Read up on Citizens United. Limitations on spending on election campaigns were declared unconstitutional, because money buying speech is protected by free speech. Basically, the only way to save democracy in the USA from the clutches of oligarchy is constitional reform, which is unlikely given the required vote size and the opposition, which includes all the large financial interests as well as constitution worshipers and free speech absolutists.

> Basically, the only way to save democracy in the USA from the clutches of oligarchy is constitional reform

Hmm no, not any more than constitutional reform was needed to reverse Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Yes, technically we could wait 70 years and basically hope the supreme court judges at some later point see things our way and are less bought off oligarchic interests. I am even more sceptical of this outcome.

Why? It happened with American apartheid.

I'm generally with you, but what do you mean by third part bullshit? I think the parties themselves are the problem, so independent s and third parties are what is needed. (Not looking to get into another argument about the mistakes in duvergers law, just curious for some clarification.)

By third parties I meant non-official campaign organizations, not political parties. It would difficult to the point of impossibility to regulate this (example: “issues” organizations that spew xenophobic adds to skew the debate on immigration policy).

Better yet, make it a tax break. You can choose where $100 of your tax goes by writing in the organizations.

This is a thing in Poland for donating to nonprofits, except it's 1% of your tax. It seems to work alright.

How will this help stop, if not even do more to empower, ambitious billionaires seeking public office to further their own goals?

My alteration specifically or the idea generally?

The only reason I suggested a tax break is because it would work as a good motivator for people to actually engage themselves a bit. They're paying the money anyway, why not do something with it?

The idea generally... in an ideal world where you simply could not fund campaigns from money except from public donations like this, it'd just even the odds a little bit for non-billionaires.

I don't know of a way to make the existing money and power of billionaires not matter in politics at all, though. There's always loopholes and workarounds.

Here in Europe the same deals happen, but it just happens behind the scenes, so you don’t know what’s going on.

In the US PACs are required to disclose their donors, so you at least have some idea who is trying to push their agenda.

No it doesn't.

First: it can't happen "behind the scenes" because almost all the money goes into TV advertisement. You can't hide TV ads.

Second: it just doesn't happen.

Third: It's counterproductive to push such cynical, almost nihilistic, conspiracy theories. If you just accuse any politician of corruption, you remove all incentives for them not to be corrupt.

I have met many politicians, and worked for some. And by and large, they're hard-working, and exhibit remarkable integrity, as in: doing the right thing, even when nobody's looking.

Imagine being a politician who leaves his office to use the payphone across the street for campaign calls. Not because it's illegal, but because they consider it unethical to use government property for this purpose. Even though the call would have 0 marginal costs, what with flat-rates and everything.

Now that politician does a town hall, and he gets is people, red in the face, screaming at the tops of their lungs that he's bought by X or Y, or a lying, stupid, fascist and communist.

I've personally seen a 60+ year old man silently cry in the car after such an event. Yet it wasn't because he felt insulted, but because he remembers a time when the level of public debate was worthy of his dedication. And when everyone argued with basic decency, and with a shared purpose (such as healing the scars of World War 2).

> "Second: it just doesn't happen."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xMuUEd6w54E

yeah, that's some conspiracy docutainment on Youtube...

Of course there are cases of corruption. That Maltese EU commissioner last year comes to mind. But it is vastly different than the problem in the US.

That's because the US has largely legalized corruption. First, through corporate personhood and "money is speech", corporations (and people) won the "right" to give almost unlimited money to candidates's campaigns. And just recently, the standards to prove outright corruption were raised. It is now no longer corruption if a politician and some business regularly exchange gifts/money (one way) and political influence (the other way). For it to be illegal, it must now be proven that some explicit payment is directly linked to some explicit political action, in a clearly defined quid-pro-quo.

None of that happens in the EU. The first is easy to check, because, as mentioned before, campaign spending is quite obviously visible. Otherwise, it would be useless. In a competitive state in the US, every third TV ad is for a candidate. In the EU, a typical station runs maybe four or five per day in the last days before an election.

Corruption by direct payments in exchange for favors is harder to quantify, obviously: The absence of cases can mean none happen, or that that none of them come to light.

But specifically for the EU, it just wouldn't work very well. There are so many people involved with any given decision, you would have to bribe two or three dozens to start making a difference. Between the commission, parliament, council, and subject-specific bureaucrats in each of the member states, any unusual actions favoring special interest are bound to be noticed.

There is also no clear indication of any such shenanigans in the laws and regulations actually passed. Yes, I'm sure there are many examples of regulations people might disagree with. But it is hard to characterize EU legislation as anything but pro-consumer. Case in point: surely the European telecom industry would have managed to stave off free international roaming if it were that easy?

Of course there's lobbying. That's how it works. Business are not, after all, the mortal enemy of societies. And consumer- or environmental-protection, pro-science, or pro-transparency groups have over the last years become much better organized, and influential.

The EU specifically is terribly afraid of public opinion. That regulation about cucumbers and their bending was repealed a few years back, even though it didn't hurt anyone (and is now unofficially enforced by the market itself). It was simply used to attack the EU so often, the people working their got annoyed and scrapped it.

Your solution has a clear result: only the wealthiest would be able to run for office.

Given the money spent during campaigns, it's already the case. Only the wealthiest are able to run for office. You'll never see a Billy Boy Blow run for president while being a blue collar. That being said, it's important to highlight that most democrat elected in the past were lawyers, while republicans came from business background.

Yeah. It either would change nothing, or make it worse.

Not to mention the first-amendment implications of all-out banning political donations from firms. When people can't assemble their money together, their right to assembly is being violated. If you control when and where people can donate their money, you're violating freedom of expression.

That was the main argument behind the boogeyman Citizen's United decision.

I’d personally love to have publicly funded elections. And you’re right, my idea would work without also limiting the ability of wealthy individuals to spend their own money on campaigns. Maybe add the caveat that campaign organizations are the only ones who can spend money and that they are subject to the $100 per person limit as before.

Very well,then.

Lets try to fix that: put a limit on the expenses a candidate can incur in his candidacy.