Get money out of politics– meta solution

[Khron]

If the problem is politicians taking money from special interests, we should make money irrelevant to politicians to neutralize the threat.

 

The meta problem underlying greed is they're trying to fill a void that cannot be filled with money. I propose via legislation, we make it so that politicians do not need to use money for anyting. Basically, based on constituents satisfaction, everything is free for them. They can get every material thing money can buy with the currency of public approval.

It would be on a graduated scale like a five-star system, just for example. As a one-star politician, you can purchase basics like a house and a car up to a certain dollar equivalent amount. Whereas a five-star politician would be able to purchase a mansion or a private jet even. And is not like you have a certain amount that depletes. Is dependent on the end cost of the thing so theoretically, they would be able to purchase a fleet of private planes. But something like multiple of a a single thing would require direct public approval whereas if they were to just get one, their standing five star status would suffice. But I'm getting off into the weeds.

The only thing the other cars can offer them is money. With the power of our government, we can offer them everything money can buy plus widespread public adulation / love. The wealth in the fame of a movie star with the added bonus of constantly being shown you're doing good things for lots of people.

We won't be able to fill the void, only they can do that but we can redirect what they use to fill it. Our approval becomes their currency.

 

I'm anxious to hear any thoughts. I'm actually considering writing a book about it as I omitted a lot of details to condense. I floated this idea on Facebook to no comments and to my mother who I would rate as a stage blue with scattered orange and green showers. It totally triggered her. I can't even bring it up anymore. She was supportive of me writing a book about it though.

Anyhow, cheers brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

 

[MadeWithLove]

What about campaigns? How would they pay for that?

[Leo Gura]

The problem is that this is a Constitutional issue. The US Supreme Court has ruled that use of money is Free Speech. Which limits government's ability to prohibit it.

The only serious way I see of getting money out of politics is via Wolf-Pac. There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment banning it.

The problem is Congress will never pass laws limiting money in politics. We need a Constitutional Conventional.

Even if politicians were prohibited from using money, Super PACs and outside groups would fund their campaigns for them, which causes lots of corruption right now. The money in politics problem goes real deep.

[Khron]

1 hour ago, MadeWithLove said:

What about campaigns? How would they pay for that?

Public Funding.

[MadeWithLove]

Not in today's day in age. A big percentage of people straight up don't even vote. Other people will view it as, "I'm already poor enough, now you want ME to pay for yalls campaigns? HELL NO!".

[Khron]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that this is a Constitutional issue. The US Supreme Court has ruled that use of money is Free Speech. Which limits government's ability to prohibit it.

The only serious way I see of getting money out of politics is via Wolf-Pac. There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment banning it.

The problem is Congress will never pass laws limiting money in politics. We need a Constitutional Conventional.

Even if politicians were prohibited from using money, Super PACs and outside groups would fund their campaigns for them, which causes lots of corruption right now. The money in politics problem goes real deep.

Good points. I did originally think prohibiting money for them would also be part of it, I did not think of the supreme court judgment and super Pacs.

But, I think it would still work without that prohibition because that stuff still has to be disclosed. The fact that they accept any money for campaign or whatever May naturally become a dark spot on their trustworthiness because the government already gives you everything. Why are you accepting outside money? Or why is the Super PAC running ads for you? That in itself May become ammunition for an attack ad. Meaning, they can still do it but it's a blemish.

I do not see this as something that is an instead switch over but rather it's implemented with freshman politicians because the older folk are stuck in their ways. We start with the new people and just let time run its course.

[Khron]

3 minutes ago, MadeWithLove said:

Not in today's day in age. A big percentage of people straight up don't even vote. Other people will view it as, "I'm already poor enough, now you want ME to pay for yalls campaigns? HELL NO!".

I agree. Today, I am positive most will recoil at the idea at first, it's counterintuitive. On its face, it looks like the opposite of what you want to do so I'm not sure of the best way to sell the idea yet, but either we fund them through our taxes or they keep giving our money to the wealthy.

I think the direct approach like wolfpac as Leo mentioned is easier to sell to people, but I am skeptical because of its directness. The opposition knows it's an attack right away.

But yeah, the recoil would be real until the results start coming in.

[Khron]

I agree that money in politics goes deep. It's as American and equally as old as the Constitution itself in this country. That's why I am skeptical of the take the money away and leave them with nothing , so to speak, approach.

I'm thinking more like the Indiana Jones approach LOL. Remove the artifact as you replace it with a rock so that at weight value, nothing has changed but something very substantial has.

It's an idea. Thanks for the engagement.