Make no mistake about it, nothing but radical and sweeping changes at all levels of government will be sufficient to fix what is wrong and return the power to the people.

Whats wrong.

* The current practice of using seniority as the method for making committee and leadership assignments effectively shut out new ideas and new perspectives.
* Incumbents have an unfair advantage over their challengers. There is no way that a challenger can compete with an incumbents ability to raise campaign funds. An office holder has the ability to help now whereas a challenger may only help in the future.
* Campaign contributions from businesses, groups and political parties dwarf those of individuals. Whether they admit it or not, politicians are influenced by those that support their campaigns. Businesses, groups, and political parties don’t donate huge amounts of cash out of any sense of civic duty, they do it because they want something from the politician, namely their support in return.
* Political Parties have usurped power by restricting ballot access making it much more difficult for third party or independent candidates with their new ideas to get elected.
* Campaigns have become so expensive that candidates (particularly challengers) must spend a good amount of time and effort into obtaining contributions from those with the deepest pockets. This eliminates many potential candidates that find this practice distasteful.
* Too often voters are presented with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

The Fixes. Ten points of change.

* If the President of the United States is limited to two consecutive terms, every office holder at any level should have the same term limits.
* Campaign contributions restricted to individuals eligible to vote for the candidate. No cash or in kind contributions from ineligible to vote individuals or any entity including businesses, organizations, political action committees or political parties.
* Remove political party designations from ballots, registrations and voter information pamphlets.
* Make ballot access the same for every candidate for office. Nomination by petition with 1% of the registered voters in the election district the candidate is running for.
* Replace primary elections with instant runoff.
* Prohibit candidates from accepting campaign donations prior to one year of the date of their election.
* Campaign contributions left over from a campaign must be converted to personal income or donated to charity, not held over to the next campaign.
* Add “None Of The Above” as a ballot option.
* Change election cycles so that 25% of every legislative body is up for election each year.
* Bar politicians from working as a lobbyist for two years after they leave office.

There is no chance of these changes being made as long as we keep electing candidates that benefit from the current system. You can bet the political parties and political action committees will fight till their last dying breath anyone that would dare propose such sweeping changes that would eliminate their ability to buy elections and politicians. Any organization that was created to further these ideas by supporting candidates would run afoul of the very idea of returning the power to the individuals, not groups.

So what to do? We act as individuals and ask candidates to check off yes or no on each of the ten points of change. For myself, I’ll simply write in “none of the above” if there isn’t a candidate that supports all ten points of change. Others may choose to decide to vote for whichever candidate supports the most, or perhaps there are some “must have” points for others.

The bottom line is that each of us can be a catalyst for change, but we have to be willing to turn our backs on the existing power structure. That will take real courage of conviction to vote against short term benefits that status quo offers.

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate.

If you can’t vote, you can’t donate. It’s really that simple.

In political campaigns, money is more akin to a vote than it is to speech.

Corporations can’t vote. Unions can’t vote. Political Parties can’t vote. All the various groups, committees, foundations, think tanks, etc can’t vote. Foreigners can’t vote. Non-citizens can’t vote. Lobbyist can only vote where they are registered and eligible.

With that as a the standard, anything that promotes a candidate would be considered a contribution to the candidate and can only be done, paid for, provided by, a registered voter eligible to vote for the candidate. Individual rights to free speech are protected, playing field is level, and the rules are uniform across the board.

The result of this single one line change would be:

• Lower cost of campaigns
• Less TV, Radio and Print advertising
• Encourage more debates and town halls
• More use of the Internet
• Reduced lobbyist influence
• Improved quality of candidates
• More citizen involvement
• More accountability to voters
• Reduced interference from outsiders
• Increase voter registration and voting

Makes sense. Sounds good. But like a lot of sensible, good ideas, probably won’t happen. Because nobody wants to give up their exception to the rule. The power brokers would lose their power. Control would revert to the people and thats the last thing that anyone vested in the current system wants.

Want to test my theory that this idea will be attacked from all sides? Click the link below to post it to your Twitter status

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate. http://bit.ly/cHOPYV

BILL MOYERS: Why is the industry so powerful on both sides of the aisle?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, money and relationships, ideology. The relationships– an insurance company can hire and does hire many different lobbying firms. And they hire firms that are predominantly Republican and predominantly Democrat. And they do this because they know they need to reach influential members of Congress like Max Baucus. So there are people who used to work for Max Baucus who are in lobbying firms or on the staff of companies like Cigna or the association itself.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus’s staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus’s former chiefs of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they’re back with an insider status. They get an access, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists’ ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.

Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she’s married to Tony Podesta, who’s a brother of John Podesta.

BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right. Right. And they’re Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for–

BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that’s hard to do. That’s hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn’t possibly.

BILL MOYERS: So it’s money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It’s the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they’ve done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn’t want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don’t want any more competition period. They certainly don’t want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry’s–

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don’t want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

The need for radical reform of our campaign finance and election laws is a recurring theme for this blog. I’ve posted many times about the need to eliminate the undue influence that special interest groups, lobbyists and political action groups have on legislation and policy. This candid interview is a perfect example of the kinds of things that happen routinely at every level of government from all kinds of different groups. None are any better or worse than any other in my view. The only people that should be able to influence our elected officials are the ones that can vote for them. Period. If a group wants to state their case, they can do so publicly at hearings. There is no need or justification for any group to have a private audience with any elected official at any level. (That includes Prevo and our local assembly members and mayor.)

This interview also points out why Health Insurance Reform and Health Care Reform MUST include regulation of the health insurance industry and a public option. The industry can’t and won’t regulate themselves. That is the rightful place for government intervention. They’re not going to change their practices until and unless they are forced to. That means regulation and competition. The government is the only entity capable of competing with the insurance industry.

Everything we are hearing from the obstructionists to reform is part of a well thought out and executed game plan. Down to the very words and phrases that we hear repeated ad nauseum.

During the interview, Bill Moyers read from confidential documents drafted by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) in May and June of 2007. The documents outline a unified strategy for AHIP members to prepare for the release of Michael Moore’s documentary, SICKO on June 29, 2007.

You can download and read the full AHIP documents by clicking here and here (PDFs).

The Language of Health Care 2009 (PDF)
The Frank Luntz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview.

GOP Health Care Strategy (PDF)
Strategy memo by Alex Castellanos dated July 7, 2009.

These are evil people who don’t care about the average American. They will do anything to make a buck and to remain, regain, expand their political power. They are lying and manipulating the system to further their selfish goals at the expense of Americans. The sad and disturbing part is that there are so many Americans that sincerely believe that these people and entities actually have our collective best interest at heart. They don’t. In fact they are actively working against our best interests.

Watch the video or read the whole transcript between Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter here.

Read more on Wendell Potter and Profits Before Patients here.

Read the Testimony of Wendell Potter, Philadelphia, PA Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation June 24, 2009 here. Or view it online here.

Trace campaign contributions, ad spending and the revolving door between industry and government here.

We can defeat the lies, the misrepresentation and the willful ignorance of the obstructionists on the right. We can do it by not giving in, not giving up, and shining a bright light on those that are pulling their strings. Now is the time.

The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs—those in public office, the press and citizens groups—are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.

As bad as that sounds, at this point just about ANYTHING would be better than doing nothing at all.

The fact of the matter is that the insurance/pharmaceutical industry and trial lawyers are too invested in the status quo and have put most of the current leadership of congress into office. Change is a scary thing for most people, and the vested interests in the status quo are using that fear to their advantage. They lie, distort, deflect and demean others to protect their greedy self interests.

This is a recurring rant, but until and unless we radically change the manner that political campaigns are financed and elections are conducted we are doomed to have the best government that money can buy.

Right now everyone in DC is most concerned about whether they will get re-elected. Even staff members are worried about if their boss gets re-elected or not, because their job depends on it. In that environment EVERYTHING gets measured by how much something hurts or helps the chances of re-election. For the really ambitious, it gets measured by whether it hurts or helps the possibility of moving up in the political food chain. Moving up could mean higher office, or it could mean a position on a high profile committee. That’s just human nature and believing any differently is simply naive. Re-election depends on contributions, and you don’t stay in office long if you piss off the wrong people. Constituents can be bought off fairly cheaply with some hunks of pork, glad handing, and pandering. Get on the wrong side of deep pockets though and you’re doomed.

So the reality of the situation is we have to gain as much ground as we can in this battle. Understanding that the war is far from over, and any ground taken today may be lost tomorrow. We are battling inertia, and if we quit pushing the rock up hill, it can roll back over the top of us. We have a little momentum on our side, we just have to keep pushing, gaining ground inch by inch, step by step, day by day until we overcome inertia (resistance to change) and momentum takes over.

Let’s not let the fact we aren’t getting everything we want stop us from getting what we can.

2. Campaign contributions restricted to individuals eligible to vote for the candidate. No cash or in kind contributions from ineligible to vote individuals or any entity including businesses, organizations, political action committees or political parties.

We live in a Constitutional republic.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Nowhere in our Constitutions are there any mentions of political parties, special interest groups, political action committees or any other subset of individuals. It’s government and individuals. The rest is just BS that has evolved over time. Things like the two party system or primary elections, just happened in response to a vacuum left by the absence of enough individuals engaged in the system.

So it’s time for us to re-assert our proper place at the TOP of the organization chart, not the bottom. First thing first our representatives are, our individual representatives. My neighbors shouldn’t get to choose my dinner if they aren’t eating with me. My neighbors shouldn’t be able to influence the election of my representative if they can’t vote for my representative.

Anything that gets between the people and our government is an enemy of the people and our government. That includes, first and foremost, the Democratic and Republican parties. Simply because of their shear size and how intertwined they are throughout all levels of government. Oh, and no other party is any better or worse.

The cool thing, we don’t even need a law to make this happen. We just need enough of us to agree, and refuse to vote for anyone who is a member of any political party or has accepted/will accept donations of any kind from anyone/anything that can’t vote for them. Since independent voters outnumber both declared democrats or republicans this seems like a doable thing to me.

4. Make ballot access the same for every candidate for office. Nomination by petition with 1% of the registered voters in the election district the candidate is running for.

When a candidate files for office as a candidate representing a recognized political party, they just submit a form and financial disclosure and they are on the primary ballot. A recognized political party is based on the percentage of votes that they received in the previous election.

A candidate of a non-recognized party or NO PARTY affiliation must collect a number of signatures of registered voters in their election district. That will get them on the general election ballot but not the primary ballot

This gives candidates of recognized political parties a clear and unfair advantage over those candidates not allowed on the primary ballot. During the primary campaigns candidates are able to raise campaign contributions, gather supporters, appear in forums, participate in debates, and generally raise awareness of their candidacy.

Party affiliation should have no bearing on ballot access. Neither the US Constitution nor the Alaska Constitution (haven’t researched other states) mention political parties, or primary elections for that matter.

The “two party system” is only perpetuated by excluding others as much as possible from gaining equal access to ballot.

Resources:
Ballot Access News
Coalition For Free and Open Elections
Freedom Ballot Access