I'm not so sure about that. I think Patriot Act is, though. Just thought I'd mention that.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Raising billions of dollars to buy an election is not "free speech" -- it is spreading propaganda. The election process has gotten out of hand, and politicians from both parties recognize it.

It is past time for political campaign reform, and shutting down the parties' access to corporate and special interest money. For a private citizen to donate to the political party or candidate of his/her choice, is within the bounds of free speech. For a corporation or special interest group to to be able to "donate" huge sums of money is graft and corruption, and both parties are guilty.

The First Amendment was never intended to promote the buying and selling of political influence, nor the perversion of the election process. None of our freedoms are for sale on the open market.

Actually, your comment is 100% correct. You *do*
have the right to donate money to anyone you want.

Although I describe the system as "taking" the
money out of politics, it doesn't do so by
legislation or by mandating against the practice.

Instead, it does so by making money *irrelevant*
to the process, over time. When it starts, the
situation will be the same as the one we have
today. If we imagine 100% participation in the
system, money will be essentially inconsequential
to the election process. Somewhere inbetween, a
balance will be found. Whereever it is, we'll be
better off than we are now.

I like the concept for your site. "Take Back America"
indeed. Please let me know when it goes live. (I've
sent my email address separately.)

Arizona may well be the wedge that opens up the door
to the political system. The campaign reform they've
instituted there is *working*. I understand that third
party candidates are emerging and having decent results.

I've wondered whether Arizona might be fertile ground
for the Citizens's Advisory, as well. The state may be
interested in funding it to improve outreach, or
political parties may be interested funding it to make
sure they reach their constituents on a limited budget.

Anyone know of a good person to contact in Arizona?

I take it that you're trolling for traffic at the
site, or comments here. Ok. I'll bite.

What the heck is the blue party?

Do you mean Democrats?

I notice that list of corporations who have
contributed to the "blue" party (whatever it is)
include some very, very large corporations. You
should know that corporations contribute to *both*
sides of the political fence, in direct proportion
to their expectation of winning and in proportion
to the degree of influence they expect in return.

That's the very reason that democrats have been
as responsible as republicans in the last 20 years
for ill-advised deregulations and corporate welfare
programs.

He's pimping. Why would he claim to be an independent and have his website set the posted link in his profile?

The money could indeed be better spent in areas
where it is desparately needed. The hundreds of
millions that went into the recent election went
where? To a school near you? To pave the roads.
No. It went into the hands of giant media conglomerate
who is using it fund lobbying efforts aimed at
further deregulation! It's a viscious cycle.

I've started a running series of blog posts (news)
at CitizensAdvisory.org, just to keep track of such
things. I began seeing the connections while working
on a book that uses General Systems Theory to
examine the interlocking network of forces that
constitute American health, nutrition, the food
supply, corporations, financial systems, and political
systems. As I became more aware of the connections, the
nightly news was giving more fodder every single night.

I finally started the weblog as a way to get things off
my chest quickly, so I could focus on the main themes in
the book without being distracted by so many observable
manifestations of the problems.

That could well be a move that makes sense. All such
solutions beg the question, however: How can we use a
political system we *don't* control to change the
political system into something we *can* control.

Obviously, that path has serious flaws. When you're
losing the game, and you have to win, the only
alternative is to change the game. The web-based system
I propose can do that. We can use it to put control
of the political process back in the hands of citizens.

*Then* there are many changes we can make to improve
the poltical process and limit the intrusion of
corporations into that process.

My take on the matter is this:

Corporations are like a chainsaw. If you control
them, they're a powerful tool. If you don't, they'll
rip your leg off.

Right now, we're limping.

I don't think that the AME church or some of the other politically active black churches would appreciate your idea. Issue advocacy is perfectly legitimate for a church - heck, you'd expect a church to take positions on moral issues such as the death penalty, abortion, war, etc.

I think that taxing churches and restricting political speech by eliminating independent expenditures through groups like 527's are all dangerous attacks on the First Amendment. Once government starts taxing churches that advocate certain issues or implicity endorse candidates by inviting them to speak - the First Amendment is trampled.

dumb ass question? Or do you just go from thread to thread posting your musings?

 Spirituality exists without organized religion   

brian@takebackamerica.us

Apparently you've posted this thought before. Others
may object, but I'm willing to discuss any idea that
has the potential to minimize the impact of money in
politics.

The problem, I believe, is that term limits don't
address the real issue.

Most politicians are motivated by the desire to do
something. Most desire "power" in the real sense of
the word--the ability to do things. We all do.

The question is, what do they want to do? If their
goal is to serve people, they have every right to be
there, as long as they have enough constiuents to
support them, for as long as they have that support.

The problem is with the *money* in the system. Because
of it:
a) politicians with enough of it can stay in
office forever, regardless of what they actually
do (barring egregious excess or deficiency)

b) corporations, who supply the money, become the
politician's true constituents.

Now, legislation that favors corporations isn't entirely
bad. When a politician is thinking about the *people*
in the corporation, and acting in their best interests,
it can be a good thing. But right now decisions are
being made that increase corporate profits at the
*expense* of people.

Term limits might help slightly, but:
a) It's the wrong problem.
b) The money would still go to the incumbent for
as many reelections as they're eligible for.
c) The money would still seek out sympathetic
candidates.
d) All such political solutions run into the
chicken and egg problem that money currently
controls the elections, and we don't.
e) You get the downside (losing experienced
legislators who know how to work together)
with no clear upside.
f) It's the wrong problem.

That said, term limits were passed in California.
Did they help? I really don't known. I would welcome
some insights.