It's Time to Clean House

America is basically run by dead people: We elect new representatives, but continue on with policy from decades ago. To go forward, Congress needs to confront the past.

America is mired in a tarpit of accumulated law. Reformers propose new laws to fix health care, schools, and the regulatory system, but almost never suggest cleaning out the legal swamp these institutions operate in. These complex legal tangles not only set goals but allocate resources and dictate the minutest details of how to meet those goals. Most are obsolete in whole or part.

Nothing important can get fixed without remaking a coherent legal framework.

[PayThat CEO]

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I think we should take EVERY law in this country and re-examine it and either update it or dispose of it.

There was a recent show on about all the ridiculous laws in this country that still very much affect us.

One law that I think makes a statement on how controlled we are by our government is the one regarding raw milk. Having grown up on a farm, I have consumed raw milk. Unfortunately, it is too rich for me and goes straight through me, but I see no reason that other people shouldn't be able to drink it if they so desire.

I realize it can be a health hazard if sanitary practices aren't followed; but how many people in the last couple of years have died from eating peanut butter, cantelopes, hamburger, etc. Why pick on milk?

Because the dairy industry wants NO competition and heavily lobbies Washington which, in turn, controls OUR lives to keep big business happy.

And herein lies our dilemma. Whose rights, needs and wants are more important when it comes to the laws that govern us? The people or those who pay our leaders to protect them?

[questioner]

PayThat CEO wrote:

... we should take EVERY law in this country and re-examine it and either update it or dispose of it...

It is hard to argue against the statement above, but no doubt somebody will. Of course, substitute "regulation" for "law" and examine them too, unless the law that they derive from is eliminated.

The big question is: Should we re-examine the U.S. Constitution?

The caution must be that the current Political heirarchy (Congress, agencies, interest groups, lobbies, think tanks etc.) must be excluded. Government must be of people, for people and by the people. Only the voting public count.

[OneRyder]

The first step is to get rid of this ruling that allowed for Super Pacs by creating an Amendment.

If we allow 1 person to run millions in ads for a politician of their choice, we can say goodbye to democracy as we know it.

[Don Joe]

OneRyder wrote:

The first step is to get rid of this ruling that allowed for Super Pacs by creating an Amendment.
If we allow 1 person to run millions in ads for a politician of their choice, we can say goodbye to democracy as we know it.

I said goodbye to it when the USSC voided our 2000 election and appointed bush. Its been downhill ever since.

[questioner]

OneRyder wrote:

The first step is to get rid of this ruling that allowed for Super Pacs by creating an Amendment.
If we allow 1 person to run millions in ads for a politician of their choice, we can say goodbye to democracy as we know it.

How about something simple: Allow only US citizens, those registered to vote, to contribute money to candidates, and then only for those directly representing them. At the federal level that would be one Representiative, two Senators, and the President/Vice President ticket. If you can't get it up with the individual human beings you represent you just stay broke.

I would add a little rule to make it cheaper for candidates, every individual or company in the "media" business would be required to provide equal time/coverage to candidates standing for election in their "coverage" area. Why should the media make a profit on politics?(that is a question, I'm willing to change my mind if anyone has a good arguement)

[Don Joe]

questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
How about something simple: Allow only US citizens, those registered to vote, to contribute money to candidates, and then only for those directly representing them. At the federal level that would be one Representiative, two Senators, and the President/Vice President ticket. If you can't get it up with the individual human beings you represent you just stay broke.
I would add a little rule to make it cheaper for candidates, every individual or company in the "media" business would be required to provide equal time/coverage to candidates standing for election in their "coverage" area. Why should the media make a profit on politics?(that is a question, I'm willing to change my mind if anyone has a good arguement)

Interesting ideas. I like your suggestion number 2.

As to suggestion number 1, that still leaves the rich to contribute just as much as ever, but only to their representatives. That is better than the current system, but still allows the rich to effectively buy the representation. I would prefer to have a law saying that giving money to a public representative is the same as bribery and is illegal and will be prosecuted. Your suggestion number 2 allows candidates to have access to get out their message without having to be purchased.

I also want a law saying that slander is against the law. You simply cannot slander someone without repercussions.

Additionally, I want a law that says organizations purporting to be news organizations cannot lie to the public. Fiction must be properly labeled. They should not get away with calling their fictions simply opinions, they are not opinions, they are lies and they do great damage.

[Mr_Bill]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting ideas. I like your suggestion number 2.
As to suggestion number 1, that still leaves the rich to contribute just as much as ever, but only to their representatives. That is better than the current system, but still allows the rich to effectively buy the representation. I would prefer to have a law saying that giving money to a public representative is the same as bribery and is illegal and will be prosecuted. Your suggestion number 2 allows candidates to have access to get out their message without having to be purchased.
I also want a law saying that slander is against the law. You simply cannot slander someone without repercussions.
Additionally, I want a law that says organizations purporting to be news organizations cannot lie to the public. Fiction must be properly labeled. They should not get away with calling their fictions simply opinions, they are not opinions, they are lies and they do great damage.

I admire your sentiments; but you find that although they are in the spirit of the US Constitution, they are at odds with the present day interpretation by the Supreme Court; so you will need many amendments.

[Don Joe]

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
I admire your sentiments; but you find that although they are in the spirit of the US Constitution, they are at odds with the present day interpretation by the Supreme Court; so you will need many amendments.

Thank you. I agree, and I have odds with the present day Supreme court for those reasons as well as others.

[Questioner]

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting ideas. I like your suggestion number 2.
As to suggestion number 1, that still leaves the rich to contribute just as much as ever, but only to their representatives. That is better than the current system, but still allows the rich to effectively buy the representation. I would prefer to have a law saying that giving money to a public representative is the same as bribery and is illegal and will be prosecuted. Your suggestion number 2 allows candidates to have access to get out their message without having to be purchased.
I also want a law saying that slander is against the law. You simply cannot slander someone without repercussions.
Additionally, I want a law that says organizations purporting to be news organizations cannot lie to the public. Fiction must be properly labeled. They should not get away with calling their fictions simply opinions, they are not opinions, they are lies and they do great damage.

You are right to bring up the issue of how much any individual can contribute. Perhaps contributions could be limited, or made to a pool that is distributed to candidates by a foumula. I don't have a good answer for that problem. I'm waiting for someone to make a specific proposal. I'm a skeptic about government funding for candidates. I would add a corellary, that all a canditate's financial tranactions be available to the public.

The traditional limits on "free speach", Libel and Slander should be applicable to the media. I will bet if this is proposed the media will unleash venom beyond anything ever heard. After all the media is big business and carries with it a special interests of the business and it's financial backers. Can you imagine Rush calling a young lady a Prostitue (unless she had been convicted) when he could face a fine and/or lawsuit.(all fines should be a percentage of income, not a fixed amount)

Of course, these are broad suggestions, the devil will be in the details.

[Don Joe]

Questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right to bring up the issue of how much any individual can contribute. Perhaps contributions could be limited, or made to a pool that is distributed to candidates by a foumula. I don't have a good answer for that problem. I'm waiting for someone to make a specific proposal. I'm a skeptic about government funding for candidates. I would add a corellary, that all a canditate's financial tranactions be available to the public.
The traditional limits on "free speach", Libel and Slander should be applicable to the media. I will bet if this is proposed the media will unleash venom beyond anything ever heard. After all the media is big business and carries with it a special interests of the business and it's financial backers. Can you imagine Rush calling a young lady a Prostitue (unless she had been convicted) when he could face a fine and/or lawsuit.(all fines should be a percentage of income, not a fixed amount)
Of course, these are broad suggestions, the devil will be in the details.

On the basis of your suggestion that candidates are allowed some time in the public media, for free, equal for all candidates, I suggest no contributions to campaigns. I see it as bribery. The media has some responsibility due to their privilege of broadcasting on public airwaves, or infrastructure to give a bit back. That bit back is to provide a forum for the candidates.

I too am skeptical of the government funding candidates.

I might argue that the punishment for slander or libel be made according to a formula on how widely heard the slander was, the damage it caused; so that someone like Rush, with a big audience would pay a lot more than someone shouting on a street corner. The punishment needs to be big enough to really discourage the activity.

[America is not the Same]

a must read for all

o.bamapost.com

[HATE]

The GOP must go yes....Clean out the big business scum and replace with people who care for all Americans(DFL).