The REAL reason Vermont is now relevant

[Aurora Novus]

Yesterday Vermont became the first state to call for a constitutional converention to amend the Constitution, in order to get money out of politics.

What with that other topics, I thought it important people know the real reason they should be paying attention to Vermont right now. This is huge guys. The Supreme Court has been taking steps over the last few decades to absolutely erode the democratic process in this country, the recent McCutcheon v. FEC decision being the most recent example. There is no law in the land higher than the Constitution however, and if we the people can get something like this passed, we can tell the Supreme Court to fuck off with it's corrupt bullshit. It's coming, and it's coming quickly. Vermont is the first state. Who will be the second?

[Divair2]

Thanks, Vermont.

[The Serbian Empire]

I like this idea. Vermont is increasingly rising up my ranks of best states due to the rather loose gun laws and other policies that I have found particularly good such as this getting big money out of politics.

[Distruzio]

How would they propose we do that?

I'm neither opposed nor in favor. Not educated enough on the issue to make a comment.

[Geilinor]

How do you get "money out of politics"? They only way to actually do that would be to ban political donations. The most we can do is reduce the amount of money.

[Aurora Novus]

How do you get "money out of politics"? They only way to actually do that would be to ban political donations. The most we can do is reduce the amount of money.

The phrase "get money out of politics" doesn't literally mean we're removing money. It means we're removing it's influence over election results. Which can be done in a number of manners, such as restoring previous restrictions on private donations, or by making election campaings publicly funded instead of funded by private donation, like some states and local governments do.

[Shie]

Good.

[Divair2]

How would they propose we do that?

I'm neither opposed nor in favor. Not educated enough on the issue to make a comment.

Do what? Pass a Constitutional amendment?

[Distruzio]

How would they propose we do that?

I'm neither opposed nor in favor. Not educated enough on the issue to make a comment.

Do what? Pass a Constitutional amendment?

Separate money from politics. Although I've since seen responses explaining it. I'm still unsure enough to avoid an opinion on the matter.

[Destiny Island]

Sounds kind of cool.

[Divair2]

Do what? Pass a Constitutional amendment?

Separate money from politics. Although I've since seen responses explaining it. I'm still unsure enough to avoid an opinion on the matter.

Probably cap donations and fund campaigns through public funding.

[Distruzio]

Separate money from politics. Although I've since seen responses explaining it. I'm still unsure enough to avoid an opinion on the matter.

Probably cap donations and fund campaigns through public funding.

True enough. But what effect would this have on American politics? Why is such an initiative desirable?

[Divair2]

Probably cap donations and fund campaigns through public funding.

True enough. But what effect would this have on American politics? Why is such an initiative desirable?

Removes corporate influence from politics. A government that focuses on corporate profit is bound to sacrifice other priorities in its place.

[Phocidaea]

Well, best of luck.

They're really gonna need it. Unless they take the preliminary step of convincing Congress to divide New England into 100-some states.

[Distruzio]

True enough. But what effect would this have on American politics? Why is such an initiative desirable?

Removes corporate influence from politics. A government that focuses on corporate profit is bound to sacrifice other priorities in its place.

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

[Divair2]

Removes corporate influence from politics. A government that focuses on corporate profit is bound to sacrifice other priorities in its place.

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

Because corporate influence is interested in profit, not society's living standards. That's why the USA has a shit healthcare system, for example.

[Geilinor]

Removes corporate influence from politics. A government that focuses on corporate profit is bound to sacrifice other priorities in its place.

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

The government exists to serve the people, not corporate entities. Corporate influence in politics effectively allows members of corporate boards to donate twice, both as individuals and through the corporation.

[Aurora Novus]

Removes corporate influence from politics. A government that focuses on corporate profit is bound to sacrifice other priorities in its place.

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

Because it erodes the general populace's influence on politics. Which is the whole point of democracy.

If politicians are competeing with one another for elections, and require donations to be able to fund a campaign, you can bet they're going to listen to their donars. If the donars are us, the people, great. But when you allow massive spending, it ends up being that politicians listen to and make policies exclusively favoring the absurdly wealthy and powerful corporations, instead of listening to the people who've actually elected them.

It basically turns our democracy into an Oligarcy, where money, not the voice of the people, determines policy. That's not what this country is supposed to be about.

[Geilinor]

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

Because it erodes the general populace's influence on politics. Which is the whole point of democracy.

If politicians are competeing with one another for elections, and require donations to be able to fund a campaign, you can bet they're going to listen to their donars. If the donars are us, the people, great. But when you allow massive spending, it ends up being that politicians listen to and make policies exclusively favoring the absurdly wealthy and powerful corporations, instead of listening to the people who've actually elected them.

This^. People or entities who can't vote should have no influence in campaigns.

[Distruzio]

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

Because corporate influence is interested in profit, not society's living standards. That's why the USA has a shit healthcare system, for example.

Shit healthcare? Nonsense. We have shit healthcare insurance but our healthcare is fantastic.

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards. A poor society doesn't buy shit. Can't make profit without sales, can you?

[Geilinor]

Because corporate influence is interested in profit, not society's living standards. That's why the USA has a shit healthcare system, for example.

Shit healthcare? Nonsense. We have shit healthcare insurance but our healthcare is fantastic.

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards. A poor society doesn't buy shit. Can't make profit without sales, can you?

Wealth isn't the only thing that can improve living standards. What about education, environmental regulations (some), social welfare programs, and universal healthcare?

[Divair2]

Shit healthcare? Nonsense. We have shit healthcare insurance but our healthcare is fantastic.

I've yet to see anyone prove that, not that it matters if the single biggest reason for bankruptcy is healthcare costs.

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards. A poor society doesn't buy shit. Can't make profit without sales, can you?

No. They're really not. Which is why we have situations like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/busin ... .html?_r=0
Don't lie to yourself. You're an intelligent bloke. Corporate interests are not society's interests. Society's interests should come first.

[Distruzio]

Why is corporate influence undesirable?

Because it erodes the general populace's influence on politics. Which is the whole point of democracy.

If politicians are competeing with one another for elections, and require donations to be able to fund a campaign, you can bet they're going to listen to their donars. If the donars are us, the people, great. But when you allow massive spending, it ends up being that politicians listen to and make policies exclusively favoring the absurdly wealthy and powerful corporations, instead of listening to the people who've actually elected them.

It basically turns our democracy into an Oligarcy, where money, not the voice of the people, determines policy. That's not what this country is supposed to be about.

Neither is democracy. America is a Federal Republic. An oligarchy (of sorts) is what it has always been (although the executive branch and certain aspects of the legislative branch rely on democratic elections for legitimacy). Money has always determined policy in America. How is this initiative not anti-American?

[Distruzio]

Because it erodes the general populace's influence on politics. Which is the whole point of democracy.

If politicians are competeing with one another for elections, and require donations to be able to fund a campaign, you can bet they're going to listen to their donars. If the donars are us, the people, great. But when you allow massive spending, it ends up being that politicians listen to and make policies exclusively favoring the absurdly wealthy and powerful corporations, instead of listening to the people who've actually elected them.

This^. People or entities who can't vote should have no influence in campaigns.

That I agree with. Utterly.

[Aurora Novus]

And profitable interests are directly tied to living standards.

Not necessarily, no. Not when corporations can influence public policy to make it such that the profits of corporations don't benefit the general populace, by exploiting tax loopholes and lowering taxes in general. Not to mention, influencing politicians to reduce regulation on them, allowing them to exploit people and land even more than they do now, which can directly harm people's standard of living. There's a reason why the minimum wage has not increased with inflation like it should have been doing all these years, and it's beause of corporate influence on politics. And that has directly harmed us, not benefited us, as it has been eroding the strength of our middle class. In fact, we no longer have the strongest middle class in the world like we once had. Canada does now.