This is a "contract with America" style idea. The Republican party used the contract with America when they were a minority party to re-energize their base and define who they were (eg. horrible, but some people like that?)
The thing about a Contract or Party Pledge is you get EVERY (or almost every) member to pledge to do something significant that people care about:
* No more stock trading
* Contribution Limits eg. end to special interests
1/
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
This shouldn't be a big ask but I know that it is. The stock thing is just not worth it. It makes every single person involved look ugly. YES the public cares.
The "no more special interests" might raise the worry "but how do you win an election without big money?"
They seem to be able to lose them with big money. Let's try something new. Also, send any donors off to fund alternative media instead.
Keep your little hands clean if your dare.
2/2
John
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
What do you do about the fact that Democrats don't have any credibility at all? That's the problem I can't find a solution for.
When a Democrat promises something good around policy, I literally sneer. It's like watching Trump call himself a "mega genius" or something: so transparently false that there isn't even a breath of time when I think "maybe they actually will-!"
Multiply me by 100 million voters, and that's your problem right there
myrmepropagandist
in reply to John • • •Sensitive content
@johnzajac
They can show that they have done these things.
Donations are reported and that's how we know how many of them take dubious funds.
I don't know as much about how to do transparency with the stocks.
This isn't an "I'm gonna" this is a "we just did, and the Republicans won't."
John
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
That's a good point: if they're able to actually do something conscientiously it could make an impact on the total lack of trust they face from most of their voters after 6 months of collaboration.
I have significant doubts they'd be able to actually fulfill that promise, and if they screwed up and were caught trying to hide dark money it would be 10x bad.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
I have other much more radical suggestions but I was tying to think of things you could ... maybe get everyone on board with.
And things that can be acted on in real time.
Ben
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
100% agree. I had a running list of a simple platform that I think would have wide appeal. Added yours and a few others just now, but one could easily remove bullets that don't have widespread support:
- due process under the law for all people
- freedom to criticize the government
- prohibition on secret police/requirement for all law enforcement to identify themselves.
- prohibition on the use of tariffs to punish and bully American allies
- ban on direct congressional stock trading
- overturn Citizens United
- ranked voting
- nationwide ban on gerrymandering
- 18 year term limits on supreme court (like the Biden proposal)
myrmepropagandist
in reply to Ben • • •Sensitive content
@jianmin
I think it's important that it's something they can do *right now* without needing to pass anything. Or that something like that is part of it.
Show up and show that they have sold all their stocks and dare the Republicans to do the same. Maybe burn the statements for a little spectacle.
"Everyone isn't doing it anymore."
James Widman
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
Dreaming of dad jazz.
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
myrmepropagandist
Unknown parent • • •Sensitive content
@david_chisnall @kelson
They can also still do public awareness campaigns about the things they care about, and those things may make people interested in certain candidates.
What's annoying is when you have third parties spreading information NOT related to their issue to try to influence voters.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
Unknown parent • • •Sensitive content
Why is it a problem if these people arenât allowed to bribe candidates? They can still provide expert opinions to candidates, and the candidates can choose the degree to which they trust these organisations, without a direct profit motive.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Sensitive content
@kelson
There is a related issue though. Even before Citizens United, the loophole for spending dark money in US elections was âissue adsâ. Some organisation cares about issue X (typically because some rich people care about that issue). Rather than endorsing a candidate, they run a campaign telling people that issue is importantly and that one of the candidates is opposed to the thing that theyâre pushing. Itâs hard to ban this kind of thing without trampling on legitimate free speech.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) • • •Sensitive content
@kelson
I think it's hard to regulate issue ads, but on the other hand I sometimes think *all* advertising should be regulated. Limited to narrow contexts, clearly labeled as to source, not targeting children, not prove-ably dishonest. With a border around it that says "This is and Ad."
But, people say I'm being "draconian" when I start up on that.
So how about we don't let them give politicians wads of cash?
Cassandrich
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •myrmepropagandist
in reply to Cassandrich • • •@dalias @david_chisnall @kelson
I think most people dislike ads, but it can be hard to get people to admit that advertising works. (Which should cause one to ask, why is so much money spent on ads? Why are they everywhere?)