You can't take money out of it.
Sure you can -- using technology.
The first step is massive deployment of accessible internet stations in public places, such as libraries, and voter chip cards. When someone votes they get two unique numbers with each type of vote (Yes and No). Of these two, one is circled: that is their vote number that they can write down and check on a national register. (e.g. #2359235 : Yes) They can use this number to change their vote at any time within the 72 hour voting period.
Second step, every bill before Congress has a 72 hour delay where it's publicly available to read and vote on by the public. If more than 25% of eligible voters vote, their result overrides the vote of their Representative and Senator.
Third step, banning advertisement for bills except for public notices.
Congress is reduced to turning small bills to law. Anything serious is left to the people. And money in politics dies.
In both states, moreso in California than Washington, popular initiatives that have passed overwhelmingly have shown that We The People are horrible at money. Washington's mandatory-$30-car-registration (that didn't last long, but long enough and with lingering consequences), imposed statewide, flattened the Puget Sound region's public transportation and road systems (ohai, toll roads). California's Proposition 13, well, we know what that did to the state budget.
I happen to be one of the people who thinks that government can be and is a force for good, when used appropriately. Ham-handed direct democracy through "bumper sticker" campaigns--like this would turn into--is no way to govern. "Defund the NSA" could be up there right alongside "abolish the EPA." We elect people to represent us, we need to be more resilient about voting out people who don't represent us at a common level.
we need to be more resilient about voting out people
Are you serious? That hasn't worked. Every time they're replaced by people who promise change and don't deliver. Then they're voted out and it goes on and on.
It's like the old joke, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then stop doing that." If you want money out of politics, if you want to feel less like the catcher and more like the pitcher, I've just told you how to do it. You're getting fucked. Let's be clear. The question is, do you want to do something about it?
- Only a natural person is a "person" for the purposes of influencing elections, voting on questions placed before the people (including, but not limited to, the election of representatives and Electors to the Electoral College), and when determining the applicability of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Entities created by force of law are not natural persons and the binding together of multiple natural persons to create, run, manage, or dissolve such an entity does not give said entity the status of a natural person.
- The expenditure, or not, of money or the interaction with our economic system is not speech.
I'd like to see how banning discussion of bills goes down with the First Amendment, or how you intend to distinguish between "ads" and "discussion".
Also, voter turnout for this kind of thing is going to be terrible, like the Police and Crime Commissioner fiasco: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20344900
Voter turnout is the point: If you never get more than 25% voting then you have exactly the same system you have now. (Again, that's the threshold where it overrides the elected representative.)
Actually, you can't be unfamiliar with Brendan Eich story if you read HN. He was ousted as Mozilla CEO because he contributed money to support Prop 8 campaign in California. Check out what Prop 8 is, check out what California props are in general, then check out how much money is spent on them. It's exactly the opposite of "money in politics dies". Spending would explode, as instead of one decision (elect X vs Y to the Senate) you need to influence 100s of decisions (for each publicly voted proposal) and political campaigns can influence minds. Which means people interested in the outcome will pay for these campaigns. Unless, of course, you propose to ban political speech altogether except by specially designated government officials.
Third step, banning advertisement for bills except for public notices.
It's how they do it in many (if not most) countries. You still have political discourse but you can't spend to get it. It works quite well.
This is a self-contradictory statement. Maintaining efficient political discourse costs money. Writing costs money, printing costs money, meeting with people costs money, making films and posters and t-shirts and bumper stickers costs money. Doing practically everything except most basic meaning of "speech" - i.e. making sounds with your throat - costs money. Unless you ban all this and allow only political discussion conducted in one's own kitchen (without even serving tea - that costs money too) - the money has to come from somewhere. If you ban open collection, it would just move underground. With all the consequences of politicians depending on the underground and the underground types to get elected.
>>> It works quite well.
I notice you didn't name even one country where it works quite well. I know about political systems in a number of democratic countries, in all of them getting elected costs money, and this money has to come from somewhere. Where and how exactly it works without money?