I have long taken a particular political stance. It is largely ignored. Perhaps instead of only making an argument for my position, I'd rather you tell me what's wrong with mine. Rather than being ignored, tell me why you ignore my position.
Frankly, I think most progressives leave the opportunity to begin enormous change in government on the table every two years. We ignore a way to finally put progressive politics in the national spotlight were we we fully committed to taking up a long ignored cause. I say it's time to try something different. Something to challenge both Democrats and the Republicans with something big and unexpected. To try catch them off guard from out of the blue and see what everyone's position is.
And that is campaign reform. The kind which would take as much money as possible out of the hands of politicians (ideally none needed by campaigners) and limits what the parties get and how they can use it. Please read on a bit and show me why I'm wasting my time on this diary.
I think more than half of Americans, including some segment of Democrats, don't see the difference between progressives and other liberals just as much of America doesn't see a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We have talked here for the last week about what needs to be different. How do we challenge our Democratic leadership to make that difference obvious to the general public? To us? Well of course, it's exactly the thing most of you will give lip service to and then promptly ignore.
The course that everyone ignores is a full fledged attack at taking the money out of the campaign process, at least, at the federal level.
To publicly and relentlessly argue why it's time to end the requirement to buy a seat in order to become a public servant. To create a level playing field where two opponents have the same amount of resources (or maybe a bit more to the challenger who is at a disadvantage) where the person who persuades the public better than the other person on that level playing field. This might be done by the use of aggressive public campaign finance. Which competes head to head with private funding. Which will ultimately be cheaper. In fact if most Americans come to agree with the moral and civic argument that it puts power back into the hands of the citizens, it makes it hard for politicians to argue why then need to buy a seat. Point out that elections need not be bought as some states have done.
It's time to argue for having something like a 3 month campaign season before an election. To make it illegal for an elected public servant, our employees, to overtly campaign any other time during their stay in office.
To argue it's time to stop politicians from spending up to 70% of their time raising funds and doing the job they're paid to do instead. Most Americans think money is the cause of corruption and gridlock in Washington. Americans know that mostly millionaires go to Washington (if nothing else to become wealthier millionaires or to join the club). Again, like everything else in 2014, most people support this liberal view along with the other stances we propose which they agree with despite our losses.
It's arguing that it's time to have members of congress, instead of being required to meet with donors, become required to meet with the public. As they actually do when there is public funding of election campaigns which fully matches private funded campaigns. When there are no donors to meet. This is how we to find better candidates versus those committed to business as usual.
But no one political or activist group has the courage to challenge the system. Certainly it's not really a progressive cause. Yes, there is Move To Amend which will happen, perhaps, when Democrats have the Presidency, a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. See ya then. And yes, progressives want to overturn Citizens United but that's only a half measure to undo a problem, not to fix it. Helpful, but weak tea. Campaign reform will not occur in one or two election cycles, but by then, if the public is engaged with a solid plan and behind it, we might get it done in a couple more cycles. That is, if the Democratic party provides a distinct difference compared to the Republican party by being willing to make laws which will cede a degree of power back to the people at the expense of those in Washington.
In a way, it's easy to do. It's mostly simple, dogged, persistence, finding a different lens to focus through. It's creating an argument, making an plan which might capture the national consciousness. As Occupy did. While at the same time it's about all of us starting to question every member of congress, every campaigner for the presidency or any office about a suite of campaign reforms. All the time. And if they would support such legislation? And if not, then to go on record as to why not. About letters to the editors. About putting all our weight behind clean money. Challenging every person we engage in political talk with. It needs to be constant correspondence.
Occupy turned the Democratic party vision around in 2012 with their message of fairness which was adopted by the party. But this needs to be as much inside the system as outside of it. It may not require taking to the streets, but showing up regularly to offices of the elect. Of alerting the media and challenging them to cover it. Make it a single question asked to everyone by every progressive, every liberal. To try and get every American who hates the corruption of government by money behind the idea.
It might require some (personal) sacrifice of setting other priorities back a notch whether they be fighting for saving Social Security, expanding Medicare and women's rights, immigration reform, LGBT rights, higher taxes on the wealthy and government investments in infrastructure and education, gun issues, and a host of other issues. All worthy things to work for. But all collectively a jumble of issues without the umbrella of a focused message. The very thing which so many here are discouraged about.
But please explain to me how, if we had a government which much more directly represents the people and not the wealthy, how all of these things would not be easier to advance and perhaps finally fully achieve.
There will still be a requirement in the short run for people to spend money. PAC's and such probably won't go away altogether. But they should be 100% transparent at least. There is an argument (and I'd even argue a long term safety valve) whereby citizens have the right to spend money supporting a political view. This is not going away completely. However, if the amount which could be spent on all races in a year was low enough that most people could participate ($500? $2000?) and no one is allowed to spend more, then money as free speech is no longer a massive 100,000 watt PA system for the wealthy. If only citizens, not businesses or organizations, can donate then you have money as political speech though it's is no louder for any one citizen than another.
When it becomes a threat to a Democrat to lose a primary or even an occasional general election bid if they do not support campaign reform, then party will be better leveraged to change significantly.
But, I hope that most of you who might ignore this will rather tell me why I'm wrong. Where I'm wrong. Am I being stupid? How? Make your arguments and maybe you'll change my mind. But I say if we create an issue of something which is long ignored and make it one which cannot be ignored by the government and the media, as the Occupy movement did, then we'll get our change. Which will bring about many other changes we are fighting for.