November 14, 2010 01:28 AM UTC
Fixing our broken system
61 Comments- by: DavidThi808
Ok, the election is over, now it’s time to start thinking about governing instead of campaigning. Through all of this, it consistently struck me that we have three gigantic problems that we are not addressing. If we don’t fix these three, then we are going to remain stuck and stuck is not a pretty place.
First we need to reform campaign financing. Successful candidates have to spend 6+ hours every single day to raise the funds they need for the Senate, close to that for the House, and it’s getting up there for competitive state offices both executive and legislative. This is fundamentally corrupting because people, be they an individual contributing 5 bucks, a business executive contributing $2,400.00, or a lobbyist bundling 100k, are only going to contribute to a candidate who will advance their interests. And the larger the checks, the more specific the interests.
This is why Wall St. has the Senate by the balls. You can’t raise the money needed to win without contributions from there – lots and lots of contributions. I don’t think most Senators like the limits they face to raise enough money to win. But they make the reasonable and rational decision that they will do the best they can within the limits required to get reelected – because if they don’t whoever replaces them will face those same limits. I also think that our legislators, while they enjoy the competitive advantage the present system gives them (they’re the best at raising the money), fundamentally hate the limits it places on their actions.
The bottom line is that until we change how races are financed, the victorious candidates will be constrained by their major contributors. Not owned, but constrained. And to free them to respond to us, the voters, we need to break their financial dependency. To do this I think we need to:
- Public financing for every candidate in the general election who is a member of a major party or who is pulling more than 10% in an average of the polls. If a candidate declines public financing, then their opponents will be funded to the same level (Jared I love you but I think we need to make financing a level field).
- In the primary the same thing – with a requirement that they raise X dollars from Y donors. The donors must be in their district. And those limits are enough that they do have to go sell themselves to a lot of people (a good thing), but not one that sucks up a ton of time. The purpose of this is primary funding only goes to credible candidates.
- There must be full disclosure of the contributors to any organization that runs any kind of political ad. If the ad is nothing more than God Bless America, they must disclose. No disclosure, then the ads cannot run. This in no way impinges on the 1st amendment as you can say anything you want, you just have to first say your name.
- No limits on contributions. You can contribute any amount to any person, cause, interest group, etc., including candidates who choose to avoid public financing. The money will find a way so limits just change how it is delivered and to what group. Having it go to the parties (that would be the main impact if we have public financing) actually increases accountability.
Second we need to address unemployment. The only way to turn the economy around is to reduce unemployment. As long as the economy is in the toilet government expenses are higher and government income is lower. Reducing unemployment flips that so we have reduced expenses, increased revenue, and an avenue to balancing the budget and the money to address the other problems we face.
First off, we have to be honest about the problem. The true unemployment rate is 17% including those that have given up and those who are underemployed. This is close to 30 million people. We need to get 15 million back to work or otherwise busy to bring the economy back (measuring the true rate you do have about 5% unemployed at “full employment” because people switch jobs, get fired and are looking for a month or two, etc.) So how do we do this?
- There are 5 million open jobs today. The big problem is that the jobs are in one place and the person who wants to take it is unemployed elsewhere – in a home where they owe more than it’s worth. So we pass a law that anyone who moves over 100 miles to take a job can walk away from their home and the bank must take it back. Yes that’s tough for the banks, but they got us into this mess, and we gave them a ton of money to fix their self-inflicted error. They can use part of the bonuses they’re presently paying to cover this.
- There are 20 million students in College. I figure schools can on average handle a temporary 20% increase in students using their existing infrastructure – many will be bursting at the seams but it’s doable. So we send 4 million to school. Many unemployed have skills for jobs that are not coming back, not even with full employment. What would this cost? Figure $40,000.00/year, a little over 20K to the college and a little under 20K for the student to live on. And repayment would be a percentage of their taxes so the government would make back this investment (and it is an investment that will pay off big time).
The cost would be 160 Billion/year. If the Bush tax cuts expire for all (which is the truly sensible course), then federal income increases 370 Billion/year. So let the tax cuts lapse (all of them), implement this program, and the deficit is still cut 210 Billion/year. And this will reduce unemployment by 5 million (not 4) because colleges will need to hire additional people to teach and support the additional students.
- Improving our infrastructure is not only desperately needed for the future, but it is one of the most effective ways to turn the economy around (much better than tax cuts). While the direct cost of each job created by this spending is 350K/job, when you count the secondary jobs created it drops to around 200K/job (it is so high because you’re spending a lot on stuff, not people). To put 1 million to work would require spending of 200 Billion. We take that from the 210 Billion left over after letting the tax cuts expire and funding college.
- Ok, that’s 11 million of the 15 million. By itself that will get the economy heading upward – fast. I’ll leave it to Congress to figure out the last 4 million unemployed. Oh, and it’s a great counter argument to extending the tax cuts – you want the cuts or 6 million jobs…
Third we need to complete financial reform. The financial reform bill had some good stuff in it. But it was not enough to avoid another financial crash, and the banks are already up to many of their old tricks. When people claim it was the greatest financial reform since FDR, that’s because it was the only reform since FDR. Both parties have indulged in an orgy of financial deregulation since 1980 at the behest of their Wall St. contributors. And the result has been that all three recessions since the Clinton boom have been due to financial games.
What is needed here is straightforward, but politically difficult. I think we will need to get campaign finance reform through first because if we don’t, every legislator who votes for the below will lose their next election – and they know that. But once they are free to vote in the interests of the country we need to:
- Bring back Glass-Steagall. It worked superbly well for 60 years until it was removed. Tweak it a bit if necessary, but by tweak I mean make better, not eviscerate at the behest of Wall St. And until we bring it back we will continue to have recessions caused by Wall St.
- Break up the banks that are too big to fail. As long as a bank is too big, then it is too big to fail. And those super large banks have a tremendous advantage over their competitors because investors know the federal government will not let them fail. We did it to Standard Oil because its size alone was harmful to our economy, we can do the same with the largest banks.
Democracy isn’t easy. One election alone does not fix everything. Even people with the best of intentions are limited by the system and their own knowledge and skills. So we have to keep working to improve the system. I do think at present we are at a point where the above is possible – people are upset and they are paying attention.
First posted at Liberal and Loving It – Fixing our broken system
campaign finance, lower unemployment, and fix the financial system?
Damn, I can’t believe no one thought of that before. Well let’s just do that then! Hooray, the insightful “political” plan that also reduces plaque; recommended by all the leading dentists in town!!
Listen, the thought is nice, but your 3-point plan is as bogus as a Republican promising to reduce the deficit by cutting “spending” without any thought as to how you significantly cut spending while leaving defense and entitlements off the table.
Until you provide some thought as to how this will pass Congress, or make it relevant to something that is already/actually happening, this is just an uninteresting soapbox sermon; not at all relevant to ColoradoPols.
Can I get our legislators to focus on this by myself? No. But if I can get others to also tell our legislators that these are the top priorities, then maybe.
As to how, I think my proposal to put ending the tax cuts against 6 million new jobs would get people’s interest.
You won’t be getting it done in the next two years – better put some urgency behind getting a fixed (aka without loopholes) version of DISCLOSE past the lame duck Congress. The Republican House got elected on that extra undisclosed cash, and they won’t want to repeal it until and unless they get their asses handed to them by a Democratic fundraising machine that outpaces them.
My thoughts:
A PERSON can give as much money as they want, but ONLY in an election where they could be registered to vote (personally I would like to see it limited to people who are registered, but that might be a bit much).
A person living in Denver can give as MUCH as they want to CD 1 race, but not a State House race in Meeker. No coorporations can give money. No out of state money. Just as much money from humans as they want to give for elections for which they could vote based on where they live…
pretty simple thoughts. Nothing new there…
except that the higher up the food chain you go, the less the election has to do with the local district. I mean what does DeGette really do for CD1 except whatever bacon she brings home?
Her role is really more of a national one. The laws she votes on affect the whole nation. So someone running for Congress to represent Meeker will affect me as much as they will affect someone in Meeker. And so I should be able to contribute to their or their opponents campaign then.
Why can’t you vote in Denver AND in Meeker?
My point is I personally should only be able to influence elections at NO GREATER rate of influence than my vote can. The vote, in my opinion, is the highest level of political speech possible (and we only get one of those!)
limiting posts on blogs like this to your own political subdivisions? You can’t post anywhere a Meeker resident can read, just to sites that limit their readers to addresses that coincide with your voter registration?
Political speech is political speech, it isn’t voting.
Its not just who is elected in your district that is important. Its also who holds the majority in the state House and Senate. That’s why people in safe districts, whether CD,HD or SD, often conribute to and campaign for candidates in other districts.
I don’t see anything wrong with people spending their time and money with a bigger than strictly local picture in mind.
So long as A PERSON can walk door-to-door talking to voters as much as they want, but ONLY in districts where they could be registered to vote. If you can’t send $20 to a neighboring state rep race, you shouldn’t be able to knock on doors in that district either.
money is different than door knocking and the actual act of the vote. For instance, you don’t need to register to knock on doors, but a candidate does need to report your donation. You DO need to be a certain age to vote, live in a district and vote only once, etc.
To keep with my example, if you live in Meeker you can give to the Denver race if you can find a person in Denver to filter your money to.
The last part is more reporting. if I am that person in denver that works at Dennys but gives a million dollar donation, then the press should end up on my doorstep asking questions.
Yeah, because that’s what the law says these days. Except that issue committees below a certain size don’t need to report donations, as per the recent Colo Supreme Court decision.
Your distinctions are flimsy. Speech is speech, and it’s accomplished lots of ways. Voting is something different.
I think she/he is speaking to a larger issue about money in politics. I do find it obscene that non-human entities have been construed to have the exact same rights as living, breathing human beings.
Speech may be accomplished many ways, but corporations should not be treated on an equal basis as human beings when it comes to free speech. And the conflation of commercial speech and political speech should stop as well. Corporations use the First Amendment to cover their asses on a lot of objectionable commercial speech.
So how do we take back our rights from these inanimate entities?
an intriguing idea that is completely unconstitutional. I think this idea needs to be gamed out, but it has merit. It will only take 5 to 20 years to add it to the constitution, so we might want to consider what to do in the meantime. Public funding of elections is done in Arizona and Maine. The big question to resolve in Colorado is paying for public funding of elections. Without a new stream of funding, we can’t take it out of an overcalled-on general fund.
from Charles Ferguson.
as usual, commentators like to yell “A pox on both your houses.” Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they will turn out to vote for the worst candidates no matter what. Indies and Dems are more easily swayed by ads and propaganda.
you need a constitutional amendment. That’s the only way to fix the huge problem created by Citizens United and, besides, if done right it could make even more repairs to a system screwed up first by Buckley v. Valeo 34 years ago.
I believe that during the creation of the 14th amendment those were in there but struck before finalization.
A whole different world from the obvious intent of the 14th to the corporate bastardization leading the Citizens United.
The effort to insert those two words would be the line in the sand. Those voting against such a change are obviously sucking the corporate dick.
Which is why it will never happen. Welcome to the corporacy.
where the Marriott Corp. is required to quarter soldiers, where the ACLU has no free speech rights, and where every labor union is subject to warrantless search.
This is more complicated than you’re allowing.
Amending the amendment to narrow personhood to natural born would lead to what you describe?
I’m missing something.
What does that mean? Is that an exemption for test tube babies?
Born is born, conception is conception.
If anything, one might argue a Caesarian birth isn’t natural……
Or, delete “persons” and replace with “human beings.”
I’m trying to figure out what “natural born” does to the 14th, except to make it sound like a delta blues song.
As were the original writers.
But that song thingy has possibilities, “Got them corporatist natural born strugglin’ blues.”
Read some Thom Hartmann sometime (or listen to him for any length of time…) for a good solid history.
Upon passage of the 14th Amendment, because it didn’t include the words “natural person”, the corporations spent a considerable amount of time arguing cases that they were “persons” under the Amendment – they are considered “artificial persons” under law, FWIW. Eventually they got a Supreme Court opinion that recognized that right, and the rest is history.
Corporations have free speech rights as well as most of the other rights guaranteed to people under the constitution – excepting those which apply strictly to citizens, like voting.
But passing an Amendment inserting ‘natural born’ before ‘person’ in the 14th Amendment causes other problems, as RedGreen hints at; in addition to Constitutional issues, there are now generations worth of law written on the premise that Corporations have certain rights as people simply because of the 14th Amendment.
To fix the problem, any proposed amendment would have to address these issues. My suggestion in a comment some time back was to make clear that artificial persons gained their rights as representatives of the natural persons that run and/or own them. That should (in theory) give them legal protections without granting them their own rights to participate in campaign activities.
HOWEVER – doing this still won’t solve the campaign finance problem. Rich individuals are free to spend as much as they want, and under any reasonable solution, so would organizations – provided they spend only that money which their owners/members are able to collect. You still have to cover disclosure issues and, if you wish, the thorny Constitutional issue of campaign finance limits.
I think the first step that could actually have a chance of passing is to allow unlimited contributions to anyone from any source.
However, the amounts and names have to be fully disclosed. If the money comes from PACs, then the contributing members of the PACs would be made public. If corporations are giving money, then the names of the executives and/or board members that directed those contributions should be publicized with each contribution.
Any organization that buys political ads would have to publish the names of the persons and organizations that provide those funds, and the trail must lead back to a breathing human being, no matter how many shell organizations have to be pierced to get there.
Once campaign funding is fully out in the open, then we can at least get a better idea of who is pulling the strings.
The fact that Meg Whitman spent $160 million of her own money and still lost gives one hope that people still have some common sense left. The fewer sources of funding you have, the less influence all the rest of us have on said candidate. Of course, Michael Blumberg spending $108 million of his own money probabably reassured New Yorkers that he couldn’t be bought by any of the heavyweight influence peddlers in the city.
The second reform I’d like to see is shorter, plain language legislation. I think the frustration shared by many of us (including — gasp, I can’t believe I’m saying this! — Tea Partyers) is that legislation is packed with so many favors to special interests and backdoor deals cloaked in foggy legalese, that the good intentions bannered by the bill’s title are sometimes lost, or even contravened by the details buried inside.
The language should clearly spell out the intent of the bill, and stripped of all the pilot fish amendments and hidden agendas. Then, when the time comes to implement the bill, the result won’t be bureaucrats having to perform backflips and pirouettes just to meet the letter, but not the intent of the law.
is by far the No.1 priority. It’s urgent. Without it, the chances of democratic behavior on other issues are nil. I think it’s doable, if (if, if, if) we hammer our senators and representative again and again, especially by snail mail and telephone. Indiidual letters and those signed by groups (eg. neighbors) get their attention. But we have to get and stay active in proportion to efforts of the corporate interests, which means a tireless, neverending effort.
Ultimately, I’d like to see a constitutional ammendment denying personhood to corporations, but that’s nearly impossible.
or absolutely nothing will get done. We will have continual negative attack season financed with a GOP edge. Unemployment will escalate. We will become more of a police state.
I don’t agree with donate-only-in-your district. Some races have implications for me, even if I don’t live there. Besides, restrictions just encourage funneling money to campaigns in more creative, less open ways. I agree that full disclosure is more effective and democratic than restricting donations.
Well-meaning pipe dreams.
Good luck.
But who will bell the cat? You are saying what “should be done.” not how to do it. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts on the weathly are already spoken for to reduce the debt. They are not available, even if they are eliminated, for your program.
You are proposing solutions. But, I think it is necessary to look at causes first. I think your approach may mirror the way computer engineers solve problems…create new code or new problems or just juggle around until something works to fix the presenting problem.
I don’t think this works in the political world. First of all, how can we reform campaign financing if the current system favors those with money who have consistently won political office. Why would they want to change the system which brought them to power? How could you mobilize public opinion – when the public opinion machine is already in the hands of the well financed special interests?
(I realize the ebay lady in Calfornia used millions of her own money and still lost. That is the exception which proves the rule.)
I find your statement that there are five million open jobs today but they are not where the people are fascinating…what is your source??? Do you honestly think that the government can mandate that banks “take back” homes with existing mortgages??? I don’t think that is constitutional…nor should it be.
So answer my questions and we can continue.
Ok, here goes. Yes our elected representatives gain advantage from the present funding system – but they sell their soul to do so. And they know it. I think if a good alternative is proposed that lets them get off that treadmill, a lot would be willing to give up some advantage in return for not having to spend close to half their waking hours grovelling for bucks.
On the 5 million jobs, my source is President Clinton and he referred to base sources, but don’t remember what those are.
As to making it legal to walk from a mortgage, we have all kinds of laws around issues like this. In many states when you declare bankruptcy they cannot take your home (no matter how expensive), so this would be the flip side of that exception.
Elected Representatives had the opportunity to change the law. What we got was the Feingold – McBain campaign finance law and Feingold was defeated in his first election after that law passed by a millionaire who out spent him.
Obama said he would choose public financing of his campaign and then changed his mind. The Supreme Court’s decisions, United Citizens and the decision that limiting money limits speech and therefore in unconstitutional under the First amendment have made it very difficult now to get changes in the law. With a democratic controlled Congress, the elected representatives and Senators refused to even pass a law demanding disclosure of contributors for the 527s.
I think that there are some things which could be done with public media and the public airwaves controlled by commercial interests. I think that the FCC could mandate that public TV and Radio give far more time during an election campaign to candidates to use as they wish. I also think that the FCC could limit the amount of money commercial outlets could charge for campaign ads.
David – excellent diary and great way to bring focus back to the whole point of things – MAKING AMERICA BETTER
I have my disagreements, but you are SPOT ON about bringing back the Glass Steagall Act – it was written to PREVENT a future Great Depression, and upon being revoked in 1999, the financial system only saw itself WRECKED shortly after
My personal checklist, for the most important things that need to happen in America –
1. (tie) Legalizing Gay Marriage & implementing some sort of pathway that gives Citizenship to ALL Immigrants
2. (close second) Re-Implementing the Glass Steagall Act and revoking Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as revoke Frank-Dodd
3. Revoke Campaign Finance Reform all together – just allow limitless contributions, with the caveat that all contributions and expenditures have FULL transparency
Welcome to Ali’s America!
🙂
Although I would take exception on the path to citizenship issue. Look how many legal immigrants there are who never choose citizenship.
Then, when you get into the illegal group, my guess – repeat, guess – is that it’s even less. They mostly just want to work legally, not get deported.
So then, let them work legally. But the ramification of that will be more people crossing the border because the lesson is if you get here, it’s OK to stay here.
The amnesty of 1986 only cleared the deck for that time, then things continued.
As long as there is a huge wage difference and businesses want cheaper labor, there will be problems. I do not claim to have any solution, I just think this “Path to citizenship” is a canard. Of course, with American wages continuing to fall, we may not have to worry in another decade.
… and not just for the jobs. Disclosure, accountability, protection for whistleblowers, records retention – all very good things. Wasn’t the prompt Enron?
since SOX was implemented, even though it is a felony to file false or misleading corporate statements and the CFO and CEO have to sign their own names to the 10-Qs, etc stating the docs are completely accurate. SOX is used for the wrong things in companies to drive absolutely stupid behavior and completely misses its intended mark.
Perhaps attention needs to be paid to controlling the costs of campaigning, not just the source of funds. Assuming, for example, that a significant portion of costs goes to video advertising, should there be an obligation for carriers to make available some amount of time gratis? Etc.
….the radio waves were seen as public property. The FCC mandated things like a percentage of broadcast time to be for the public benefit. Mostly, that was done via news.
In election years there might be speeches or debates, but any legitimate candidate could request equal time.
You probably know all this.
Now the air waves are seen as private property and fuck you, I ain’t giving nothing to nobody. Line up with your check books, please.
If money provides an advantage, and electing your guy means gigantic financial advantage, that money will find a way in and will be used. It’s like prohibition, it may feel good but it doesn’t work.
that over the past 35 years or so (and the “or so” matters, but not right here) the concentration of wealth in the USA has increased hugely;
and government policy, notably tax policy but not only that, has been a huge factor in that transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top ONE percent;
and campaign practices are part of that process;
and the deficit is also a reflection of the process — which means a shortfall in revenue just as much as it means excess spending (can’t have one without the other);
as is the intentional transfer of valor-added labor from the USA to Asia (somebody sold/closed all those steel plants!).
Should we start at the tips of the branches (e.g. campaign finance reform) to address the problem, or do we need to go to the roots? My experience is that trimmed branches tend to grow back.
That’ll inspire consumer confidence. Remind me when you plan to make them pay for the Progressive (regardless of party) wet dream of putting people in homes they can’t afford. I’ll need to pull my money out.
That we just can’t give the banks money like TARP without requiring something in return. I hate to break it to you but capitalism is a superior system.
1. The notorious mortgages given to people for homes they couldn’t afford were, mostly, not granted by banks. They were granted by companies like Countrywide (admittedly owned by Citi, but not a bank) and then sold as “collatoralized securities.” Another source of funds was Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, quasi-government corporations that act in a similar fashion–they buy mortgages from agents. Point 1: keep your money where it is; it’s guaranteed by the federal government. Point 2: The old fashioned way of going to a “bank” — more likely a savings and loan — for a mortgage went out of style long ago.
2. “Homes They Can’t Afford.” Home much is a house worth? Lots of houses out there built, say, in the 1960s initially sold for, say, $40,000, which covered the materials and labor to build them. That house was, and is, worth $40,000; it wasn’t affected by inflation because there were no new, inflated “costs” involved. (Please save us in-depth discussions of replacement value, please; I do understand that.) My point is that the housing bubble was a phenomenon of the financial system, and specifically of artificial demand created by an unregulated portion of the financial system. Clever boys on Wall St. who weren’t quite as clever as they thought they were.
2a. “Homeowners” take a chance when they take out a loan on a house priced at $xxx,xxx. Lenders take a chance on the “homeowner.” Or so the 7yth grade version goes. But when the market collapses, the “homeowner” is stuck owing more than the market value of the house. Surprised that that risk gets passed to the lenders in the form of defaults? Outraged? Why? After all, the property was the collateral for the loan. Point: the risk was always the lender’s, never the borrower’s. Point: see 3. below.
3. “Can’t Afford.” One issue when the housing bubble first came undone was in some cases, after one or two years monthly payments doubled (or so). Something about interest rates, wasn’t it? (I.e., not the “value” of the house.) The people living in those houses could afford them, then they couldn’t–because the interest on their mortgage soared. Sure, some were enticed by hucksters and many may not have been savvy, etc. But the point is: middle, or lower-middle class families were given a chance to live in new, decent houses in new subdivisions and they went for it. Doing so also helped the construction industry. Dishonest mortgage brokers scoffed at concerns that interest rates would double after a couple of years (“You can always refinance”), playing into the dreams of tens of thousands of mothers and fathers to let their children grow up in a nice, new house in a safe neighborhood.
Now we have come full circle. The price of (some of) those houses dropped by 40, 50, 60%. Interest rates are under 5%. Can the original occupants “afford” them now? Suppose the original culprit was solved by making mortgage loans with fixed rates at current market value? After all, the owners of the original mortgages, in selling foreclosed properties, aren’t going to get the value of the original mortgage; they will get the (much reduced) market value in today’s market.
Given the trillions of unused capital hanging around, perhaps a means needs to be devised to get foreclosed-upon former homeowners back into their houses at today’s prices, today’s interest rates. Actually, somesuch program is in place, but has not succeeded in very many successful refinancings; the program needs to be fixed, not dumped.
Lastly, to DavidThi808’s point that “capitalism is a superior system”). Odd time to be saying that! How is it “superior,” and superior to what? No one alive in this day and year can remember when “capitalism” was rampant. The USA and Europe have had varying degrees of democratic socialism in place for at least a century, and most certainly since 1932. The real problem is that the “varying degree” needs vary a bit more, asap.
My nominee for Colorado’s number one long-term problem:
Citizen’s Initiatives. Direct Democracy has done more damage to this state than any partisan.
And for one more how about the can of spaghetti’os that is the state constitution as a result?
David, how do you propose paying for public financing? In this day and age, in Colorado, to propose something new requires paying for it, too. I favor public campaign finance and transparency on any donations, but those will be difficult to pass.
Every single one. You only need the legislature to do it and there would be enough money for this with a lot left over.
And the Republican House majority and Governor Hickenlooper are definitely going to make that happen.
How about a real solution?
there already is the option to contribute to a federal fund for campaign financing without either increasing your tax owed or reducing you refund.
and that’s not working out to well these days.
They are doable because they are well thought out and appeal to common sense and public wisdom.
I applaud you for posting these comments here so that the political establishment and the general public can review them.
We have divided government in Washington. We probably have divided government in Colorado.
It would have been nice to enact bold legislation while Democrats were in power. There is a little room to do that still, in the lame duck session.
But, now is a time for protecting what has been gained, for looking for incremental consensus legislative changes that don’t have a strong partisan slant, and making the best use possible of laws that are already on the books.
It hasn’t been discussed, but there is one way to reduce the effect of money and increase government responsiveness to the people that hasn’t been discussed:
Increase the number of representatives. I’m not saying we need to pass the original 1st Amendment:
But seriously increasing the number of representatives in the House would make each House member more responsive to their local constituency. We have one of the least representative governments among the world’s democracies thanks to the artificial 435-member Congressional limit.