HuffPost Live: Vets on the Farm
Every problem is a job.
Washington is ‘more corrupt than it’s ever been’
Cenk Uygur and Dylan talk about Washington’s continued inability to get anything done in Congress, even when polls clearly show that’s American citizens want.
Marijuana and hydroponic organic farming
Dylan thanks Tommy Chong and marijuana growers everywhere for making hydroponics mainstream.
Dylan Ratigan Mad as Hell His Epic Network Moment We've got a real problem...this is a mathematical fact. Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America.
Putting Our Money Where Our Mouth Is After 780 hours of political cable news, 6000 hours of live financial television, 45 cities, 2 national jobs tours, 277,963 signatures to amend The Constitution, 245 pages of book and a promotion tour for Greedy Bastards, I was exhausted.
Im Mad As Hell How About You Yesterday, on TV, I exploded. I spent two minutes giving a primal yell at our political system, demanding the extraction of our money and dignity end. It was my most heartfelt and emotional moment on television, ever.
Ron Paul Exclusive Whos Regulating Washington "I want the government to live up to their promises." Listen to Dylan's exclusive interview with Rep. Ron Paul.
Deepak Chopra Leads Meditation at Occupy Wall Street Deepak Chopra joined us at Occupy Wall Street in New York's Zuccotti Park on Monday night, and led a two minute meditation with the General Assembly.
blueridgewoman:Brazil’s National School Meals Pro...April 7, 2013
Beverly Rose:Good luck Dylan you seem to be finally h...March 29, 2013
Bill Marvin:This is a good idea. As you know, the ne...March 28, 2013
richard wallace:can i buy the kale hero smoothie on line...March 27, 2013
Mark Doenges:We can argue about what should be done, ...March 27, 2013
Why don't you include single term serving? We need to eliminate professional politicians who can be lobbied for their votes. The British style would truly change our corrupt system. Getting the $ out of elections is great, but it doesn't eliminate the lifetime jobs and the people who pay to influence their votes.
I think we have the numbers throughout the country to make this happen. It is critical!
My only thought is that "one person -one vote" should also mean that the new laws keep a rich person from buying his-her own election. Say we can contribute $5,000. The rich person should do no more. Now THAT's free speech!
Campaign finance of any form, direct and indirect, should be limited to warm blooded American citizens, not corporations and unions, and with a limit so small that no one can buy influence.
The penalties for breaking this law must be draconian and fiercely enforced, or it's all for nothing.
Can you provide some explicit ways to fill the elections funds? "auctioning the airwaves among other things" sounds a bit scary to me, and perhaps like it could negate this movement itself.
Special interest groups would likely still own the air waves. Unless you banned them from having any political shows on their networks, wouldn't they still be able to broadcast political messages for one politician or another? Wouldn't this amount to political spending?
Our focus right now is getting money out of politics; we are not venturing into campaign funding for now. Our primary goal is to cure the ill of big money running politics.
Thanks Dylan, I can see what you're saying, it's best to focus on the root problem and leave secondary items (such as the particular new system for campaign finance) for later. I am wondering if perhaps this movement would be more effective if it focused on the scope of the federal government. In other words, it seems to me that an amendment banning political contributions will actually miss the root problem.
As long as the federal government is involved in regulating or legislating a given industry or process, won't it continue to be the target of regulatory capture? If we get rid of contributions, that is one thing, but it seems like whatever malevolent agent was trying to ruin the system with campaign money will now just find a new way to lure legislators into their grasp. (For example, giving lucrative jobs to politicians upon retirement or getting their executives into leadership roles at the regulatory agencies).
On the other hand, if the federal govt was not in the business of legislating whatever issue is being considered, there would be no incentive for the malevolent agent to attempt to buy the government. Presumably the regulation of whatever issue would be relegated to the states, where of course the agent could attempt to buy regulators out, but such corruption would be much more easily monitored since we have more control over our state legislatures than the distant congress in D.C.
Maybe I am missing something, but basically it seems like regulatory capture will always be a problem when the federal govt has the authority to regulate a given issue.
Does the amendment allow "the wealthy" to fund their own political campaigns?
For some answers to frequently asked questions that keep popping up, check out Dylan’s Get Money Out: FAQ post here: http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/09/28/get-money-…
Best of luck Dylan – Canada moved this way a few years ago (every vote for a party = $ from the govt to support the parties, about $2/year) but now the reigning Conservative majority government has already expressed its will to move away from this funding model…
Funny that a group of leftwingers that work for a TV network whose sole mission is to re elect Barack Obama wants everyone else silent.
Add Banning all persons currently working for MSNBC from the air and I will sign. Otherwise it seems like you just want to keep the power for yourself.
This a a wonderful start! Perhaps, in a final version, it could include a provision to absolutely prohibit any elective official from engaging in any form of lobbying after leaving office.
Jim1Best
The language of the proposed amendment is Great! Jimmy Williams, et al, did an excellent job! It will be very effective at removing the cancerous corruption of money from politics.
That Said, if you disagree, see a loophole, or think of a way around it, Post Your Thoughts.
If You like it and want to Get Money Out, sign up and tell your friends.
I'm 76 years old and for the last 15-20 years I have worried about what will happen to my kids , grandkids , and greatgrandkids because of the corupt political system and the destruction of the middle class. This could be the first step to save them. GO FOR IT !!!
There should be a certain, specific amount candidates can spend on their campaigns. The same amount for anyone who runs.
There should also be an alotted amount of time spent on P.S. television, and that's it.
Equal amount of money, equal TV time. I have felt for many years that this idea would help.
Thanks
Patricia Murphy
how is this movement related to http://movetoamend.org/?
Your intent is good but don't you know the difference between reign and rein?
Illiteracy kills credibility.
JMc
Wouldn't something like this only leave us with the very rich being able to afford to run a political campaign? Or are we going to prohibit candidates from being able to contribute to their own campaign as well?
For some answers to frequently asked questions that keep popping up, check out Dylan’s Get Money Out: FAQ post here: http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/09/28/get-money-…
If our lovely elected officials got to where they are or campaigned on the publics' dime, they would most certainly have a difficult time using traditional distortionist tactics that permeate the airwaves today.
The timing of this populist effort with the low ratings of congress is perfect. I sure hope this has wheels. Emailing all my friends now.
I feel like its asking too much for them to "sober up" (well put) without something to fill the void. Funding the elections would be easy enough, but how does one qualify to get the funding? That would remain in the hands of these same "drunks." Can't say I like that scenario.
But to take a shot at filling the void for my state laws, I would suggest: Each registered voter has x $'s sent to the fund of the political party they are registered to. Limit the number of political parties eligible to receive funds based upon their number of members. How many parties get funding? At least 3, probably more. Details like that seem best resolved through our 50 laboratories of democracy. Unaffiliated voter money gets split evenly through the parties.
Chris, the points you are bringing up are why we have been working on this: http://www.thebalancedrepublic.com. How to guarantee honest representation of "The People", everytime, without money, preference, bias, or undo influence. Amendments are part spirit and energy and part design and engineering. GetMoneyOut definitely has the spirit and energy. And we should support it. In the end, if it runs into trouble with issues like yours, we hope The Balanced Republic can help. We must keep going. There are answers! This is the most important of all the issues. The rest of politics and policy is noise until we have a representative system. Keep going!
New Amendments are 90% spirit and energy. But eventually have to transition to design and engineering. Your questions are good ones. The Balanced Republic proposes an amendment that tries to solve what you are bringing up. How to have representative elections every time: no pandering to voters and no money for special influence. Lets support GetMoneyOut and help them transition to something that will be clean and successful. Regards The Balanced Republic
Elections could be cheap and funded by a $5 poll tax. Today it's not the voters who decide the outcome anyway, it's the crooks who count the votes.
Related legislation to cleaning up the pols:
One problem still remains no matter how financing elections is done. Nothing can stop (nor should stop) people from pooling their money in a private organization and putting on commercials to educate (or lie) to the public about issues, which will favor particular candidates. So, I'm afraid my friends, a more knowledgable voting base is required to really get us out of this mess. One that is capable of electing more statesmen and less politicians.
How about a voter ed class and competency test required to become a registered voter? We do it to license people to drive. Yes, its asking more of people. Voting places people in positions of power over our lives! It is a serious thing for every citizen to do. Until we take it more seriously, we will continue to get what we are currently getting from those we elect.
You are absolutely correct on the first step of the solution. Where is the draft?
Some people are expressing little hope for this effort due to Citizens United.
How might the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United impact a constitutional amendement?
How might the amendment be challenged or overturned?
Cheers,
KParso
What I would like to know is how this actually makes 'public' funded campaigning incontrovertible?
I’m extremely sympathetic, but unsure of details, where the devil is said to lie. Specifically, just how wide is the definition of “indirect expenditures”? Would it include independent issue ads? Would it also include the movie that was at the heart of the Citizens United case? (Would it also include any number of Michael Moore movies, or for that matter, ANY documentary that takes a clear position about an issue that can be affected by the outcome of an election?
Luca, this will transition from spirit to "details engineering". I am guessing the final amendment will not look like it does now. But we should still support whatever will get all 300 million of us rowing in the same direction. We have a different amendment "design" that also tries to get the money out. It specifies a specific mechanism that would be fair, clean, and ALWAYS result in true representation for the people. We are building a better mousetrap. (We are awful at marketing but might have a better final product?) Regards, The Balanced Republic
Yes, I agree … "organization or group" should be added to the amendment. + "donations-in-kind".
Question: How does this repudiate the revolving door that is already established in DC?
Why did you include the national holiday for the elections? Whether or not it is a good idea, it seems unrelated to the money issue. If you are going to turn the amendment into a christmas tree for multiple reforms, aren’t there more and better things (fraudulent e-voting, illegals, felons, etc?)
If Senator Barry Goldwater got out of his grave today and looked at his Conservative Republican Party he would throw up and crawl back into his hole. On pg.34 of "Conscience of a Conservative" he states that if unlimited funding is allowed in our elections by unions and corporations it would be the end of our democracy..Where is the republican party on this issue?
If I give my sister a Christmas present of cash, and she puts it in a savings account, and then runs for President, will I be thrown in jail?
This amendment is great, and I hope it continues to accumulate more signatures…. I think even more people would sign if Dylan was a little more up front on the show about the fact that after this amendment will necessarily come some sort of public financing.
Of course, that public financing solution will be hashed out in detail by congress much later, after we pass the amendment, but some people I know are dissuaded from signing this amendment because they think that it means that only rich individuals would be able to campaign for high office (which would admittedly be better than individuals bought out by big money, but still not very democratic).
Public financing may prompt some anti-government rhetoric, but on base it has worked magnificently in much of Europe and could mean cheaper elections generally.
just to get this straigt, under this amendment, a rich person could not fund his own campaign right?
It seems to me that we have to be more draconian. It should be made illegal for a candidate to know who contributes money to her. And likewise illegal for a donor to tell the candidate he has contributed. There should be major penalties for both parties. If, say, a Congressperson were found to have deliberate found out hwo her donors were, she should be expelled from the Congress and penalties of fines or jail time should apply. And if he were a lawyer, disbarrment should take place. Likewise if a contributor were guilty of informinhg a candidate, similar penalties should apply. Then we might have a clean if severely impoverished system. But that would be better then what we have.
The experiment in government subsidies for political parties (approx $2 per vote from the federal treasury) was tried in Canada, and suprise surprise, the current right-wing government will end the practice – see article at the Ottawa Citizen http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Party%2Bover%2B…
I have hope again like I did when Barack Obama became President. He broke my heart! Let's go America, we can do it ourself!!!