Money in US politics

[Ignorant]

Replying to this post from another thread.
 

Justifying corruption, even minimal corruption, reinforces the very system we hope to fix.

Well-intentioned politicians entering into the broken system and becoming complicit, however slightly, normalise and help sustain the corrupt system.

Well I would say Obama, for one, did not normalize corruption. When the court made its CU vs FEC decision, he clearly and unequivocally denounced it (I love how the SCOTUS justices are put on camera here and sit there like deer in headlights while the rest of the audience claps). His presidency was corruption scandal free. So I don't think I agree that any politician that makes it in this corrupt system is necessarily normalizing it.

Other democratic presidents (a broken promise unfortunately) and candidates generally have been critical of the CU decision and called for constitutional amendments. And as I said above, the decision was 5-4 with only democrat appointees dissenting, so I think we should believe them.
 

Change rarely comes from within without strong external pressure because systems resist self-reform.

Also, many decent people avoid politics not just out of apathy, but because they feel powerless against entrenched interests.

So yes, we should talk about it more.

But we also need to imagine and support new models of political engagement, and not just rely on good people to survive bad systems.

Because they simply become part of it and go along to get along.

"Imagine and support new models of political engagement" sounds nice, but what does that actually look like? External pressure on the system? What does that mean? It's easy to complain about an issue and suggest vague pie-in-the-sky ideals. Much harder to come up with actual solutions. If we can solve the problem by working with the existing system, why not do that?

The way to change the system is to vote for people who want to change it in the same ways you do. Changing the system is what lawmaking is, and what lawmakers do. Had Clinton been elected, there would be significantly more democrat appointees on the supreme court right now, and it's not a stretch to say that the CU ruling could have already been reversed, which would be significant progress in fixing the corruption issue. It could have been that simple.

[xuenchen]

Replying to this post from another thread.
 

Well I would say Obama, for one, did not normalize corruption. When the court made its CU vs FEC decision, he clearly and unequivocally denounced it (I love how the SCOTUS justices are put on camera here and sit there like deer in headlights while the rest of the audience claps). His presidency was corruption scandal free. So I don't think I agree that any politician that makes it in this corrupt system is necessarily normalizing it.

Other democratic presidents (a broken promise unfortunately) and candidates in general have been critical of the CU decision and called for constitutional amendments. And as I said above, the decision was 5-4 with only democrat appointees dissenting, so I think we should believe them.
 

"Imagine and support new models of political engagement" sounds nice, but what does that actually look like? External pressure on the system? What does that mean? It's easy to complain about an issue and suggest vague pie-in-the-sky ideals. Much harder to come up with actual solutions. If we can solve the problem by working with the existing system, why not do that?

The way to change the system is to vote for people who want to change it in the same ways you do. Changing the system is what lawmaking is, and what lawmakers do. Had Clinton been elected, there would be significantly more democrat appointees on the supreme court right now, and it's not a stretch to say that the CU ruling could have already been reversed, which would be significant progress in fixing the corruption issue. It could have been that simple.

Obama scandals

Loads of them. High Impact.

Here's just a couple to start:

• Benghazi Attack (2012): The attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11-12, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The Obama administration faced prolonged criticism, particularly from Republicans, over its handling of the incident and its initial public narrative that the attack was spontaneous rather than a premeditated terrorist act. Controversy intensified in 2013 when emails revealed that references to the al-Qaeda-linked group Anṣār al-Sharīʿah were removed from talking points used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice, leading to allegations of a political cover-up to protect President Obama’s security record during the 2012 election cycle.
  
• IRS Targeting Scandal (2013): The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was found to have subjected conservative and Tea Party groups to extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. This led to accusations that the Obama administration used the IRS to suppress political opposition. President Obama condemned the actions as “inexcusable,” accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner, and called the misconduct politically damaging.
  
• Justice Department Seizure of AP Phone Records (2013): In 2012, the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from over 20 Associated Press lines as part of a national security leak investigation related to a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen. The revelation in May 2013 sparked widespread condemnation from journalists and lawmakers across the political spectrum, who viewed it as a severe violation of press freedom. The Obama administration responded by advocating for a federal “shield” law to protect journalists’ sources.