I agree with this. I'm also curious to know what you think about boycotting some of the big corporations. Would that be effective at all? In addition to politics, I think we can address these issues on an economic level. Why are we creating or helping to create this "elite" class? We can also work on funding smaller organizations, taking money away from Amazon etc. and strengthening smaller organizations on an economic level. Thoughts?
In addition to more grassroots funding, could we also imagine ways to blunt the impact of all that money in politics? For instance, a lot of it goes towards purchasing "voice" through advertisements. But with the tools of internet, social media, and word-of-mouth, a motivated and well-organized grassroots movement could perhaps overpower traditional get-out-the vote tactics.
I'm so into this idea. It seems an absurd waste of money to be spending billions on advertising politicians when that money could be put to better use for our citizens instead. Can we cap politician spending?
Limiting political spending would definitely help, but unfortunately it could also create perverse workarounds. In India, the Election Commission caps campaign spending, but politicians find ways to circumvent that through untraced cash. Could an alternative movement be created that in facts get more done without all that spending? By piggybacking on existing channels of cheaper distribution?
If the message itself becomes more powerful than the medium, then the spending on the medium might just be a wasteful distraction.
It may be more apt to suggest that the government is primarily controlled by the old, rather than the rich.
After all Social Security primarily benefits the elderly at the expense of of both the rich and the young. And it's cost far exceeds that of any subsidy.
I like that word succumb; it takes the edge off the truth and makes everything seem alright. Little wonder we, as a society, keep going round in circles. Thanks Elle, for your thoughts, which I always enjoy.
The Robert's court made a huge mistake in saying corporate donations are freedom of speech. Sorry, but the government was set up 'by and for the people, not by and for the corporations.' Congress needs to pass legislation outlawing corporate contributions to any politician. And money should come from within the state or jurisdiction of the candidates. The WEF is based on corporate funding as are some agencies of the United Nations. Non profits also need to be restricted as many of them siphon off the government largess through the NGO's they set up. Corporate oligarchy is a threat to our freedoms and along with the United States hegemony threaten local and state structures to rule themselves.
On a small local scale: I founded an all-volunteer grassroots organization to support Democrats in my congressional district, New Mexico’s CD2. About 800 volunteers sent 400,000 postcards, 300,000 digital ads and texts to register new Democrats and persuade registered Democrats who don’t usually vote to go to the polls. We raised more than $250,000 in this cycle through “virtual house parties” where a host would invite their circle, we would present our strategy and people would donate to support our work. We also held a few “celebrity” zoom fundraisers. Average donations were about $45.00. One recurring monthly donation was $3.00. It’s a model I believe could be adapted district by district at the local and congressional level. One way to start creating an alternative funding structure, essentially crowdfunding democracy.
I take your point about grassroots organizing and fundraising and I am no expert on Trumps biography but according to NYT and WaPo he inherited millions from his father and both he and his father engaged in illegal a/o unethical practices in their businesses:
Trump received more than $413 million — in 2018 dollars — from his New York City developer father…
“According to the Washington Post, Trump benefited from trusts set up for family members as well as loans from his father and his father’s estate. The New York Times said it found Trump and his father avoided gift and inheritance taxes by using a sham corporation and undervaluing assets, The Associated Press reported.”
So no, Trump is the opposite of a great model for returning to a “populist”—in the original meaning “of and for the people”—approach to the economics of politics!
Your way is the way it should be and one that was used back in the 50's when I was starting to become aware of politics. It is also being discussed among dems in various areas. It has, in my 87 years, been said that all politics start locally, not from the top. The dems need to institute this nationwide if they expect to bring back the working man, or populous, back into the fold. Trump didn't grow up rich, but in a middle class neighborhood. His father built middle class subsidized housing. He didn't get rich but he left a few hundred thousand for his son who could have squandered it. Trump connects to the middle and under class. He was always looked at with suspicion in Manhattan because he wasn't one of the "big" builders. So? Back to the grass roots?
I agree with this. I'm also curious to know what you think about boycotting some of the big corporations. Would that be effective at all? In addition to politics, I think we can address these issues on an economic level. Why are we creating or helping to create this "elite" class? We can also work on funding smaller organizations, taking money away from Amazon etc. and strengthening smaller organizations on an economic level. Thoughts?
In addition to more grassroots funding, could we also imagine ways to blunt the impact of all that money in politics? For instance, a lot of it goes towards purchasing "voice" through advertisements. But with the tools of internet, social media, and word-of-mouth, a motivated and well-organized grassroots movement could perhaps overpower traditional get-out-the vote tactics.
I'm so into this idea. It seems an absurd waste of money to be spending billions on advertising politicians when that money could be put to better use for our citizens instead. Can we cap politician spending?
Limiting political spending would definitely help, but unfortunately it could also create perverse workarounds. In India, the Election Commission caps campaign spending, but politicians find ways to circumvent that through untraced cash. Could an alternative movement be created that in facts get more done without all that spending? By piggybacking on existing channels of cheaper distribution?
If the message itself becomes more powerful than the medium, then the spending on the medium might just be a wasteful distraction.
Yeah, that's interesting. Some kind of direct media?
It may be more apt to suggest that the government is primarily controlled by the old, rather than the rich.
After all Social Security primarily benefits the elderly at the expense of of both the rich and the young. And it's cost far exceeds that of any subsidy.
Definitely an issue....
I like that word succumb; it takes the edge off the truth and makes everything seem alright. Little wonder we, as a society, keep going round in circles. Thanks Elle, for your thoughts, which I always enjoy.
I appreciate that, thank you so much D.L.!
The Robert's court made a huge mistake in saying corporate donations are freedom of speech. Sorry, but the government was set up 'by and for the people, not by and for the corporations.' Congress needs to pass legislation outlawing corporate contributions to any politician. And money should come from within the state or jurisdiction of the candidates. The WEF is based on corporate funding as are some agencies of the United Nations. Non profits also need to be restricted as many of them siphon off the government largess through the NGO's they set up. Corporate oligarchy is a threat to our freedoms and along with the United States hegemony threaten local and state structures to rule themselves.
So agree.
On a small local scale: I founded an all-volunteer grassroots organization to support Democrats in my congressional district, New Mexico’s CD2. About 800 volunteers sent 400,000 postcards, 300,000 digital ads and texts to register new Democrats and persuade registered Democrats who don’t usually vote to go to the polls. We raised more than $250,000 in this cycle through “virtual house parties” where a host would invite their circle, we would present our strategy and people would donate to support our work. We also held a few “celebrity” zoom fundraisers. Average donations were about $45.00. One recurring monthly donation was $3.00. It’s a model I believe could be adapted district by district at the local and congressional level. One way to start creating an alternative funding structure, essentially crowdfunding democracy.
This is incredible!!! What a success story!
I take your point about grassroots organizing and fundraising and I am no expert on Trumps biography but according to NYT and WaPo he inherited millions from his father and both he and his father engaged in illegal a/o unethical practices in their businesses:
Trump received more than $413 million — in 2018 dollars — from his New York City developer father…
“According to the Washington Post, Trump benefited from trusts set up for family members as well as loans from his father and his father’s estate. The New York Times said it found Trump and his father avoided gift and inheritance taxes by using a sham corporation and undervaluing assets, The Associated Press reported.”
So no, Trump is the opposite of a great model for returning to a “populist”—in the original meaning “of and for the people”—approach to the economics of politics!
Your way is the way it should be and one that was used back in the 50's when I was starting to become aware of politics. It is also being discussed among dems in various areas. It has, in my 87 years, been said that all politics start locally, not from the top. The dems need to institute this nationwide if they expect to bring back the working man, or populous, back into the fold. Trump didn't grow up rich, but in a middle class neighborhood. His father built middle class subsidized housing. He didn't get rich but he left a few hundred thousand for his son who could have squandered it. Trump connects to the middle and under class. He was always looked at with suspicion in Manhattan because he wasn't one of the "big" builders. So? Back to the grass roots?