers of our elected representatives and their appointed staff. So like other employers, we should have the right to monitor their workplace to be sure they are doing the job they were hired for. Put cameras in all their offices and keep track DAILY of who they meet with, who they call, etc.
(4) Create a new C.I.A. - a Citizens Intelligence Agency to balance government's intrusion on OUR privacy with our ability to keep track of what our representatives are doing in our name.
(5) As mentioned above, require a minimum time - 72 hours or more - between the posting of any bill online before it can be voted on - and allow no last minute changes without another public posting period.
(6) No unrelated amendments. Or give line item veto - the ability to vote for the portion of the bill you support and vote against the parts you do not support.
January 6, 2006 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As best I could tell, there wasn't really even any scandal behind the fuss, aside from a few congressmen who abused the privledge. The bank operated, essentially, with reserve credit, just like the bank accounts for most anyone else who checks the appropriate box when opening a checking account.
The fact that there wasn't much of a scandal to begin with, and that GOP house members were guilty in proportion to their number of reps didn't stop the GOP from turning that into a major factor in the 1994 election.
I don't know how the House Bank was used in individual contests; probably the GOP made use of it. At the national level, I recall it being more of a "we've got to reform this corrupt system that the Democrats support" thing rather than a "we've got to toss those theiving Democrats who bounce checks out of office" thing.
Maybe someone has better recollection of how the House Bank scandal was used by the GOP than I. But a couple lessons that I think might be learned might be:
Blow the scandal out of proportion.
Propose a really simple solution.
Don't worry about the fact that members of your own party were equally culpable, but do continue to blame the other party for the culture of corruption.
Meanwhile, if bouncing checks for $100 for lack of sufficient funds is a scandal, what is it when you bounce checks for $500 Billion a year?
January 6, 2006 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.....
January 6, 2006 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 80921
FOREIGNPARENTID: 80906
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10864
AUTHOR: paDem
DATE: 01/06/2006 06:08:15 AM
January 6, 2006 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink