Get involved: http://action.change-congress.org/obamayearonevid
One year ago was a moment when many things felt possible — whether or not you supported President Obama’s agenda. One year later, we’ve now seen that even a transformative figure in the Oval Office can’t transform the way Washington works. Only we can.
Watch Lawrence Lessig’s video presentation on why the Fair Elections Now Act is the most important reform right now to restore public trust in our democracy.
Creative Commons-licensed images available through flickr.com: Obama by Scorpions and Centaurs, Capitol by Cowtools, Woman in bubble by dovima_is_devine, Boy with Obama sign by Joe Crimmings Photography, Broken link by welshwitch36.
Duration : 0:7:42
[youtube xTxsCKCF3Rk]
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
ITS …
ITS CONGRESS GODDAMNIT!!!! Obama shouldn’t have signed the stimulis package or healthcare bill. He could’ve just said that it has too much bullshit in it!! Congress is so full of corrupt that love sucking cock. PEOPLE IN CONGRESS ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR PARTY AND THEMSELVES!!! PRAISE BE ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@rmharman You have …
@rmharman You have a good point. I think the average is about 2% or 3% of the total eligible voters. At last that is what I recall from the 2008 Presidential race.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@Kingery4President …
@Kingery4President — I see your point. Assuming a mechanism that could absorb real input from potentially thousands of candidates, and that kept cost per candidate low, I’d support your idea.
Still, I’d argue that any Congressional candidate who has worthwhile ideas and good qualifications will be able to meet a test such as getting $5 donations from 10k backers. When I ran (successfully) to be a delegate to the CA Dem party, I collected a thousand signatures backing my candidacy in two weeks.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@rmharman If we …
@rmharman If we truly want to be a FREE society, than even the “crackpots” Should be allowed at least the First round of Q&A/Debates/Voting. It is certain that most of them will not pass the first round.
When brainstorming for ideas, one of the most important rules is that during the first phase or two, no matter how foolish the ideas may sound, there is to be no judgement. It is some of those “crackpot” ideas and comments that light the fire for even more brilliant idea that get used.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
On that, we most …
On that, we most definitely agree. Whatever the implementation, something’s gotta be done.
Though considering the health care situation, I don’t think our government’s too interested in implementing solutions that have been proven to work.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@Kingery4President …
@Kingery4President – I could get behind at least part of what you’re saying. It is worthwhile to require some demonstration of viability, so you don’t have every crank in the country eating up funding from the system.
I think we should force the networks to give back some of the public’s airwaves, and have 1-2 hours of primetime daily, in the 60 days before an election, of a candidate or a designated speaker, discussing policy and questioning/debating each other at length.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I think …
I think Grigsbys9000′s drunk the Kool-Aid.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
If voters don’t …
If voters don’t walk to a newsstand and buy newspapers, our 200-year experiment in democracy is over.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
We need to do two …
We need to do two things: election reform and media reform.
In fact, as we all know, it’s not even a matter of reform. It’s a matter of trying to save journalism from ceasing to exist.
Volunteer journalists are great but if you want to deliver outstanding professional journalism to the People so that they can find it, you need some kind of editor, some kind of publisher, and a real travel budget.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@rmharman What I …
@rmharman What I would like to see is a system that prohibits campaign contributions altogether, as well as eliminating campaign advertising.
Since it is in fact a PUBLIC event, it should be entirely funded with tax dollars where every legally eligible candidate is transported from their hometown to the specified Q&A/Debate forums.
Instead of political parties choosing the person they can best manipulate, let the people do so in runoff elections, where 300 become 1 after 4 elections.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@ReliableInsider – …
@ReliableInsider – I’m sure Grigsbys9000 (who described Obama as a “lying, socialist, morally corrupt, Anti American, radical Muslim loving, self absorbed ideologue bent on destroying this country”) will hear from Faux Nooze that this is a plot to send Right Thinking People to jail for speaking their minds. I know some smart, thoughtful conservatives; sadly, GOP leadership doesn’t include any. (And don’t get me started on how idiotic the leadership of my own party has been lately.)
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I don’t see how …
I don’t see how anyone could possibly oppose it (citizen-funded elections).
It sounds like paradise.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@Kingery4President …
@Kingery4President – The viability measure in the Clean Money system in AZ, and that we tried to get in CA (and that FENA resembles), uses $5 donations. The point is to show that there are a large number of people willing to back you, at least at some nominal level. You have to get $5 each from a noticable percentage of the population, to show that there’s a significant base of folks who will put their money where their mouhs are to show you should be elected. It seems like a fair measure.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@IZEASGT – The …
@IZEASGT – The overall point is that the candidate should be dependent for his funding on the people, broadly. He or she should not derive the vast majority of a campaign budget from donations from a few entities that stand to make giant profits from favorable treatment by Congress.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@IZEASGT – States …
@IZEASGT – States have created hybrid systems. You show viability by getting small donations from lots of people, then get a budget funded by a small tax. CA’s version would’ve used a less-than-1% tax on corporate profits over a certain level; I forget the details, but it was really small. The initial budget is relatively small (compared to the ’00s), but there are matching funds if an opponent uses private money. In AZ, almost everyone opts-in, so they seldom have to provide matching funds.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
@ReliableInsider – …
@ReliableInsider – the Fair Elections Now Act is indeed a Citizen-Funded Elections system; it establishes something very similar to the “Clean Money” system they have in Arizona, where even legislators who originally opposed it have come ’round to supporting it. (When we tried to pass something similar in CA, an AZ Republican who had voted against came out to testify about how pleased he was to spend all the time he used to spend on raising money, actually talking to his constituents.)
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Obama, at the very …
Obama, at the very best, is a lying, socialist, morally corrupt, Anti American, radical Muslim loving, self absorbed ideologue bent on destroying this country.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I love how Obama …
I love how Obama was talking about how we need to change the way political funding works in this country during his campaign while receiving millions upon millions of dollars from Wall Street banks alone.
And now all these people who blindly supported his run for the presidency are genuinely surprised that he hasn’t changed a thing. Are you serious?? Wake the f*** up you idiots!
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
this needs way more …
this needs way more views
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I think the …
I think the distinction is whether it comes via taxes or donations.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Mr. Obama was part …
Mr. Obama was part of that very problem. When you find each and every vote he cast, and what he backed for amendments, pork, etc. and bring that forward. I will then tell you how Mr. Obama intends to run or ruin the USA.
What makes a candidate with less money less “viable” than one with lots of money?
Daniel Kingery
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Are citizen-funded …
Are citizen-funded elections under the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) the same as publicly-funded elections?
Or is there a distinction?
I definitely agree that government will be hopelessly mired in inaction until we can completely reform how candidates finance their campaigns.
It’s time to start making a list of incumbents who support the bill and to start publicizing who doesn’t support it. And voting ‘em out!
This really should be priority number one for anyone who cares about ANY issue.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
The more we kick …
The more we kick this thing around the sooner the sharp corners will be worn off. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
When the corners are rounded the flat areas also are reduced – - then, THEN things start to roll Forward.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
My congressman’s a …
My congressman’s a co-sponsor of FENA. My Senators are well-dressed pieces of human garbage, though.
Haven’t heard anything about any vote on it.
June 12th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Excellent! Great …
Excellent! Great points and wonderful timing… The latest SCOTUS decision really has us on the brink – even moreso than before… Good luck with this movement. I’ll do what I can in the effort and to spread the word. Cheers.