Why hasn't there been a nationwide movement against big money in politics?

[Hardkill]

According a poll done by the Pew Research Center 2018, "Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political influence."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/

Additionally, according to a Gallup poll done 2019, most Americans are not satisfied with the campaign finance laws we currently have:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/campaign-finance-polling/index.html

I couldn't find polls that were done in 2020, 2021, 2022, or this year, but I am sure that the vast majority of Americans still believe that has been has been undermining our democracy, subverting will of the voters, influencing politicians to not pass many of the much needed reformist measures for our country

Plus, it's not just almost every Democratic voter and Liberal voter in America who believes that all of that. The majority of conservative voters and Republican voters in the US also agree with all of that as well.

So, why hasn't there yet been some kind of widespread movement for passing a constitutional amendment for banning all corporate donors and rich donors from financing campaigns?

 

[Tanz]

The media is all ran from big money and the ability for people to work together without governments, corporations being involved is nearly impossible.  

The problem is the people are not organized enough and well-educated enough to create change.

Expecting a figure like Martin King Jr to come along to get people more organized won't work because they would probably shoot that person in the head; a movement that doesn't rely on a singular person needs to happen.  People were so hopeful of Obama realized nothing changed, which is why Trump happened.  

[Hardkill]

15 hours ago, Tanz said:

The media is all ran from big money and the ability for people to work together without governments, corporations being involved is nearly impossible.  

The problem is the people are not organized enough and well-educated enough to create change.

Expecting a figure like Martin King Jr to come along to get people more organized won't work because they would probably shoot that person in the head; a movement that doesn't rely on a singular person needs to happen.  People were so hopeful of Obama realized nothing changed, which is why Trump happened.  

Are you saying that the people with big money would hire somebody to assassinate a leader any powerful movement? 

Part of why Trump was elected was because Obama didn't fulfill a lot of the promises he made, but that's far from being the only reason.

The other main reasons why Trump got elected were:

- The country was already turning Republican before Trump became president. The 1st and 2nd midterm elections during  Obama's presidency were unmitigated disasters for the Democrats. This was due to the racial backlash after Obama  became the very first black president ever and because of how unpopular Obamacare was during his presidency. In fact, right-wing populism was already on rise during Obama's presidency with the whole Tea Party movement which started in 2009 and continued all the way to around 2016.

- While the Obama administration didn't have any major foreign/military policy failures and achieved a major  foreign/military policy success during Obama's first term, it unfortunately did not any achieve another major foreign/military policy success during his second term. 

- Bernie Sanders' followers and Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 presidential election with their significant third party campaign. Bernie or bust voters who also didn't like the fact that the Clintons supported NAFTA in the 90s and Hillary supported TPP and other free trade polices during her 2016 presidential run. 

- Hillary Clinton wasn't likeable enough. I personally like her and have much respect for her. I thought she would've been a terrific president because of how brilliant, competent, and honorable of a politician she has always been. Plus, she's also been a centre-left Democrat like Obama and Biden since the early 2000s. Furthermore, she never came off as being too old for President, unlike Biden who has had problem. However, she unfortunately has never been charismatic like her husband was and has always had a bit too much of an elitist vibe. There was also gender backlash from white men throughout America when Hillary Clinton was expected to become the very first woman president ever after a black president. Also, a lot of the working class and middle class in the US hold a grudge over her and her husband for their decades long support of free-trade and globalization policies. Michael Moore in 2016 talked a lot about this and how all of these trade policies the Clintons supported significantly eroded the middle class and the working class in the US over time, particularly in the industrial Midwest and rust belt states including Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Trump was actually shrewd enough to realize that if he campaigned heavily on bringing manufacturing jobs back and protectionism in those states then he could win those states in the electoral college. That's why he flipped them red in 2016. Clinton didn't even bother to campaign much in any of those states, probably because she got too cocky and too complacent. 

- Hillary Clinton was not an incumbent presidential candidate.

Btw, Biden presidency has in many ways been a 3rd Obama term. So, apparently enough American people still praise  Obama as being one of the greatest we've ever had of all time. The historic positive changes Obama made to our country were:

- Obamacare 

- Passing Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

- Saving our economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression and helping it boom again,

- In 2012, he became the very first sitting president to openly support gay marriage and Biden became the first sitting vice president to openly support it (actually Biden spoke out about it before Obama did). This greatly contributed to the push for gay marriage rights and eventually the US Supreme Court ruled that all same-sex couples throughout the entire country have the right to marry after hearing the landmark case, obergefell v hodges, in 2015.

- He authorized the plan to assassinate of Osama Bin Laden. That made Obama into more of a hero.

- He signed into law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Act of 2009, which gave the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. 

As a matter of fact, most political scientists and historians have said that before Biden became president, Obama accomplished more than any other presidency since LBJ or Nixon in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Furthermore, Allan Lichtman, who is a top US historian said that in terms of actual policies, Nixon was the last true liberal president after LBJ until Obama became president. Biden has actually now become arguably even more liberal than Obama was, in terms of policy. That's one reason why most conservatives in America are having a meltdown over what Biden has done so far as president.

All in all, while Obama couldn't get nearly as much done as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ were able to he still fundamentally shifted our country more to the left in historic positive ways. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Hardkill

[Yimpa]

23 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, why hasn't there yet been some kind of widespread movement for passing a constitutional amendment for banning all corporate donors and rich donors from financing campaigns?

Americans have trouble even giving up fast food, lmfao. 

[Tanz]

7 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Are you saying that the people with big money would hire somebody to assassinate a leader any powerful movement? 

 

Im saying if there were a strong leader to rally against the status quo like a MLK or even someone greater like a 2nd coming of Christ the status quo would feel threatened.  Imagine if there were a person to get people to realize that buying shit they don't need is the way to live?  Apple sales worldwide drops to 50% 80%? Parties dissolve, and every politician gets replaced?  How far would people be willing to go to make sure that doesn't happen to them?

 

7 hours ago, Hardkill said:

All in all, while Obama couldn't get nearly as much done as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ were able to he still fundamentally shifted our country more to the left in historic positive ways. 

The superficial optics and policies he created and bailing out Wall Street made California and New York extremely rich and the middle of America left with an opioid crisis.  This created space for Trump to take advantage of these people, so he rallied in these towns, places the democratic party overlooked.  The democratic party was the father that ran away, and Trump became the abusive father who at least showed up.  
The language that Obama spoke to the world was the truth, and he definitely helped America's image but the method of his solutions didn't enrich the entire nation, just a small part of it. He never pointed out his shortcomings and explained to America why he felt he had to do things like that so he created Trump  

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Tanz said:

Im saying if there were a strong leader to rally against the status quo like a MLK or even someone greater like a 2nd coming of Christ the status quo would feel threatened.  Imagine if there were a person to get people to realize that buying shit they don't need is the way to live?  Apple sales worldwide drops to 50% 80%? Parties dissolve, and every politician gets replaced?  How far would people be willing to go to make sure that doesn't happen to them?

So, you're saying that there's nothing that any leader or any movement can do about this? 

4 hours ago, Tanz said:

The superficial optics and policies he created and bailing out Wall Street made California and New York extremely rich and the middle of America left with an opioid crisis.  This created space for Trump to take advantage of these people, so he rallied in these towns, places the democratic party overlooked.  The democratic party was the father that ran away, and Trump became the abusive father who at least showed up.  
The language that Obama spoke to the world was the truth, and he definitely helped America's image but the method of his solutions didn't enrich the entire nation, just a small part of it. He never pointed out his shortcomings and explained to America why he felt he had to do things like that so he created Trump  

Dude, the government had no choice but to bailout the banks. I don't like the fact that they did get bailed out, but if we did then we would've be in another Great Depression.

Here's what happened during the Great Depression in the US (1929-1941) according to Wikipedia:

- 13 million people became unemployed. In 1932, 34 million people belonged to families with no regular full-time wage earner.

- Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between 1929 and 1932.

- Homebuilding dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.

- In the 1920s, the banking system in the U.S. was about $50 billion, which was about 50% of GDP.

- From 1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business.

- By 1933, 11,000 of US 25,000 banks had failed.

- Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP fell around 30%; the stock market lost almost 90% of its value.

- In 1929, the unemployment rate averaged 3%.

- In Cleveland, the unemployment rate was 50%; in Toledo, Ohio, 80%.

- One Soviet trading corporation in New York averaged 350 applications a day from Americans seeking jobs in the Soviet Union.

- Over one million families lost their farms between 1930 and 1934.

- Corporate profits dropped from $10 billion in 1929 to $1 billion in 1932.

- Between 1929 and 1932, the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%.

- Nine million savings accounts were wiped out between 1930 and 1933.

- 273,000 families were evicted from their homes in 1932.

- There were two million homeless people migrating around the country.

- Over 60% of Americans were categorized as poor by the federal government in 1933.

- In the last prosperous year (1929), there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933 only 23,068 came to the U.S.

- In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it.

- With little economic activity there was scant demand for new coinage. No nickels or dimes were minted in 1932–33, no quarter dollars in 1931 or 1933, no half dollars from 1930 to 1932, and no silver dollars in the years 1929–33.

- In 1932 deflation was 10.7 percent and real interest rate was 11.49 percent.

- The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands, including many U.S. citizens, were deported against their will. Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated.[84]

- New York social workers reported that 25% of all schoolchildren were malnourished. In the mining counties of West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, the proportion of malnourished children was perhaps as high as 90%.

- Many people became ill with diseases such as tuberculosis (TB).

- The 1930 U.S. Census determined the U.S. population to be 122,775,046. About 40% of the population was under 20 years old.

- Suicide rates increased; however, life expectancy increased from about 57 years in 1929 to 63 in 1933.

- The stock market lost almost 90% of its value over the course of four or more years.

 

During the financial crisis (December 2007 to June 2009):

- The unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009

- real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009.

- industrial production fell by about 10.3% between 2007 to 2009.

- stock market lost about 50% of its value from October 9, 2007 to March 9, 2009

- I don't think suicide rates, living conditions, and health issues were anywhere near as bad as they were during the Great Depression.

So, what do you propose should've been done instead of having the big banks be bailed out?

 

Again, Obama didn't achieve as much positive fundamental change for the country as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ did. This is because Obama didn't have as large of liberal majorities in both chambers of Congress as those 4 above mentioned presidents did. Obama also only had a supermajority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress for only 2 years. Plus, Obama was president during a relatively politically polarized era which caused a lot of the legislation he wanted to pass to be blocked by the asshole Republicans in Congress. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ on the other hand were presidents during eras of high bipartisan consensus and unity in the US, which allow them to pass a lot more reform laws for the country.

Besides, don't you think that Obama accomplished more than any president since LBJ in the 1960s or Nixon in the 1970s (except for possibly Biden)? 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Hardkill

[Tanz]

53 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, you're saying that there's nothing that any leader or any movement can do about this? 

No, what I am saying is if there is a movement, it cant be centralized by a strong leader, a vision that is central on ideas rather than charismatic people.
The central idea of democracy.  

53 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Dude, the government had no choice but to bailout the banks. I don't like the fact that they did get bailed out, but if we did then we would've be in another Great Depression.

There could have been better ways than what they did. Much of the printed money was used overseas, like in China, to make them wealthier.  They could have created conditions to American corporations to use their liquidity to enrich more Americans.  

Half of the money could have gone to infrastructure.  Infrastructure that would have prevented the Ohio train accident that recently happened.  I have traveled all over China. There are so many places in China that make most of America look like a 3rd world country.  

Personally, I would rather have Obama over Trump, but I'm making a point that his policies gave the right FUEL to get taken by Trump. 
The American citizens deserve as much blame as any president.  The people always get the leaders they deserve... once consciousness rises we will get better leaders.  

My hippy solution would be to create bonds to create small businesses, primarily focusing more money on businesses that improve society thru education. Local farms.  Use the printed money to open up small local banks that build relationships with the community.  

Edited March 1, 2023 by Tanz

[Leo Gura]

1) That is a very deep and serious systemic issue which is one of the hardest aspects of government to change.

2) It's a rather dry and technical topic which only wonks understand. It's not a culture war issue which riles up the reptilian brain.

3) Serious solutions to this issue require deep systems thinking which almost no voter is capable of. And not even many politicians. So even if they want to get money out of politics that's not enough, you need to actually have realistic plan of how you're going to do it.

4) Both parties are captured by the big money, so both sides have a lot of incentive to just look the other way on this topic. It's the elephant in the room which no one wants to eat because it doesn't taste good.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Epikur]

@Hardkill

There is no evidence that the bailout was a net positive

[Epikur]

It may be that individualistic people do not want a more democratic system. That could mean people would vote more for  social programs but those people do not want to pay for that.

Individualistic guys value their personal freedom and autonomy more than collective welfare and solidarity. They may also prefer a smaller government that does not interfere with their economic activities and choices.

[Hardkill]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

1) That is a very deep and serious systemic issue which is one of the hardest aspects of government to change.

2) It's a rather dry and technical topic which only wonks understand. It's not a culture war issue which riles up the reptilian brain.

3) Serious solutions to this issue require deep systems thinking which almost no voter is capable of. And not even many politicians. So even if they want to get money out of politics that's not enough, you need to actually have realistic plan of how you're going to do it.

4) Both parties are captured by the big money, so both sides have a lot of incentive to just look the other way on this topic. It's the elephant in the room which no one wants to eat because it doesn't taste good.

But if they passed constitutional amendment that banned rich donors and corporate donors from donating any money to any politician in the US, whether it be a Republican or Democrat or Independent or what have you, then it would a level playing field for every single candidate running for any kind of office. So, why would any politician or any candidate have a problem with that?

Also, couldn't some brilliant campaign strategist or marketer out there come up with some compelling brand or some catchy message about this extremely important issue? For example, what if they put out powerful ads on television or on the internet that shows how rich donors and corporate donors having bribing politicians to poison America? Or how about having major nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience campaigns out on the streets about how corporations have been extorting politicians to grant them the authorization to destroy the middle class and working class as the rich keep getting richer and the poorer keep getting poorer? Couldn't those kind of things rile up the reptilian brain of many Americans across the country?

How did the abolitionists, political activists in the early 1900s progressive era, civil rights activists, feminist activists, gay rights activists, climate activists, and all other kinds of activists throughout history all succeed?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Hardkill

[Tanz]

2 hours ago, Epikur said:

@Hardkill

There is no evidence that the bailout was a net positive

Well, there is evidence depending on who you are talking to.  If a person made millions to billions, they would say it's everyone's fault they were not educated enough to make money while it was there.  If you are in the rust belt, rationing your medication, and had a brother die of an opioid overdose because pharma was pushing them on the streets, then you definitely would say it was completely negative.  

Edited March 1, 2023 by Tanz

[Leo Gura]

Changing the Constitution is extremely difficult. And even then, there would be great disagreement over how to implement it at a nuts and bolts level.

No one will want to change the Constitution if it means their side loses power. People are not that stupid. They know when a change results in them losing power. And in this case we are talking about a permanent loss of massive power, in the billions and trillions.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

@Hardkill Because you need a political leader to lead this movement. And, who will do it? That's the real question. 

Who will be that sacrificial lamb, going against all of the elites and against the very things securing their positions?! 

In principle, everyone agrees that this is a problem. In practice, however, no one wants to bell this cat. It requires too much courage. 

[mr_engineer]

If someone does bell this cat, though, their name will become immortal in the history-books. As immortal as Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery. 

[Hardkill]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Changing the Constitution is extremely difficult. And even then, there would be great disagreement over how to implement it at a nuts and bolts level.

No one will want to change the Constitution if it means their side loses power. People are not that stupid. They know when a change results in them losing power. And in this case we are talking about a permanent loss of massive power, in the billions and trillions.

The constitution used to be amended about every 1 to 40 years, with new meaningful amendments. I am no lawyer or legislator, but I don't see how why coming up with a viable constitutional amendment that bans corporate money and big money from politics is too difficult. Btw, haven't other first world countries such as the UK, France, and Canada banned corporate money and big money from politics?

How would one side lose power if every politician from every party was banned from receiving any PAC money or any corporate money from politics?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Hardkill

[Ramu]

In a word:  lobbyists

[Hardkill]

Boy, if Teddy Roosevelt was still alive and in his prime, he probably would’ve led a massive nationwide movement to ban all corporate donors and big money from politics.

He did it with Congress before in 1907 with Tillman Act. He also has the courage, wisdom, integrity, and willpower to fend off every corporation and rich person who tried to bribe him. John Rockefeller, who eventually became the first billionaire in the history of the world, tried coercing T.R. with money to not break up his monopoly over oil, but Roosevelt refused and went on with breaking up the oil monopoly into separate smaller competitive ones.

[Epikur]

If Joe Rogan and Russel Brand put more energy into the topic there might be an effect