Giving the Public a Voice (that actually gets listened to)

[rathi]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching protests, letters to your congressmen, and other means a citizen theoretically influencing the political process prove absolutely fruitless. You can have hundreds of thousands of people at rallys or protests and accomplish nothing, while a few television advertisements and campaign contributions purchases you your own pet politician. In order for people to get their voices heard, they need to turn to the same tactics that special interest use. Namely, that means using money to buy lobbying and media exposure or file lawsuits.

The key is conditional based micro-payments organized on the internet. Lets take an issue that has fairly widespread political support among the public, but little traction in Washington: TSA screening procedures. (Note: its just an example, the concept applies to any cause with public support). A web page is created detailing a removal of invasive TSA procedures, namely pat downs, body scanning, nail clipper confiscation and 2 oz fluid limitations. The site has a donation feature of say 10 bucks a piece. However, unless you get say a minimum of 100,000 people putting up for a total of 1 million dollars, no transaction actually goes through. Essentially, you don't pay a dime unless the cause is guaranteed to have enough money to make a difference. The money is gathered into a non-connected PAC for legal purposes. With a million dollar war chest, you can hire a professional lobbying firm to "persuade" congress to see things your way. Your lobbyist then helpfully writes legislation mandating less invasive security screening at airports, and your congresscriter adds it in as pork onto some completely unrelated bill. Not exactly the cleanest feeling, but it gets results.

Its only a rough idea at the moment, but I think the concept is sound and the implementation reasonable. What say your, denizens of DP?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It sounds like an idea that might work.

Trying to think of anything extant to which I can compare it, the closest I can come up with is the National Rifle Association (NRA); but that's quite a bit different from this. With the NRA, you have a fairly powerful, successful lobbying group, which derives its funding and its related power from the support of its many members. But groups like the NRA are a rather blunt tool as far as giving a voice to the public. All the members are united around a general principle, but within the organization, there is considerable disagreement as to just how far to take this principle, and with regard to various details about in which ways this principle should be reflected in legislation.

What I can see with your proposal is that a specific, detailed bit of proposed legislation could be written and posted on the web site, and then people could read that legislation, and choose to support it with their contingent donations. This way, unlike supporting an organization like the NRA, they could be supporting a very specific proposal, and could know exactly what it is that they are supporting.

I wonder about how such a web site might cope with different levels and directions of a given principle.

For example, suppose some people want to abolish the TSA altogether. Suppose others want to keep the TSA, but to impose certain limits on their activities. Perhaps some want the TSA to be able to prove that they have probable cause to conduct certain kinds of searches, while others want to prohibit such searches of obviously harmless passengers, such as young children, elderly, and handicapped passengers.

You could come up with several different, conflicting bits of proposed legislation, all dealing with the same issue to different degrees, and in different directions.

Now as the user of such a web site, I might have one out of all these several proposals that I might most favor, but perhaps that isn't the one that is most likely to get enough support to trigger the donations.

What if such a web site offers me the option to select a group of different proposals, select one out of that group that is counted the most as having my support, but whichever proposal is the one that first gains enough supporters to trigger the donation cycle, that's the one that actually gets my ten dollars, even if it's not the one I most supported?

 

[Temporal]

It's a good idea. I agree with your assessment of how democratic action is not heard right now. Only money translates into being heard anymore.

You would have to still take their money in the beginning and then refund it later if the goal is not met. If you didn't finalize the transactions until after, you might get some bounced checks and return payments. Then you'd fall short of your campaign goal.

The government would probably find a way to make it illegal though, if it isn't already. Our country is ruled by a plutocracy so it's not just a matter of using lobbiests. You need people in the ruling class who are on board with your political agenda or it won't make it to a greater audience. Sad but true.

We have the illusion of democracy but the candidates are always pre-chosen, and they're usually people who already own a huge stake in America.

 

[rathi]

You would have to still take their money in the beginning and then refund it later if the goal is not met. If you didn't finalize the transactions until after, you might get some bounced checks and return payments. Then you'd fall short of your campaign goal.

I was looking into that. Escrow services are set up precisely for this sort of transaction.

The government would probably find a way to make it illegal though, if it isn't already. Our country is ruled by a plutocracy so it's not just a matter of using lobbiests. You need people in the ruling class who are on board with your political agenda or it won't make it to a greater audience. Sad but true.

Thanks to our wonderful supreme court ruling that money is speech. the legality of this is very much a protected legal action. The advantage of using the same tactics as the special interest crowd is that any ban that stops us from lobbying also applies to them.

 

[Xerographica]

"In order for people to get their voices heard, they need to turn to the same tactics that special interest use." And what are special interests groups composed of...meerkats?

In addition to starting/joining special interest groups...if people want more of a say then they should be able to directly allocate their taxes to the various government organizations at anytime throughout the year. If people weren't happy with the war on drugs then they wouldn't allocate any of their taxes to the DEA. If people weren't happy with sugar subsidies then they wouldn't allocate their taxes to the department of agriculture.

 

[rathi]

"In order for people to get their voices heard, they need to turn to the same tactics that special interest use." And what are special interests groups composed of...meerkats?

Special interests are composed of people, but their political influence far outstrips their number of constituents. The point is to allow large numbers of people to pool their resources to achieve an equal voice. I won't pretend that public opinion is always right or the special interests are always wrong, but the current system is out of balance. As for pragmitarianism, lets keep that in its own thread.

 

[Xerographica]

Rathi...if you're not advocating that people join special interest groups then you're advocating that they join general interest groups. How would your general interest group differ from a political party?

Pragmatarianism is just the invisible hand combined with pragmatism. So...I can't talk about either of those two concepts in this thread? Or is it just an issue when they are combined?

 

[coolwalker]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching protests, letters to your congressmen, and other means a citizen theoretically influencing the political process prove absolutely fruitless. You can have hundreds of thousands of people at rallys or protests and accomplish nothing, while a few television advertisements and campaign contributions purchases you your own pet politician. In order for people to get their voices heard, they need to turn to the same tactics that special interest use. Namely, that means using money to buy lobbying and media exposure or file lawsuits.

The key is conditional based micro-payments organized on the internet. Lets take an issue that has fairly widespread political support among the public, but little traction in Washington: TSA screening procedures. (Note: its just an example, the concept applies to any cause with public support). A web page is created detailing a removal of invasive TSA procedures, namely pat downs, body scanning, nail clipper confiscation and 2 oz fluid limitations. The site has a donation feature of say 10 bucks a piece. However, unless you get say a minimum of 100,000 people putting up for a total of 1 million dollars, no transaction actually goes through. Essentially, you don't pay a dime unless the cause is guaranteed to have enough money to make a difference. The money is gathered into a non-connected PAC for legal purposes. With a million dollar war chest, you can hire a professional lobbying firm to "persuade" congress to see things your way. Your lobbyist then helpfully writes legislation mandating less invasive security screening at airports, and your congresscriter adds it in as pork onto some completely unrelated bill. Not exactly the cleanest feeling, but it gets results.

Its only a rough idea at the moment, but I think the concept is sound and the implementation reasonable. What say your, denizens of DP?

Wouldn't be a better idea to get rid of all lobbyists? Then we can all keep our hundred bucks.

 

[rathi]

Wouldn't be a better idea to get rid of all lobbyists? Then we can all keep our hundred bucks.

How exactly do you plan to get that done? Too many groups have an interest in keeping the current system afloat.

 

[Hicup]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of watching protests, letters to your congressmen, and other means a citizen theoretically influencing the political process prove absolutely fruitless. You can have hundreds of thousands of people at rallys or protests and accomplish nothing, while a few television advertisements and campaign contributions purchases you your own pet politician. In order for people to get their voices heard, they need to turn to the same tactics that special interest use. Namely, that means using money to buy lobbying and media exposure or file lawsuits.

The key is conditional based micro-payments organized on the internet. Lets take an issue that has fairly widespread political support among the public, but little traction in Washington: TSA screening procedures. (Note: its just an example, the concept applies to any cause with public support). A web page is created detailing a removal of invasive TSA procedures, namely pat downs, body scanning, nail clipper confiscation and 2 oz fluid limitations. The site has a donation feature of say 10 bucks a piece. However, unless you get say a minimum of 100,000 people putting up for a total of 1 million dollars, no transaction actually goes through. Essentially, you don't pay a dime unless the cause is guaranteed to have enough money to make a difference. The money is gathered into a non-connected PAC for legal purposes. With a million dollar war chest, you can hire a professional lobbying firm to "persuade" congress to see things your way. Your lobbyist then helpfully writes legislation mandating less invasive security screening at airports, and your congresscriter adds it in as pork onto some completely unrelated bill. Not exactly the cleanest feeling, but it gets results.

Its only a rough idea at the moment, but I think the concept is sound and the implementation reasonable. What say your, denizens of DP?

So, your idea is all about creating recognizable voting blocks? How is it any different than what we have now? The issues, although granted will become more refined and exact, will still fall into ideological categories, would they not?

Just asking how you reconcile this in your mind?


Tim-

 

[rathi]

So, your idea is all about creating recognizable voting blocks? How is it any different than what we have now? The issues, although granted will become more refined and exact, will still fall into ideological categories, would they not?

Just asking how you reconcile this in your mind?


Tim-

My idea is based on hiring professional lobbyists, not voting. A good lobbyist can influence (or even write) legislation in a very specific, direct and effective manner. Voting has seriously problems because many issues are treated identically by both parties. Lets take our ridiculous 120 year long copyright length. Disney wrote those laws specifically to keep Mickey Mouse as a cash cow, violating the constitution and screwing the public in the process. No candidate even addresses the issue, so you can't change the law no matter who you vote for.

 

[Paschendale]

This might really be something we need in this country. Large, public PACs, instead of small, private ones, funded with corporate money. Sadly, though, when it comes down to it, the wealthy can outspend the middle class. It's rather sad that democracy has come to become a question of who can out-bribe who.