SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The leader of the US Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 US presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.
“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”
Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.
(Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:36PM
If we can't change the flow of money in a positive way, can we change the *effect* of money?
Why do candidates with more money do better? Because they can pay more workers to arrange travel and speeches and advertisements? Couldn't a teaming mass of independents, greens, libertarians, etc all volunteer their time and effort to spread the word and unmuddy the waters? Couldn't something at least as merit-based as the moderation system here at Soylent be possible in the political sphere?
How is it that emergent phenomena or grassroots movements don't succeed in US elections? How does money trump those things, and how do we stop that from happening?