6 ms·

While pointing fingers at Russia or impeaching Trump may be the options that feel good at the moment, I hope this is an opportunity to make sure something like

While pointing fingers at Russia or impeaching Trump may be the options that feel good at the moment, I hope this is an opportunity to make sure something like this never happens again. This is a pipe dream and I'm not sure this is even possible, but I think the best outcome of this is to pass legislation to try and ensure that: 1. Political campaigns don't engage in the type of behaviour in the first place, and 2. Make communications more public in general - official campaigns of people running for public office must operate under the light of greater public scrutiny Democracy is only possible if accurate information is available, and the biggest takeaway for me in the last elections was just how many secrets all political players have.

catawbasam 8y ago
There need to be clear consequences, to serve as a deterrent. Having a functioning democracy is a core interest of the United States, so the consequences should be severe.
- polotics 8y ago
  Well, treason is already well defined in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta... No one has been executed for treason against the federal government. Yet.
aphextron 8y ago
It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.
- orangecat 8y ago
  money will continue to dominate everything The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Yes, and? This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.
    - orangecat 8y ago
      The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016 https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/ http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).
      - chillwaves 8y ago
        Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. Context matters.
        orangecat 8y ago
        Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.
- oblib 8y ago
  "Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..." My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen. What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same. When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then. This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.
- djrogers 8y ago
  > a set equal amount for each major party candidate So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chickenbane 8y ago
I would be happy with laws clearly requiring a presidential candidate to disclose their full income taxes for the past 5 years, and also required them to put their assets into a blind trust / index fund when inaugurated into office. We should not have to question the president's basic motivations or allegiances. Stronger anti-nepotism laws, restraints on the ability to pardon, and ending the electoral college also all seem helpful and would have bipartisan support.
- adventured 8y ago
  Ending the electoral college would have nearly zero bipartisan support. Democrats have a popular vote advantage, and the demographics + immigration picture of the US guarantee that will remain for a generation at least (as far as one can reasonable project into the future anyway). The Republicans are fully aware of that problem, they'd never support ending the electoral college. Republicans broadly also do not believe in what would be closer to direct democracy. If ending the electoral college had any meaningful bipartisan support, it would already be dead as a system, as changing that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    Public support for abolishing the electoral college also drops with higher educational attainment. It’s reasonable to assume as the issue is debated publicly overall support would drop as more become informed. http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-electoral-college.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...
    - oldgulph 8y ago
      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001). Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).
stale2002 8y ago
Or in other words, instead of trying to prevent leaks, we should encourage as many leaks as possible, so as to provide transparency on political campaigns.
- saas_co_de 8y ago
  The best way to fight fascism is with censorship ... obviously.
djur 8y ago
What kind of behavior do you mean by "the type of behavior"?
moduspol 8y ago
What relevance does this have to political campaigns? You seem to be implying it's a foregone conclusion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to do this, but that certainly hasn't been proven. At best, this reveals a clearer link in the DNC emails being hacked from Russia. These were then sent to Wikileaks. If they came from Russia, then it was likely to influence our election, and it likely benefited Trump. But that (in no way) implies any behavior on the part of the Trump campaign. You're making a big leap here.
SanderSantema 8y ago
I don't think it's necessarily a pipe dream but I don't it's just a case of changing some laws I think it would require a culture change to. To me politics still seem really representative of the people, politicians can only prosper if there's an environment for them to.

catawbasam 8y ago

There need to be clear consequences, to serve as a deterrent. Having a functioning democracy is a core interest of the United States, so the consequences should be severe.

polotics 8y ago
Well, treason is already well defined in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta... No one has been executed for treason against the federal government. Yet.

aphextron 8y ago

It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.

orangecat 8y ago
money will continue to dominate everything The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Yes, and? This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.
  - orangecat 8y ago
    The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016 https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/ http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).
    - chillwaves 8y ago
      Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. Context matters.
      - orangecat 8y ago
        Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.
oblib 8y ago
"Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..." My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen. What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same. When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then. This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.
djrogers 8y ago
> a set equal amount for each major party candidate So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

chickenbane 8y ago

I would be happy with laws clearly requiring a presidential candidate to disclose their full income taxes for the past 5 years, and also required them to put their assets into a blind trust / index fund when inaugurated into office. We should not have to question the president's basic motivations or allegiances. Stronger anti-nepotism laws, restraints on the ability to pardon, and ending the electoral college also all seem helpful and would have bipartisan support.

adventured 8y ago
Ending the electoral college would have nearly zero bipartisan support. Democrats have a popular vote advantage, and the demographics + immigration picture of the US guarantee that will remain for a generation at least (as far as one can reasonable project into the future anyway). The Republicans are fully aware of that problem, they'd never support ending the electoral college. Republicans broadly also do not believe in what would be closer to direct democracy. If ending the electoral college had any meaningful bipartisan support, it would already be dead as a system, as changing that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats.
- dahdum 8y ago
  Public support for abolishing the electoral college also drops with higher educational attainment. It’s reasonable to assume as the issue is debated publicly overall support would drop as more become informed. http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-electoral-college.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...
  - oldgulph 8y ago
    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001). Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

stale2002 8y ago

Or in other words, instead of trying to prevent leaks, we should encourage as many leaks as possible, so as to provide transparency on political campaigns.

saas_co_de 8y ago
The best way to fight fascism is with censorship ... obviously.

djur 8y ago

What kind of behavior do you mean by "the type of behavior"?

moduspol 8y ago

What relevance does this have to political campaigns? You seem to be implying it's a foregone conclusion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to do this, but that certainly hasn't been proven. At best, this reveals a clearer link in the DNC emails being hacked from Russia. These were then sent to Wikileaks. If they came from Russia, then it was likely to influence our election, and it likely benefited Trump. But that (in no way) implies any behavior on the part of the Trump campaign. You're making a big leap here.

SanderSantema 8y ago

I don't think it's necessarily a pipe dream but I don't it's just a case of changing some laws I think it would require a culture change to. To me politics still seem really representative of the people, politicians can only prosper if there's an environment for them to.