Reducing corruption

**a completely inoffensive name** · 04-13-2009, 06:54

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Term limits. No.
Limiting campaign contributions. Only from corporations or companies.
Elimination of money/gifts/whatever in lobbying. Yes.
Elimination of 'superparties' (IE: Establish a multi-party system). No. I want no parties whatsoever.
Elimination of 'special interest groups' 'political action committees', etc. etc. If this means a ban on all lobbyists, then yes.
Shipping all the politicians to the middle of the Amazon and filming 'Survivor: Congress'. Absolutely.

I believe that covers the basics, although there are no doubt infinite less-widely-held options.

So, what does the backroom think?

There.

**rory_20_uk** · 04-13-2009, 10:59

As a Doctor I need to be registered to practice. This means I have to follow a code which denotes behaviour and ethics. Any perceived breach I can be suspended or loose registration.
I am accountable for all actions or inactions.
Any gift over £100 has to be registered.
Any gift from a "lobbyist" has to have an actual or perceived value less than £6.

So, something similar to this would be a start.
When entering parliament you have to pass a CRB.
You are then registered for your time in parliament, and are bound by the code of practice.
This is monitored by an independent board. Stack it with doctors, nurses and teachers if you want to ensure the "right" mindset.

There has to be some reason to follow it.
So, loosing your registration means a lifetime ban from all directorships within the UK.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 04-13-2009, 17:07

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

There.

What about no union donations?

**lars573** · 04-13-2009, 18:22

Wouldn't a union fall under the title of special interest group.

**Lord Winter** · 04-14-2009, 02:44

Does anyone think that term limits are going to actually make a difference? It makes no difference if we cycle through corrupt legislators or if just keep the same ones. Besides we already have a term limit system put in place, it's called voting.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 04-14-2009, 05:03

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 04-14-2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

I understand your point, and it's a valid one, save for the lack of options. If Candidate A is enslaved by the NRA, and Candidate B is enslaved by a Union, and I'm not a fan of vested interests, who do I vote for? There may well be a Candidate C, getting by on individual donations, but chances are I've never heard of them or their policies because they can't afford the exposure. I end up going with a heavy heart to the least bad option and spend the next few years watching them shovel money and favours to their mates.

I'd keep the ironclad disclosure rule, and add a maximum contribution from any source to $10 (or equivalent). If all the members of the NRA (as an example) wish individually to contribute their ten bucks because of the quality for the candidate, fair enough.

**rory_20_uk** · 04-14-2009, 11:03

Getting politicians to cut donations... Right up there with getting meth addicts to start afresh.

$10 a head would then become such tactics as every union member donates £5, as agreed at the AGM and the union handles the transfer; no donation by industry, but they choose to run pseudo-independant advertisements in a synergistic way. or place assets at the party's disposal rather than funds.

I'm for the "full disclosure" option. The internet is pervasive and if you're unhappy with options 1 and 2 there are ways the 3rd candidate can get his message out - perhaps not to the extent as Obama, but using the same methods.