Start A Petition

Video:The Topic: What's Wrong With Big-Money Politics -- and What We Can Do About It.

Business  (tags: corporate, abuse, americans, business, corruption, economy, dishonesty, ethics, finance, government, investors, marketing, lies, money, politics, society, usa )

- 1886 days ago -
This weekend, Working Families Party Executive Director Dan Cantor and Friends of Democracy Founder Jonathan Soros appear together for an interview with Bill Moyers on Moyers and Company. The topic: what's wrong with big-money politics --and what we can d

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Angelika R (143)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 4:43 pm
in all likelihood it will take more than "kicking butt against the money glutt"- but generally a good project, there should be many more also promoting the OTHER THIRD PARTIES !

JL A (281)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 5:13 pm
Sad but true. You cannot currently send a star to Angelika because you have done so within the last week.

Katrina & Willi D (90)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 7:25 pm
Limit the money being spent on ELECTIONS!!!!!

John B (185)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 8:43 pm
Thanks J.L. for posting this here on C2NN. Got the link to the video in an email I got from Friends of Democracy earlier. Viewed again and posting noted.

JL A (281)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 8:47 pm
You cannot currently send a star to John because you have done so within the last week.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday February 17, 2013, 9:02 pm
There are two well-established solutions.

The first, certainly workable in the U.S., is to get voters to contribute voluntarily. Candidates don't want to have to take money from PACs, aside from the ones which they genuinely support. When they do that, they have to pay those PACs back, or never receive such funding again, and they usually don't want to do that. If you contribute $5 to your favourite candidate, then that's $5 less that the candidate needs to seek from PACs. They want their hands free.

The other is a public per-vote subsidy. We have that in Canada. If I recall correctly, each vote which a party receives gets that party $2 from the government. This has a few benefits: First, all parties are encouraged to seek support everywhere, even in places where they stand no chance of victory, and that can do wonders for national unity and oppose polarization. Second, parties do not need to seek nearly as much money from PACs whose interests they do not already support. The other nice part of this is that parties only need to cater to a "weak base", just enough to get people to the polls, rather than need a "hard base" of industries, special interest groups, and other major donors, which would keep them from getting too ideological (rather than pragmatic and practical), unless a large portion of the population really wants candidates who stand on principle.

JL A (281)
Monday February 18, 2013, 6:56 am
Thanks for describing the two solutions for us Stephen!You cannot currently send a star to Stephen because you have done so within the last week.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Business

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.