- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 44 Hour
- Reading permission
The cost to finance political campaigns has averaged $4 billion per election year the past three election cycles ('04, '06, '08). Clearly we must finance elections ($2 billion per year) from public funds.
Despite many attempts we have failed to accomplish this, most likely because Congress has other, far more lucrative financial connections to private industry, and they don't want to lose this financial control.
Perhaps the key to finally achieving "campaign finance reform" is to replace with tax dollars the personal wealth Congressional members acquire with corporate stock portfolios; highly coveted corporate perks and war chests ; and their multi-million dollar job loss safety net of corporate lobbying , all of which far exceed Congressional salaries.
Political Finance Reform goes several steps beyond just campaign finance reform alone by addressing all revenue/benefit streams simultaneously - by proposing to budget an additional $1.5 billion per year to:
#1 add a zero to Congressional pay
#2 greatly improve Congressional pensions - with longevity/performance based incentives
That could incentivize change.
In exchange, Congress must illegalize all of their financial connections to private industry during service and after. With strict enforcement laws, 100% financial dependence could provide their undivided loyalty - saving middle class taxpayers trillions of dollars - and democracy itself.
The Strategic Reallocation of Tax Dollars
If agreed to, the amount necessary to reallocate should be about $3.5 billion per year, representing just 1/10 of 1% of our federal revenue, $3.55 trillion. If we can fix precisely that which destroys our political system, government and economy by reallocating just 1/1000th of our revenue - who would say no?
If you faced losing your $200,000 home but could save it for $200, would you make the expenditure? That's 1/1000th. Isn't America our home? If we can save our children's future by reallocating a microscopic 1/1000th of our revenue, then shouldn't we?
Further, if we'd go to war to preserve free market capitalism, shouldn't we be prepared to adapt to its unintended and most feared consequences?
Complete Loyalty Shift
Now with 100% loyalty due to 100% financial dependence (a free market corporate, Koch brothers principle), to further ensure regaining control we can demand and achieve these equally necessary and critical elements to government reform: (important links)
#1 Claw-backs (Election, Lobbyist, Corporate, Political Corruption Reforms )
#2 The mislabeled "Citizens" United counteraction strategy (Personhood Conditional )
Proposed Constitutional Amendment #28
"POLITICAL FINANCE REFORM"
With the money on the table perhaps we could eliminate legalized political bribery by "reforming the way we finance our politics" in a single, resounding, one-time, all encompassing win/win constitutional amendment - keeping SCOTUS out of it.
With this amendment, the voting masses would hold near absolute control over our politician's #1 career opportunity #2 job security #3 personal enrichment #4 social status #5 retirement security - not special interest groups, which as it is, appears to defy logic.
We can stand indignantly with our arms folded, refuse to take this action on the grounds of "principle" and continue our freefall into the corporate-slavery abyss.
Do I think they deserve millions? That's irrelevant. The question is, do they think they're worth millions. Apparently so, and they're in position to do something about it at our expense, which costs us thousands of times more.
The question remaining: Can we get past our rage towards congress to act logically?
Removal does not appear to be the answer. Replacing politicians - or even changing parties - is clearly not working and changes nothing literally rendering our voting power impotent!
While some might feel that many Congressional members deserve to be imprisoned for larceny, fraud and conducting war under false pretenses; that is impractical as Congress is unlikely to allow laws that imprison themselves. In fact, they could be considered "victims of the system" which they inherited, that in its current form requires their financial dependence on private industry