Verily, money is power. The huge and growing concentration of wealth occurring in the U.S. citizenry and in business translates directly to political power for the few, and political weakness for the rest. Because of this, the general citizenry of the U.S. cannot really hope to command real representation of their interests by their elected representatives. Thus the U.S. is in the midst of a several-decade long crisis of corrupted governance. Is there a non-violent solution to this problem which can gain traction despite the political weakness of the U.S. citizenry?
I would ask the SoylentNews community to comment on a proposal which my dad and I generated over stuffed turkey and too much red wine. While not a technological innovation, this is a community which has good ideas and can offer insightful criticisms.
The solution I’m proposing is simple:
The Federal government issues to every adult citizen $100 which can only be spent by donating it to a registered political candidate.
Why it might work:
1. $100 isn’t much in itself, but collectively it is three times the amount that was spent in the last presidential election. That is a real political power.
2. You can donate it to 3rd party candidates.
Why it could be put into law:
1. The media corporations cannot disregard the immense profits that would be had from the quadrupling of spending on elections by adding ~23 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they herald it as American as apple pie? As a noble investment in democracy?
2. The biggest lobby of government is Google, and Google would profit from increased political ad spending too, and by selling information about voter preferences so that politicians can figure out how to get your $100 donation.
3. On a personal note, politicians hate having to give so many fund raisers...this is an out.
4. The law is fair. There is no proposal to give certain disadvantaged groups more money than others. The richest American would get $100 too.
5. It doesn’t outlaw free speech by corporations and political groups. These groups can still provide their valuable input to the political discussion.
I’m trying to poke holes. It does increase spending, but most of that spending directly benefits key power brokers.