Freedom is the power to act, speak, think what one wants

Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.

Spending money on a candidate is an act.

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though.

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool

Okay, so besides the semantics.. maybe let's just say.. is it a freedom to put one's money into a candidate one likes.. even it makes that politician liable to pander to such backers?

Okay, so besides the semantics.. maybe let's just say.. is it a freedom to put one's money into a candidate one likes.. even it makes that politician liable to pander to such backers? — schopenhauer1

Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidates advocating policies that are in favor of campaign donors with the biggest donors getting the lion's share of benefits. It's not that money translates into votes; real people have to cast the ballot. That being the case, expect an alignment of interests between the people who actually voted and the campaign donors.

If donating to your candidate means that that candidate is now beholden to you, your candidate can be bought. Why are you donating to them? Someone with more money can buy them away from your interests. Seems like a very bankrupt system. I would support electoral reform that would limit, and equalize, the amount each party could spend on advertising. Included in that limit would be third party advertising. Make the candidate win votes, not brainwash the electors. May the best candidate win, not the one willing to drop the most cash. That would also greatly reduce the influence, perceived or real, that contributors had on a candidate.

Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government.

If donating to your candidate means that that candidate is now beholden to you, your candidate can be bought. Why are you donating to them? Someone with more money can buy them away from your interests. Seems like a very bankrupt system. I would support electoral reform that would limit, and equalize, the amount each party could spend on advertising. Included in that limit would be third party advertising. Make the candidate win votes, not brainwash the electors. May the best candidate win, not the one willing to drop the most cash. That would also greatly reduce the influence, perceived or real, that contributors had on a candidate.

Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government. — Book273

Yep. Public elections perhaps? How would that work? Would that be limiting in the other way?

Why do people have a perception that politicians are corrupt in terms of monied interests? What would help this perception or reality?

Why do people have a perception that politicians are corrupt in terms of monied interests? What would help this perception or reality? — schopenhauer1

You must be lending an ear to the losing side.

Presumably, if corporations can find loopholes to fund candidate campaigns, those candidates are beholden to those corporations, and will be in their pocket.

The other side is that spending money is the same as other choices that are supposed to be allowed in a "free" society. — schopenhauer1

One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike.

So the point of limiting monetary contributions would not just be to prevent corruption (though it might help) but also to allow ideas that aren't popular with rich people the same chance as those ideas that are.

This would seem to be entirely in keeping with the actual reason we want "free" speech, and so would be a measure to make (political) speech more free, not less.

One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike. — Echarmion

I'm not sure about that.. Look at US Democratic Party.. Moderate Democrats like Hillary and Biden have a perception problem with their stated liberal goals, and their backers, etc..I want to even say, it is those type of perception problems that lead people to (falsely and stupidly) go with someone like Trump who they think can't be bought.. (except by Russia and anybody that gives him a compliment hehe).

Sure, I don't disagree. Just wanted to point out that even if one were to disagree, and argue that there really isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that e.g. Biden or Pelosi are beholden to their backers, you can still make an argument. Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless.

Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless. — Echarmion

Yeah, I agree with that.. It is the end result of exactly the perceptions people have that will happen if candidates are backed by these interests..

So what is the solution? Public elections?

It amazes me that "working class" voters would vote for Trump.. a spoiled rich kid..

Every time I bring Trump's corruption, someone points to Democrats being "just as corrupt" and that politicians are all corrupt, and that the Washington insiders just didn't like Trump cause he wasn't an insider. I can't emphasize the hand on face emoji enough.

Updated the OP.

Politics is the one area where acquiring work experience is considered to lead to a lesser work product. Completely illogical. Imagine using the same thought process to pick a surgeon. "Oh, you've hardly performed this procedure before, I'll pick you to cut me open." Ridiculous.

Politics is the one area where acquiring work experience is considered to lead to a lesser work product. Completely illogical. Imagine using the same thought process to pick a surgeon. "Oh, you've hardly performed this procedure before, I'll pick you to cut me open." Ridiculous. — LuckyR

Yes, because politics has brought us to a glorious place right now...

So what is the solution? Public elections? — schopenhauer1

A public election fund would help. Doesn't at all eliminate the problem of lobbying and post-political careers, but it at least makes the actual election finance independent.

You would still have to require parties to have a certain minimum amount of members and backing to weed out insincere applications, but that's something administrations already do in other areas.

Right now? Term limits were big news from 1992-1994 and the 22nd amendment passed in 1951. Old news...

Right now? Term limits were big news from 1992-1994 and the 22nd amendment passed in 1951. Old news... — LuckyR

I'm not sure what a past debate that didn't work out has to do with it still not being worth debate now.

A public election fund would help. Doesn't at all eliminate the problem of lobbying and post-political careers, but it at least makes the actual election finance independent. — Echarmion

True. I think we mix democracy with free markets. Rich people and corporate entities being able to back a candidate through soft money is not the same as "democracy". The same goes for career politicians. It's like a monopoly. In theory, someone can compete but it's very hard when they are already entrenched with the party and "brand". So again, free market strategy and democratic strategy are not the same, and often they are confused.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population.

I think you answered your own question.

Not sure what you mean. Term limits in Congress will equalize the playing field for who gets leadership position, motivate people to vote for the interest of the people rather than just the base, allow for new ideas, and is simply more democratic. If you don't like the person, you know they won't be there long anyways. I think the term limits should be 8 years (4 terms) for House, and 12 years (2 terms) for Senate.

Edit:
I rather the it be 4 years (2 terms) for the House and 6 years (1 term) for the Senate, but I'm sure people will think there needs to be the motivation for another shot at the position. I just think this will weed out ambition over actually doing it to help the country. I think the drawbacks of the "chaos" of always changing hands, is minimal compared to the current impact of the stagnation of career politicians and constantly having to pander to the base in decisions.

Yeah that's the standard line. Unfortunately, governing (like every other activity) benefits from experience. Those without it just aren't as good at it. Let me know if you need an example of a government leader without governing experience who was really bad at it.

Cue current dysfunctional Congress...

I have an example worse than the current Congress...

I have an example worse than the current Congress... — LuckyR

So are you waiting for me to say, "Go on..."?

Cue current dysfunctional Congress — schopenhauer1

The proposal you make is like such a small step. It's as if we were in a battleship on the morning before a naval battle debating what to have for breakfast. You are part of the problem just for making such a suggestion.

I'm the kind of person who thinks even advocacy for gay rights or ending racism is a waste of time. If you really think something like the lack of term limits for some elected positions is a problem worth discussing I don't know where you've been sticking your head for the last 40 years.

Freedom is the power to act, speak, think what one wants

Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.

Spending money on a candidate is an act.

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool

All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics

All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics — Harry Hindu

If the only way to show your love for someone is to give fae a flower, chocolates, smile affectionately then give a flower, chocolates, smile affectionately you must.

I'm all for spending your own money how you like, but when it comes to politics it creates an inequity in the power of people's votes. Everyone's votes should count exactly the same. Introducing money into politics tips the scales in favor of the wealthy, thereby diminishing the power of everyone else's vote. A candidates voice shouldn't be amplified because they have money backing them. Their voice should be amplified when they compete in the arena of free ideas and win.