Can we all agree on this at least? There is too much corporate influence on Government

[cali]

Can we further agree that that influence is brought to bear on democrats as well as republicans?

Is there anyone who doesn't think that corporate influence (or control), if not the most serious threat we face, is one of them?

[ZombieHorde]

1. A sortition system for Congress would remove it very quickly.

Aristotle argued that elections would promote an oligarchy of the rich, and that democracy could only happen under a sortition system. What is happening now was predicted over two thousand years ago.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, it might work.

Many years ago, I wrote about that possibility as an option. All eligible Americans would be part of the pool, and legislators and other officials would be drawn at random from the pool. Eligibility would be based on a few basic criteria, including literacy and a few other requirements.

I think it could be a workable system, but any suggestion of it brings quick negative responses when it is brought up. Since it would require a change in the Constitution, it is a very, very unlikely thing to happen. It would be an interesting experiment, though. In principle, it would work. In practice, I'm not sure.

I still remain interested in sortition, though. I think, though, it would have to be implemented successfully in some other country before it would stand a chance here. Our Constitution is very difficult to change in such a basic way.

I'll have to see if I can dig up that long essay. It should be around here somewhere, but I haven't seen it for years.

[WCGreen]

20. It wouldn't work because of the necessity of continuity from year to year which

calls for a on going bureaucracy to take care of all the day to day stuff that must goes on.

And if you put more and more stuff to be handled at the state and local level you would splinter the country into squabbling over who has jurisdiction over what.

[cali]

5. not Constitutional, thus not a solution.

[ZombieHorde]

9. The Constition has been changed before.

Woman suffrage used to be unconstitutional.

[cali]

12. Not easily and this is not something that would get off the ground

either in statehouses or the Congress. Taking away the vote is not going to have any support.

[ZombieHorde]

13. People said women's suffrage would never happen.

Took a really long time, but it did happen.

[cali]

16. sorry, but that comparison is utterly spurious

there was always a substantial degree of support for women's suffrage. You're talking about removing suffrage. How can you think that will ever get any real support.

this is just silly.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Suffrage would still exist for other positions, such as President and Vice President.

I think many people will support the traditional method of democracy when they consider how they are represented. Many people who are supportive of the OWS movement don't believe the 1% represents the 99%, yet the 1% makes up a very large portion of our representatives. If we use a sortition system, then only 1% will usually only comprise 1% of our representatives, while 99% of the positions will be filled by the 99%, statically speaking. The unemployed understand what it is like to be unemployed, single mothers understand what it is like to be single mothers, etc. Additionally, many people who identify with the Tea Party believe the Tea Party represents most people (real Americans), so they might be supportive of this policy since they may believe most positions would be filled by "real Americans." I suspect the main opposition to sortition will come from people who think the status quo is working well for them, and those who are very strongly attached to partisan politics.

[99th_Monkey]

23. That is ONE AMAZING GRAPHIC! It pretty much explains EVERYTHING, imho.

We The People, 90% of us, actually only have 5-10 ACTUAL
"representatives" holding an elected Congressional Office.

[Enthusiast]

42. Very interesting argument. nt

[dtom67]

19. you are also forgetting...

that Women's Suffrage did not cost the ruling Elite any money or Power.

Any moves to restore Democracy will be met with a mountain of money in opposition. The Polyarchy will be defended at all cost.

That being said, I am glad to see everyone talking about change and not worrying about the possible bad PR for the Party.

I think that is why I like to read posts here;

if anyone can create change in this World, it is people like yourselves...

[ZombieHorde]

33. They would no doubt work hard against such a system.

They would probably attack both sortition and those who supported it.

[Progressive dog]

8. We could have life terms and just

not call it a monarchy.
Wait, it would be cheaper for the wealthy to buy the people holding office. Never mind.

[rhett o rick]

3. Trouble is that many embrace the warmth of the strong authoritarian state that keeps them safe (so

they think).

[marions ghost]

11. Truth in that

---such an illusion.

[mick063]

4. It is the starting point

Nothing gets "fixed" until we collectively begin there.

I know more than a handful of people that define themselves as conservatives that completely agree with this.

It is the solutions that are so much different.

The conservatives that I know, believe that government is beyond help and needs to be castrated. My challenge is to convince them that government can be "fixed". I tell them that it doesn't matter if government is big or small, that as long as the folks pulling the strings are corrupt, nothing will change.

Their argument is that government is beyond help. If the government truly is an unrepresentative façade, than the best strategy is to diminish government power at every opportunity.

They are already at a point where many like me may eventually be forced to go. If government truly is plutocracy beyond help, than it probably is time to neutralize federal government. It is probably time to concentrate on local and state affairs. It is probably time to champion states rights.

I have not reached that point yet, but this current Administration is demonstrating to me, that government is unfixable. Not when Goldman Sachs holds a place on the cabinet. Not when corporations covertly negotiate trade deals. Not when financial moguls are considered untouchable by the Attorney General.

[steve2470]

7. agree 100% nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. Yes we can.

At least most of us can, then there's the people that rhett o rick wrote of above.
& R

[johnnyreb]

14. Agree, k&r'd

Thanks Cali, I appreciate your enthusiasm. My father was WWII Pacific, and corporations imposed a heavy penalty on our family for his service. Ie, South Carolina Blue Cross and its myriad subsidiaries "managed" the Veteran Affairs funds to buy more influence to get more government contracts to "manage" more funds.

[bunnies]

15. 1000% nt

[L0oniX]

17. I'm sure there will be some nonsense going on about how this is legal.

[ReRe]

21. K&R

I agree with all my heart.

[99th_Monkey]

22. That would make a great DU poll. nt

[DearAbby]

24. agree

[great white snark]

25. Sure but overall Democrats are influenced less.

Both parties are given money but Democrats, more so than Republicans, are influenced less by it.

Other than your usual false equivalency I agree.

[cali]

27. no false equivalency, just more of your repulsive false accusations

and sorry, dear, but plenty of democrats in Congress are influenced by corporate money. That's hardly a state secret.

[burnodo]

26. I doubt it

Some see Democrats as pure and above suspicion. Though they'd easily expect that Republicans are knee-deep in corporate influence, they won't see Democrats as being so.

[NorthCarolina]

28. Agreed! nt

[pampango]

29. Agreed. Robert Reich suggests that nations band together to gain leverage over global capital.

Individual states in the US have embarked on their own races to the bottom, seeking to lure investments and jobs – often from neighbouring states – with lower taxes, higher subsidies, reduced regulation and lower real wages. Here again, the new generation of information technologies is intensifying the race.

But these trends are not inevitable. One way for nations (as well as individual states or provinces) to regain some bargaining leverage over global capital would be to stop racing against one another and join together to set terms for access to their markets.

Likewise, it makes no sense for regions or provinces in any nation to compete against one other for jobs and investment; such races only further strengthen the hand of global capital and reduce the bargaining power of the nation. These contests don’t produce net new jobs or investment but only move the jobs and investments from one locale to another and should be prohibited by federal law.

Similarly, the EU could be a bargaining agent for its citizens if it were to condition access to its hugely valuable market on paying taxes in proportion to a global corporation’s EU earnings, as well as making investments (including research and development, and jobs) in similar proportion. As a member of the EU, Britain would have more bargaining leverage than it would if it bargained separately. Hence, an important reason for Britain to remain in the EU: rather than a race to the bottom, the UK would thereby join in a race to the top.

http://robertreich.org/post/51397984260

As Reich writes, there should be a federal law that prevents states from competing with each other. It only benefits corporations. Similarly, countries should band together (like the EU) done to prevent corporations from playing one country off against another. Working together is better than any one state or country trying to control corporations all by itself.

As it is, if Ohio does not offer the tax breaks and lower wages that neighboring 'right to work' states, Kentucky and Indiana, offer, guess where the new factory goes. States, through the federal government, need to work together "Regain some bargaining leverage" over corporations. Ohio cannot do it alone. (Not that Kasich has any intention of doing so.)

The same is true for countries. It is better to work together.

[KansDem]

30. Whenever I hear an "anti-government" rant...

I believe it to be an "anti-corporate" rant. The ranter may not be aware of it, but it most likely refers to corporate malfeasance and abuse of power.

Even TeaBaggers who claim to be "anti-government" are really anti-corporation. They just don't know it or want to admit it.

[heaven05]

31. yep

to the first, and I'm one to say yep to the second and a BIG yep to the third.

[Laelth]

32. I agree with both the premises you state above. n/t

-Laelth

[arely staircase]

34. I agree with that. nt

[surrealAmerican]

35. By "we" I assume you mean those of us at DU.

Republicans tend not to see this as a problem, which is why they push for "privatization". We think it's foolish, but they don't.

[cali]

39. I do mean those of us at DU, but I don't agree with you about repubs-

or at least all of them. I think there are many repubs who do agree with the premises in the OP.

[Enthusiast]

36. Why doesn't this thread have 300 recommendations?

If you don't think there is too much corporate influence on government you are brain dead.

This is our central problem, corporate influence.

[NutmegYankee]

37. I just now saw it. This should remain kicked near the top of GD.

[bhikkhu]

38. Naturally there is, and voting is meant to balance that

as in, we have a government by popular consent, which means that the majority must approve of the individuals in it and there actions every four years or so.

It is less than perfect, but the best remedy I can think of is a more informed populace.

[cali]

40. but the amount of corporate money awash in the election process

skews that horribly.

[bhikkhu]

41. Yes it does. "Money = speech" may be one of the worst decisions of any Supreme Court

...at least as regards equality, and maintaining a functional democracy.

[Enthusiast]

43. The corporate media will insure the populace will not be properly informed.

That has become their main function.

[bluedeathray]

44. Is there an argument

That doesn't include bribery or mental disability?