Over here you don't. Political parties are all funded equally by the treasury for their activities, some get some extra money from party membership fees, but you do not need money perse to get into parliament or government. Ofcourse, the economical right wing parties mostly have rich fucks as their politicians, but that is because they are the rich fuck parties that try to push rich fuck rights.
Note that we do not have silly things like rallies, or personal voting campaigns that costs millions. That's illegal over here. It is illegal also to spend personal money on political campaigning, and illegal to recieve large donations, either private or from business.
Recently, a new law was passed that enforces a 2 year cooldown period for ex-ministers. They are not allowed to take any job in a field that touches even in the slightest with the field of governance they had as a minister.
Huh. That's interesting. I knew America was more oligarchic than most of the rest of the First World but not to that extent. TIL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlutocracyI think democracy heavily flavored with that would be a closer fit than classical oligarchy, but that link also describes civil oligarchy which is a new idea to me
(summary)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/oligarchy/civil-oligarchies/86DDCA90915EAF82AB028F8FAA0949E6It does seem to be reflective as well in many ways, though I haven't read more than the summary from the link of that book's chapter on civil oligarchy.
Summary
Civil oligarchies differ from the other forms examined in this study in four fundamental ways. In a civil oligarchy, all oligarchs are fully disarmed, the coercion that defends oligarchic fortunes is provided exclusively by an armed state, a civil oligarchy is the only type in which no oligarchs rule (if they hold office, it is never as or for oligarchs), and the coercive state defending property for oligarchs is governed impersonally through bureaucratic institutions. This combination of factors has several important implications. One is that in civil oligarchies, strong and impersonal systems of law dominate oligarchs rather than oligarchs dominating (or being) the law. This, in turn, changes the character of property ownership from being claims enforced by oligarchs to being rights enforced by the state.
These two shifts – oligarchs submitting to laws in exchange for states guaranteeing property rights – occurred in tandem over centuries and, together, constitute the single most important transformation in the history of oligarchy. Finally, although oligarchs are relieved of the violence and political burdens of defending property themselves, the emergence of a state apparatus that takes on these roles raises novel threats to oligarchs in the form of taxation and possibly redistribution focused on incomes. In civil oligarchies where existing property and fortunes are secure – no matter the scale of wealth or the degree of stratification within a given society – oligarchs for the first time devote virtually all of their material power resources to the political challenges of income defense.
Party Political Broadcasts are by a fixed allocation of free slots on the various national broadcasters' channels, so minor-but-significant parties neither get priced out of the market nor so easily wipe the floor with everyone else by having a Sugar Daddy funder dominate the field.
Yeah, same here. Starting two or three months before election day, every political party that reached the treshold to be on the voting lists (you need 30000 signatures in support to start a political party here) will all get their 5 minutes 'broadcasting time for political parties' on our public television network a few times a week, regardless of how big or how wealthy the party is. And within equal-for-all predefined budgetary limits, paid for by the treasury.
I've thought that a similar system would be of great benefit to the US political system after learning about it here a long time ago. I do think that current Supreme Court precedent would not allow that to stand as of now, but I also have done 0 research past assuming the court's Citizen's United decision or related precedent would prohibit as limiting the "free speech" which wealth enables with that ruling. I'm not sure if the public funding ad slots would run afoul (probably somewhere somehow) but within the past 10 years I recall several arguments to remove pay from politicians by conservative movements on the logic that most are stereotypically wealthy and the taxpayer shouldn't pay their salary. This is an easy narrative to push, when the counterpoint is to say it's so that poorer individuals may hold high elected office, because that is uncommon. The same argument could be used against public funding of campaigns, especially if financial donations to campaigns remain poorly regulated ("they don't need it")
Another wrench in the gears is that many influential and important institutions profit a great deal from the status quo. Facebook too.
https://www.emarketer.com/content/facebook-dominates-2019-2020-political-ad-spending(following link has a wall popup of the type that became common after the eurocookie law was passed, apologies, also ads aplenty)
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/election-boom-heres-how-much-ad-money-cnn-fox-news-and-msnbc-are-expected-to-make-in-2020/Moreover I've only spotted a nondominant part of one of the parties ever seem particularly active in espousing significant campaign finance reform. I think in order for the idea to even have a chance politically in the public, reforms for publically funded elections would have to be a partywide plank at a time when the opposing party is something like a threat to democratic norms or something. Moreover it would take far more research than the 0 I've done to determine how to frame such reforms in a manner held constitutional by the highest court for it to go beyond a political plank to a legal chance of becoming and remaining law. I would also suggest as a specific example that the current makeup of the Democratic senate could not pass Build Back Better after a great deal of cajoling and broken promises to the liberal wing to pass the Infrastructure Bill alone. Due to the very narrow margins in combination with the above contributing factors, as much as I would very much like to see such a party plank, it is completely unrealistic at this time.
I saw some lamenting on the lack of viable third parties. Here is the best I can suggest.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/01/power-move-for-democrats-in-2022-00004214It's a crazy dream of mine that disaffected liberals and conservatives like these could one day run on a plank of campaign finance reform as a single issue party that intends to disband after the deed is accomplished. This would be a way for both factions to gain more influence in a publically funded campaign finance system than they currently have due to all the "free speech" arrayed against them.
Realistically it seems unlikely and with little basis in reality due to my lack of experience with such things. Unless such an event occurs, I think that if my area is still unshakably Republican for a regional candidacy I will very seriously consider supporting the anti-Trump Republicans or freshly Independent with the best shot at winning in the primary election, when party candidate for the position are voted for (assuming I am not thrown off by other issues I can't support) and if the anti-Trump candidate proceeds to the general election for local and regional positions that aren't in realistic reach for the Democrat or <other choice here> to again consider a vote further if the inevitable post-primary flip flop isn't too severe for my tastes. It would be fun to see such a candidate overperform in the general compared to Trumpist candidates, though that is getting optimistically far, far ahead of circumstances. I don't expect them to be radically different from the Republicans I had grown familiar with, but if that party is to be elected by a large margin anyways in my area I'd rather have voted for an individual that has shown the character to do the difficult thing to lose some or many of their allies and friends for their principles, and who I consider right in this important matter.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3675259 times)