Elizabeth Warren's anti-corruption bill

[Lexicus]

I just seen an article about it and I like it.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/21/elizabeth-warren-unveils-radical-anti-corruption-platform/

Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws. She would create a new Office of Public Integrity to enforce the new ethics laws.

I like this idea. Goes without saying that it's got no shot of getting anywhere under current circumstances.

The question is, will it have a shot if and when Democrats retake Congress? I think that most "moderate" Democrats can be expected to oppose this bill. I doubt it will be able to pass even if Democrats retake both houses of Congress in January, but if the Obama years are any indication, partisan Democrats will still blame Republicans for the failure.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I doubt either party would want to pass such a bill. Corruption is broadly non-partisan. I don't think either party will want to pass something that will prevent their own future benefits.

 

[Lexicus]

I doubt either party would want to pass such a bill. Corruption is broadly non-partisan. I don't think either party will want to pass something that will prevent their own future benefits.

We're in agreement then. The first step for people who want a functioning democracy, is to remove the Democratic Party from the grip of these corporate hack types and bring it under the control of folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We're in agreement then. The first step for people who want a functioning democracy, is to remove the Democratic Party from the grip of these corporate hack types and bring it under the control of folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Not going to happen. Democratic party didn't exactly give Bernie an honest shake. If politicians weren't pocketed like this I guess our policies would look pretty different.

 

[Lexicus]

Not going to happen.

Well, with that attitude it won't.

 

[Broken_Erika]

They can't do this, it's a violation of the big corporations human rights! Not to mention that fighting corruption is another step towards COMMUNISM!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not going to happen. Democratic party didn't exactly give Bernie an honest shake.

This is tangential to the thread, but you know what's recently popped into my head? I think Bernie might win the Dem primary for 2020, on just the model Trump won the Republican in 2016. A bunch of people will run. Bernie already has his supporters, nearly half of democrats. The other people will split the remaining primary votes between them, with no single one emerging with a share similar to Bernie's until too late. The super-delegates don't have a single certain someone to all throw their votes to.

Don't mean to hijack this thread. I'll post my comment in the right place when the right place emerges, the 2020 Dem Clown Car thread.

 

[Zkribbler]

Not going to happen. Democratic party didn't exactly give Bernie an honest shake. If politicians weren't pocketed like this I guess our policies would look pretty different.

So let me ask this question once again: What did DNC DO to hurt Sanders? Not what did they say, but what did they do?
The only "answer" I've ever gotten to this question is the DNC had super-delegates. Altho super delegates mostly sided with Clinton, they were instituted after the McGovern debacle; so IMHO they cannot be called an unfair anti-Sanders maneuver.

 

[Lexicus]

So let me ask this question once again: What did DNC DO to hurt Sanders? Not what did they say, but what did they do?

Let me ask you this question: what do you think of the bill in the OP? Do you think that Democrats in Congress would vote for it, if given the chance?

 

[uppi]

We're in agreement then. The first step for people who want a functioning democracy, is to remove the Democratic Party from the grip of these corporate hack types and bring it under the control of folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

That is certainly a step, but if you start with that steps, those new Democrats will be at a severe financial disadvantage against the Republicans who have no such qualms about being corporate hacks. The first step would be to reform election campaigns in such a way that they're not as much about money as they are now.

 

[Lexicus]

That is certainly a step, but if you start with that steps, those new Democrats will be at a severe financial disadvantage against the Republicans who have no such qualms about being corporate hacks. The first step would be to reform election campaigns in such a way that they're not as much about money as they are now.

I don't actually believe that money is necessary to win elections. Or rather, money is 'necessary' because no one does any actual organizing anymore.

Ironically, the Republicans themselves demonstrate this sometimes. Take the example of the NRA. It is commonly noted that the NRA gives lots of money to candidates for office, mostly Republicans. But this isn't the real source of the NRA's political power. The source of their political power is that they have millions of dues-paying members who reliably vote for candidates based on the issues that are important to the NRA.

The Democrats used to have a set of constituent groups that actually organized voters around issues: the labor unions. But we already know the story there, Democrats abandoned organized labor almost completely, with much of the Democratic intelligentsia actually becoming actively hostile toward unions. Unions themselves have also changed to some degree, but they are still tied to organizing in a way that the Democratic Party is not. No union can hope to survive or grow itself by paying money for tv ads and other "outreach" stuff while not sending organizers to talk to workers in their workplace, at home, etc.

Going into neighborhoods and finding out what people want from politics and trying to give it to them isn't an option for most Democrats because the Democratic Party is captured by most of the same business interests as control the Republicans. Spending money on "outreach" (ie, on consultants, services, etc) is actually the real reason the Democratic Party exists; winning elections is nice but it is incidental to the politics-industrial complex. Actually advancing an ideological agenda is out of the question for most Democrats, an attitude summed up very nicely by Nancy Pelosi last year.

Anyway tl;dr, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right when she says we are going to defeat big money with big organizing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Now to be on topic. The bit about requiring candidates to release tax returns might get sufficient votes. That should be sent through on its own, so that Trump has to be seen to veto it.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't actually believe that money is necessary to win elections. Or rather, money is 'necessary' because no one does any actual organizing anymore.

I agree. Rich or poor, everyone has one vote; and there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich.

 

[AdrienIer]

Money can be used to spread awareness of a candidate's existence and of that candidate's views. But with a sufficient grassroots movement and sufficiently appealing candidates (like in the case of Ocasio-Cortez) you can compensate the lack of money (or some of it anyway), especially in small races.

 

[Zkribbler]

The first step for people who want a functioning democracy, is to remove the Democratic Party from the grip of these corporate hack types and bring it under the control of folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Nope, that is the second step. The first step is to remove the GOP from power because they're a mindless, soulless robot army marching in step to the beat of Wall Street greed.

 

[Yeekim]

Let me ask you this question: what do you think of the bill in the OP?

flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments

I think it is rank populist nonsense that reads as if it was copied from Putin's Russia.

EDIT: Ok, reading further, it also contains sensible bits.
In fact, I've always been amazed how that's already not required:

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws.

 

[rah]

I think Bernie might win the Dem primary for 2020,

He would turn 80 the year he takes office. I don't know if want an 80 year old president in his first year of office.

 

[Zkribbler]

Let me ask you this question: what do you think of the bill in the OP? Do you think that Democrats in Congress would vote for it, if given the chance?

I think it would be amended, e.g. banning foreign govt reps from talking to legislators--I would oppose this provision.

You seemed to believe the Democrats are an organized political party. They aren't. Think of them instead as a herd of cats, all sniffing catnip.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not only not opposed to a flat-out ban on lobbying from foreign governments, I think any lobbying of any kind should be a capital offense.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm not only not opposed to a flat-out ban on lobbying from foreign governments, I think any lobbying of any kind should be a capital offense.

I've seen how legislatures work. They need information. Say, there's an education bill coming before you. How are you going to find what teachers think of it without asking their union? You can't call each of them up and ask them. I remember lobbying the State Judiciary Committee on a bill, and having a Senator ask me to explain the other side's position. I knew I'd have to give him a fair and unbiased explanation of it, or else he'd never trust me again. Legislators need information.