Our political system is broken, but how do we fix it?
This January will mark the conclusion of my third year blogging. The longer that I blog the more that I realize our whole political system is broken. We have strayed so far from where our founders had intended.
Republican or Democrat it really makes no difference, both parties are run by special interest groups and lobbyists. The average American person has very little input anymore into how the country is run. The American people are left to decide upon the lesser of two evils.
Special interest groups run commercials costing millions of dollars during every election cycle, the group that runs the most convincing commercials has their man elected president while nobody is representing the average American person.
The question that I ask is how do we fix the system? The answer is, I just don’t know. But I do have a suggestion for a starting point. If we cannot stop the special interest groups perhaps we can do the next best thing. Reform of this magnitude cannot start at the federal level, it must start at the local level– the state level.
Special interest groups and lobbyists raise millions of dollars for whichever party they support. The DNC and the RNC reap the benefits of this effort. But the national Democrat and Republican parties are allowed to send some of their donations to state elections. We see this infusion of national money being sent to senate, representative, and gubinatorial races in all of the closely contested state elections across the country. This takes the voice of the people away from the people and provides the federal legislature with too much influence.
I would suggest that national money should not be allowed to be used in state elections, and donations from non-residents to state elections should not be allowed. Let the people who are running for the senate and for the house rely on the people of their states for all of their donations. Only individual residents of the different states should be allowed to donate money to a candidate running in their state. How can the national Democrat or Republican party know what is in the best interest of the people of the different states? How can a person who does not live in a particular state know what is best for that state? Let the person who most appeals to the people he or she is going to represent win the election instead of the candidate that has the most money funneled into his campaign from out-of-staters.
This would give the state governments back to the people of the states, as the founders had intended. With state governments back in the hands of the people and out of the pockets of the federal government we can then turn our attention on the federal government.
America's Watchtower 
You’ve hit on something that we have known all along – in order to reform government we have to get rid of the money in politics. The special interest money, graft, and kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions all corrupt the government that is for all people, not the privileged few. Campaign money reform only goes so far – that entire practice needs to be banned, not reformed.
LikeLike
1st, you shoot ALL the libbers and RINOs…
2nd, uh, I think #1 took care of the problem…
😛
LikeLike
You asked in your article, how could someone not living in a particular state know what is best for that state? The answer is, they don’t care what is best for that state. They are not interested in someone to represent the people of that state, but rather are interested in someone who can help them achieve their own agenda.
I would second the motion that only donations from individual residents be allowed in the state elections. That would certainly put a damper on these elections being influenced by people who care nothing for the welfare of the residents of the state.
LikeLike
True, they are using the state elections to push their national agenda. They don’t care about the people of the different states.
LikeLike
This must be the topic of the week, as I was having a discussion with my sister and some others earlier in the week. One thing we all agreed upon, was the fact of fund raising to begin with. It seems, the last three elections in particular, there has been such a focus on the funds raised by the candidates. Thinking back, I remember several instances in which different people, younger, would discuss how much somebody had raised after certain stops or rallies. I do not know if this was an isolated occurrence, or if others maybe witnessed instances. This might be part of how our young new voters perceive the election process, as more of a popularity contest, judged by how much the candidates raised. One thing we had discussed was how to go about getting legislation started, not on limiting campaign contributions itself, but placing a cap on how much a candidate can raise. Then they can try to focus on the issues again, not on the gold in their coffers. How many times have we watched a candidate we support drop out because they could not raise enough to compete in the primaries? It boils down to the air time they can afford. If we could get a cap placed, or (before the primaries are ever held) get regulations in place which would require all candidates in the party, Dem. or Rep., to divide all the funds equally. This would make the majority of candidates benefit from their own “redistribution of the wealth”, leveling the playing field. By having an equal amount to work with, they will have to pay closer attention to how they spend campaign dollars. After those two candidates have been chosen, a new limit should be set for the final push to November. Such a cap on campaign funds would also benefit independent candidates as well, in my opinion. The one question I have, where do we start?
As a sidenote, somewhat off topic, I was searching some of our government’s spending. Just twenty years ago, the average salary of congressmen was $89,500 per year. It is now $174,000, with Majority and Minority leaders earning $194,000 per year. The Speaker of the House is making $223,500(that number is $2500 more than even the Vice President). In a four year term, without extra pay raises, that equals just over $305,000,000. That is after state elections, going back to the thought of how much a person raised, to bombard the airwaves against the competition. It’s no wonder why political alliances are so important anymore. “He raised so much more in his state election, that is who I want in my corner.” Maybe by decreasing the prize a little, this would also help them focus on what is truly important. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Mr. Pink Eyes:
Maybe it’s time to get a hold of the tail that is wagging the dog.
E. Andrews
LikeLike
Start from there and move up to the head.
LikeLike
I have often said to those around me that we must vote ALL of Congress out.
I quote William F Buckley who said “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book then those in Congress”
The problem of course is you don’t vote people out of office you vote people in.
Conservatives just don’t field enough candidates or voters are not self educated enough to know who they are so they vote party and as MPI’s has pointed out both partys are all the same at this point.
Seems what is needed is a web site that lists candidates by state and county with proven conservatives.
Such a list would need to be vetted thoroughly.
In order to vote them out we someone to vote them out with.
LikeLike
Like many who live in the south I’m a strong believer of states rights. Despite the 10th amendment those rights have been chipped away over the years. Once a right is gone it is difficult to restore without a major political upheavel. You put forth some good ideas Mr. Pink Eyes–the one concerning no national party money going in the state parties could be easily accomplished, but the one on citizens of one state not being able to contribute to a candidate of another that may be unconstitutional. Yea, I know many laws passed today fall into that group. As for special interest groups having too much power—thats true, but the only recourse I see their is to be a part of a stronger special interest group.
LikeLike
It might be easy to stop the nation parties from donating to state elections but the problem is that they do not want to stop it. I knew my idea about banning people from sending money to vaious states might be suspect but I though it might not be a bad idea.
LikeLike
There just doesn’t seem to be any easy answers to such a complex problem, but as you say something does need to be done—those in Washington are getting farther and farther removed from those who elect them.
LikeLike
Maybe we should restore the system whereby Senators were elected by the State House of Representatives and not by popular elections in the State
LikeLike
That is a suggestion that I made in another post, I wish I could remember which one. If I find it I will link to it.
LikeLike
I found it.
Is America too big
LikeLike
The trick is getting people to demand that their congressmen and senators to do ONLY what the Constitution allows them to do. (Article One, Section Eight for those who don’t know). Let them know that anything over that (ie mandating that everyone purchase health insurance or bailing out Wall Street and the auto makers) is not authorized and unconstitutional and by doing such, they are breaking their oath that they made when they took office. If enough constituants would let their reps know how they feel, we MIGHT make a difference.
LikeLike
People continuously discuss this system is broken, we need change, when we become to focused on one thing that the previous administration did(the Iraq war, thus our current administration). We also say that the system is to complex and thus where do we even begin? I don’t disagree, but as you in your blog pointed out, we have strayed to far from the idea. There is no longer a clear goal (thus also the problem with Afghanistan, in my eyes).
The easiest solution is to go back to the beginning. To perhaps “scrap” the past 200 years. Now what I mean is, that we need to stop looking at the constitution of the United States as a living breathing document. It is Ironclad. Those rights and Laws CANNOT and SHOULD not be removed or changed. We should also start writing our laws in plain, unmistakable english. K.I.S.S. If we have that it makes it alot easier to see where things might have gone wrong. Then in future it prevents the, “oh crud where do we even begin?”.
In a discussion not to long ago about health care I brought up that almost every country in the world with a socialized health care system is going broke, and Many governments are actually moving to privatize many parts which everyone agreed on, but one challenger asked “do you not think though that we can learn from their mistakes?” and I used to quotes to answer.Douglas Adams -“Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so” and Thomas Paine “This government is so complex that if something were to go wrong you may never find the cause or who to blame” and that was the government we were supposed to have LEARNED from!!
Perhaps this idea of stopping federal donations into state elections is a good idea, one thing is for certain…It couldn’t hurt.
LikeLike
Scott when you said ‘I brought up that almost every country in the world with a socialized health care system is going broke’ Does that exclude Australia and NZ? Australia has one of the strongest economies coming out of the global recession and it also have a strong health care system also called Medicare.
LikeLike
I agree that this is a problem but i disagree with your solution. Big businesses exist within individual states and corporations could easily contribute and donate money through one resident to have the same influence they do today. Corporations have an overreaching influence that can be found within each individual state and that can only be stopped through ending donations. Also corporations can influence an election by donating to intrest groups such as the NRA and PETA to do the campaining for them. A corporations can give however much money to NGOs. As sad as it is I feel like small changes won’t make a difference. As radical as it is money needs to be abolished because as long as power can be enumerated through the obtainment of money, the direction of the nation state and the world will be in the hands of the few. I no it’s a sad view of the world but we live in a sad world.
LikeLike
I realize it is trendy to worship at the alter of the Founding Fathers, under the mistaken belief our problems can be fixed if we channel them. Plays well with the herd but misguided theoretically and practically.
Theoretically, the problem of special interests is etched into the very fabric of our founding. The Founders Madison in the Federalist paper 10, discusses the problem of factions (their term for special interests). Madison argues there are two ways to prevent factions – control their causes or their effects. Madison opts for the latter.
His analysis and the solution he proposes are simplistic at best. Although cognizant of the perils of inequalities of wealth, he contends that it is more dangerous to control the causes of factions and inequality than to control its effects. With this Madison paves the wave for oligarchy.
To make matters worse, true to the fashion of our fairly conservative founders (by conservative, I mean conservative for their time compared to the French or European revolutionaries, or even the radical wing of the English Civil War – Diggers and Levellers), he dismisses one of the best correctives to oligarchy (the rule of factions of the rich). He contends – incorrectly – that democracy cannot cure the problem of factions (and impliedly oligarchy).
This really is the achilles heel of the Founders and their Republic. To their credit, they created a Republic which solved two problems a) avoidance of the problems of monarchy and domination by the landed aristocracy and b) avoidance of the weakness and factionalism, and impediments to commerce of the Articles. Well done.
But eventually, the capitalism and resultant class inequality which it creates, turns our system into an oligarchy. The relative strength of capitalist class rule has ebbed and flowed, but never diminished. Arguably, in the period between 1937 and 1947, the balance of class power was roughly in equipose. But it has been downhill ever since.
The political philosophy of our Founders arose from particular historical problematics, which they address well. But it isn’t well constructed to deal with the problem of unequal political power that results from capitalism. The judiciary is completely dominated by big city, big firm, management side, corporate lawyers. Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, they nearly all worked for so-called “defense” firms. The legislature, particularly the Senate, is dominated by the rich. Not just are the Senators rich, nearly all of their aids and interns are sons and daughters of rich kids. The Presidents of this country, since its very beginning, have all been very rich compared to ordinary people.
Devolving power to the states doesn’t fix this problem. This is basically the Jackson solution. But it didn’t work. A neo-Jacksonian solution simply devolves power back to regional, state and local elites, it doesn’t really give power to ordinary people. Indeed, as with Jackson, this devolution can be dangerous, devolving power to less sophisticated, less educated, less savvy factions. Rather than having a CEO from GM calling the shots, you have some wealthy car dealer calling the shots. One need look no further than some of the silly statements and legislation that trickles out of the car dealers types that control state legislatures to see the perils of giving power to lesser oligarchs.
The Founders didn’t fix the problem of factions and it plagues us. To fix the problem you have to think outside their limited parameters. We need to address some of the causes of factions and take steps to reduce oligarchical control of our political system. You won’t find those answers among our Founders.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by and for all of that information, great stuff. I have always heard that by factions the founders meant political parties so I hadn’t thought of it that way.
LikeLike
The first Constitutional Congress was a beginning, not the end! Yet today we are mired in a lethargy of special interests, career politicians and non-representation of the people.
LikeLike