Hey! The system works yet again!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 8 of 8
Quote:What I wanted was links and/ or specific case names and numbers to the aformentioned previous Supreme Court rulings.
5 members of the USSC, to be sure. They completely ignored prior Supreme Court rulings.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was trying to come up w/a workable idea that would give all candidates equal air time without infringing on freedom of speech- I realized I'm not smart enough on my own to cover it, and you were the first I thought of who could do it- but it's maybe a labour-intensive task, don't feel you must do my work for me...
Originally posted by rue:
ChrisIsAll,
whatcha need help with ????
Chrisisall, of moderate political views AND IQ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey isall
Sorry to get back to you so late. I hope you understand that just b/c it's a holiday doesn't necessarily mean it's a vacation. 
Some of what I'm suggesting is already in place. Anyway, I haven't worked all the bugs out, but what I envision is something like this:
First of all, corporations no longer have free speech rights. They may not contribute to individuals, campaigns or parties directly or indirectly, or advertize. They may not fund, commission etc 'issue' ads. In other words, they have no political campaign voice. (YEE HAAA !)
Parties and candidates may not advertize etc. They have a forum and it will put all contenders on an equal footing.
Private citizens and pooled individual donations, and pooled individual donations from non-profit groups may be used for advertizing. No individual may donate more than $250 US total in any year without being a declared (and listed) donor.
And now I have to shag my niece off to bed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, oh learned Browncoat.
Reality-challenged Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
UUUUHHHHHHHHHHhhhhh - it really IS true: "Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others". Think of me as a cockroach for ideas.
(And even at that, there are others much better than I ...)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with everything that Rue suggests. Politics is utterly corrupted, and that stems from needing wads of cash to run for office. It would be the simplest thing to make the so-called {sarcasm on} "public" airwaves {scarcasm off} broadcasters do what their FCC license REQUIRES them to do: provide for the public good by providing free campaign airtime. If it wasn't for financial $trangleholds on campaigning we would see a far wider array of candidates vying for public office. And that is EXACTLY what the corporations don't want, and although it would be simple and effective that is exactly why it will NEVER HAPPEN.
Corporate media has a hand-in-glove relationship with the politicians that they helped elect. They are lazy and profit-driven. You will almost never see serious investigative reporting and foreign correspondance because (a) it's difficult and (b) it costs$$$$.
Instead, they're fed tidbits from various officials- anything from the local dog catcher to the WH... and if they're REALLY compliant then they get exclusive sweet nothings whispered in their ears from highly placed sources. Consider the NYTimes. They kissed Bush's bush and became a favored outlet. It never occurred to them that Rove would feed them lies (silly them!) and so they and their neocon groupie Judith Miller took a major credibility hit. We need to create distance between the media and those in power. Perhaps the way to do that is to simply make ALL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TRANSPARENT. No secret dealings, no leaks, no special favors for special relationships. (The "other side" already knows what we're doing anyway, the only people in the dark is the American public.)
Ballot counting: by paper. Overnight. By hand.
-------------------------------
On a more theoretical basis, there are some things that should be revisited. Power- in the form of hundreds of thousands of employees- inevitably concentrates in the hands of "the" excutive irrespective of party diifferences or no-confidence votes. Do we REALLY need "an" Executive? But elected Boards (eg school Boards) aren't any better. They're subject to political whims because few voters will take the time to understand complex or techical issues. (FWIT I never know which judge to vote for.)
Strangely, bureaucracies work rather well. If there was some way to make each "bureau" (school board, health department, regulatory agency) a true meritocracy it might function without a political appointee or an elected board "telling" it what to do. Maybe they should make their case directly to the public for their budget and programs, direct-democracy style.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Keep the politicos out of management - now that's an interesting idea. I think anyone who's done technical work in a government aqency will light up on this one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First of all, corporations no longer have free speech rights. They may not contribute to individuals, campaigns or parties directly or indirectly, or advertize. They may not fund, commission etc 'issue' ads. In other words, they have no political campaign voice. (YEE HAAA !)
Good. Enforcement may be fun, especially with large corporations which may suggest to their employees that a good XYZ Inc. worker will want to contribute to the "Business Buddies of America" non-profit or some such.
Quote:
Parties and candidates may not advertize etc. They have a forum and it will put all contenders on an equal footing.
I'm guessing that this applies only to comercial ads; TV, radio, print, billboards, telephone. Individual party members should still be able to express their opinions through bumper stickers, yard signs, buttons, etc.; although size limits will become inevitable after folks start putting up yard signs the size of movie screens. Maybe un-compensated door-to-door canvassing, 'Please support my candidate' stuff. Most anything that requires personal involvement and is done without recompense should probably be okay.
How about political rallies and candidate public appearances on the rubber chicken circuit; kissing babies and pressing the flesh?
Quote:
Private citizens and pooled individual donations, and pooled individual donations from non-profit groups may be used for advertizing. No individual may donate more than $250 US total in any year without being a declared (and listed) donor.
I'm torn between 1st amendment rights to free speech and the reality that a George Soros can make a lot more noise with his billions than can Joe Sixpack with his spare change. I guess in this instance equality may trump freedom of speech.
What's the down-side of being a declared donor? Some folks are rich enough to afford fines if they consider it worthwhile. It'd also be a massive record-keeping excercise to monitor all contributions to make sure no one exceeds teir $250.00, especially if they spread it around. (Probably get dumped on the IRS, like monitoring the Section 527 organizations did.)
Maybe I'm getting a bit ahead of myself thinking of implementation difficulties, but it does sound mostly reasonable to me. Let's do it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Strangely, bureaucracies work rather well. If there was some way to make each "bureau" (school board, health department, regulatory agency) a true meritocracy it might function without a political appointee or an elected board "telling" it what to do. Maybe they should make their case directly to the public for their budget and programs, direct-democracy style.
As an ex-civil servant and husband of a current civil servant, I can tell you there have been times when...
Government bureaus not only enforce or implement the laws and promulgate regulation based on those laws: they also enact the policies of the party in power, which was put in power because the majority of voters (theoretically
) wanted those policies. The politically appointed Secretaries, Commissioners, etc. that head bureaus are the ones who insure that their party's policies are being applied; "telling" them what to do, if you will. I can't figure how, within a democratic system, they can be totally removed.This is not to say that the various bureaus might not run more efficiently with less political intervention, but just that they might not run as the people actually want them to.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Thursday, June 29, 2006 06:24 TIMES READ: 666
Hey! The system works yet again!
Yeah, 666... Read Revelation 9:11.
"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV
FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME