Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

once the word got out about this web site, the freaks have come out from under their rocks. Get real people. The first problem to tackle in this country is discipline. The lack of discipine.

• report as spam

Also need to add border security/immigration to your poll on front page. See http://AvidSaver.com/bordercontrol

• report as spam

I would like to see the following

1. Only U.S. Citizens can finance the following:

A. Political Candidates
B. Polical Parties
C. Political Action Groups
(PACS)

2.The amount a candidate can contribute to his own campaign must be limited.

3. All political donations to a #1 above must have limits such as $1000.

I realize there may be supreme court questions here but it's intent is to reduce BRIBERY not reduce FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Thanks
jim Eckland
jimeckland@comcast.net

P.s. This is essential if our republic is to survive!

• report as spam

* Although we are a representative government the government doesn't do enough to solicit our opinions and vote accordingly. I'd like to see the Unity Team develop a secure tool for continually collecting and reporting how WE stand. Majority rules.
* One of the most improtant things for the government to do is educate. In order for us to develop good opinions and steer our government appropriately we must understand the issues more fully. Currently our representatives distort and omit inoformation in order to win.
* We need to redefine the role of the Federal Government. It should be, put simply, to deal with foreign government and to ensure equity between states.
* We need greater on emphasis on two halves of a scale-Rights and Responsibilities. Currently everyone is talking about what is owed to them. We need to drive home the point that they also have a responsibility to be productive and follow the laws, etc.
* While the federal defecit is important, how we solve it will be critical. The government should detail each year on what it spends for social serevices, infrastructure and assets, and what just gets burned up pushing paper.
* Decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. People in LA should not decide whether my town gets a big box store.
* Bought a judge lately? We need to control the wackos who get to be judges and make stupid rulings. The CA 9th court of appeals is constantly getting overturned. Who's minding the store?
* The House and Senate need to get together each year and determine what the critical issues are. Nothing else should go to the president for signature until we have solutions.
* When creating bills, each should have a cover letter that states "what is the problem, does everyone agree it's a problem, what are the possbile solutions, what is the best solution". Then there should be follow-up to see if the solution achieved the goal. Remember the law of unintended consequences.
* Remember that as you evaluate issues thar there are usually winners and losers. Try to uncover who they are and you will understand a person's true motives.

• report as spam

1. It is time for a third party and to vote out all the people on the take who are running our government.
2. It is time the those elected truly represent the interest of the people and devise legislation that benefits everyone not just their specil interests pals.
3. Legislators need to act on the enrgy crisis by forcing automakers to increase gas mileage that hasn't changed in 30 years.
4. Healthcare reform needs to be passed that doesn't line the pockets of the providers.
5. The budget has been balanced once before the reagannomics of the Bush family took over , so need to balance it again. It is the best way to strengthen the economy.
6. American companies who benefit from this country need to bring jobs back to this country.
7. Instead trying to be "john Wayne" on every issue, hwo about some logic in solving our nations problems. For example, instead of building fences to keep people out, let them in, register them to work, then ensure they pay taxes and pay into social security. This is one sure way to ensure its funded.
8. We must break up the political parties that use propaganda and character assasination like in the last election. In fact, the process needs to be changed for we should let anyone run for President instead having just 2 losers to pick from.
9. The politcal talks shows only foster the dividing of America, its time to expose them for what they are and get them little validation.

• report as spam

Assuming we survive the next three years with this seemingly out-of-control administration and the most unimaginable worst-case scenario hasn't taken place and our kids haven't been drafted yet - WE MUST PUT REASON BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

• report as spam

I hope the folks running this thing are willing to consider all of the issues raised, and not just the ones listed in the mission statement.

Illegal immigration and the lack of secure borders may be a joke to inside-the-Beltway types, but out in the real America they are deadly serious issues. There will already be two open borders parties in 2024 - we don't need a third.

• report as spam

Problem with this idea is that it seems to be lacking in real substance. Sure, we all get tired with the same 'ol bickering from Washington, and we all want something different, but when you get down to defining opinions on different issues, the unity will fall apart.

You can't just say "let's have Unity!" and hope it works out for the best. Already I've seen a fair share of agenda-driven wackos on this site hoping to shift this 'movement' towards whatever their pet-political causes are.

Little do they seem to realize that at the end of the day, I vote on what I think will benefit me & my family, and I'm sick and tired of being told by politicians how to live. I'll drive an SUV if I want to, I'll go to church if I want to, I'll own a gun if I want to, and there is no reason why I should be forced to spend my money that I earned to cure someone else's sniffles when I need it to take care of my own family - I will donate to charity when I deem it best, and I do not need someone else trying to force me to spend my money they way they want me to so they can feel better about themselves.

Unity or not, if you go against my principles, then you won't get my vote. I can compromise, but I'm sick and tired of government keeping it's hand in my wallet.

• report as spam

so where does unity stand?
tree hugging socialists or conservative capitalists?
anti-military or pro-military?
enforcing our laws and borders or giving illegals more rights than U.S. citizens?

• report as spam

Make sure when you make your categories for blogs and the shoutbox that you have one named "LAME". If you need assistance picking out the lame ones, I can do that. How about this category,
"PERSONAL AGENDAS"

• report as spam

I believe our country is ripe for, indeed NEEDS, a third party, and now won't be soon enough. I'm ready to support a third party and would show it with financial and voting support, but an agenda is not enough. I want to see a platform. Where does the party stand on illegal immigration, balanced budget, healthcare, political corruption, etc., etc., etc.? We need answers, not more rhetoric. I hope you will give us some.

• report as spam

I would like to argue for a fact-based approach to agenda-setting and problem solving. Many of the postings I have read are interesting, some are passionate, but few contain any identifiable sources or facts to substantiate the posting.

We can distinguish ourselves from the Washington herd and generally elevate the level of our discussion by providing some actual, verifiable facts to back up our assertions, along with the sources fromn which we gathered them. Given that one of the great virtues of the Internet is the facility it affords to check and document information, this is not an impossible feat.

There are many issues out there to discuss: health care, immigration, energy, I could (and we do) go on and on. but if we want to present a credible alternative to what is so unappealing about our current governing class - liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican -a good place to start is by putting some facts on the table and then following them to their logical conclusions.

• report as spam

At last! A blip of hope on the horizon of America's degraded political landscape! Now you have a responsibility to do some hard thinking about what you will offer. Just having candidates from the two parties won't do but it's a start. I am willing to do anything that will steer this country away from another presidency like Bush II's. We wouldn't survive it.

• report as spam

I couldn't agree more with the great need for a third party to begin taking back our great country from the careerist politicians that spend our money as if it's their own!

I do have to say that, in my humble opinion the salient point to adding a third party to the American political landscape is so that we don't HAVE to ask what the party positions are on anything. This is an opportunity to be on the ground floor of a great debate in which "we the people" are able to voice OUR OWN opinions on the direction of the party.
If planks in the party platform are dictated by the party leaders this party is doomed to be the same type of archaic body that the Democratic and Rebublican parties are today.

Here is an opportunity to be an "all inclusive" party in which we may have MEANINGFUL rhetoric and shape the party to what the group dynamic dictates.
Like our own Constitution the party doctrine, in my humble opinion, should be a living, breathing entity that may be changed according to the changing paradigms of the American society.

This is a great opportunity to stop ASKING, "what does the party think of this issue" and start saying "this is how I feel about this issue." Maybe we'll find that, for the most part, if we apply common sense to any issue we can come-up with a reasonable consensus. Moreover, we can learn to accept that not everyone will agree with all aspects of an platform but that their OPINION is valuable and not to be shunned as the rantings of an idiot.

Just some observations.

• report as spam

This experiment in internet-powered democracy called Unity08 will succeed or fail based on the ability of "us" - the fed-up average voters - rather than on a particular set of leaders. Many of the posts don't seem yet to grasp that subtle but important distinction, but hopefully they will over time.

While "open source" software, and projects such as the Wikipoedia, start with some leadership, they depend on both input and distributed leadership from thousands of individuals. So if you're posting something like "I hope the leaders of Unity08 do such and such," then you're missing the point.

Instead, you need to be saying "I'd like to help organize the coalescence of a policy on this hot button issue." And, you need to commit to operate on certain principles (not sure if they're expressed on this web site) - things like mutual respect, fact-based discussions, and suppression of ego for the good of the group.

Can this work? I certainly hope so.

• report as spam

How PC can you get? I'm not interested in how someone "feels" about an issue. I want the best analytic minds that can express positive solutions .. not some hack that follows the polls of the brain deads that have an as you say an "opinion". All opinions are not equal..and most are corrupted with personal agenda's.. mostly by those that are gaming the system.

• report as spam

Unity seems like a really good concept. I'm planning on doing my part to help push it along and see where it goes. I firmly believe the best way to keep our country on the right track moving forward is for Americans to take back America. This might be one way to achieve that.

Let me add my second to the point made a few times here to concentrate on fact and rational arguments as we address problems and solutions we face today as Americans. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of politics in America today.

• report as spam

Get the money out of politics

• report as spam

Critical problems we must solve:

Energy independence...raise taxes on gasoline to encourage conservation; allow drilling wherever we have proven or suspected reserves; encourage development of refineries; and encourage development of alternatives.

Secure our borders and follow the law when it comes to dealing with illegals in our country.

Totally revise our tax structure along the lines of the "Fair Tax", or some type of flat tax.

Reform Social Security to allow younger workers to have some control over their future benefits...maybe along the lines of "ownership" accounts.

Control Federal spending! The earmark option, as a minimum, must be eliminated from Congresses quiver of spending tools.

• report as spam

May I add an amen to the writer who said "All opinions are not equal" There will be a great tendency to "vent". I hope you will get some smart folks on both sides of an issue to give us some insight into these problems

• report as spam

Unity08 will be worth it if we get some honest discussion of the issues devoid of political slant.
For example:

1. HEALTH CARE: The real problem is LONGEVITY. Dead people don't consume health services! Both my wife (kidney dialysis) and myself (liver transplant) would have been dead by 2024 without medical advances of last 25 years. HEALTH CARE COSTS MONEY! AND, the real competition is not between hospitals, etc. THE REAL COMPETITION IS WITH THE GRIM REAPER! We must decide, somehow, which health care is worth it. Unless we 'throw Granny out in the snow' and abandon all our moral/ethical standards, we must come up with more money. Yes, the answer(s) may be more efficiency (we too have watched healthcare people fill out paper forms, watched hospitals compete for patients), preventive medicine, and drug regulation, but sometime, a lot of people will have to dig deeper in pockets and maybe forego chocolate-covered fur coats in order to find the money!

2. Terrorism/foreign relations: U.S. consumes giant share of WORLD resources. It was only a question of time before some 'have-nots' somewhere made some claim on us. Present one is fueled by religious fanatics to boot. Answers? EDUCATION, COMPASSION, AID, SIMPLER LIVES FOR US, and probably lots of other things. For our OWN self-preservation!

3. ABORTION: Any rational discussion must start with the FACT:
A FETUS IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING. ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING! Separate eyes, hair, sex. My late Mother's eyes were brown; when I was in the womb, my genes dictated my blue eyes. SEPARATE PERSON! START WITH THE FACTS, NOT EUPHEMISMS HIDING SELFISHNESS (SIN)!

Just three issues needing some rational discussion.

• report as spam

Ok.. agreed .. a fetus is a separate individual .. so? .. what about the fetuses that do not have any brain stem cell.. and those crack babies that will be born severly retarded or deform to the extent that they would have died with hours .. if our current health system didnt spend 10's of million of $'s to extend their life 30-40 years .. and not even aware that they are alive?

• report as spam

Truth, Justice, and The American Way --- Period.

• report as spam

Corporations Must Submit To "The People"!

When corporations own the representatives of The People, We, The People lose our voice. This cannot continue.

What I would like to propose is that corporations be disallowed from any Lobbist activities at all. It isn't a "Freedom Of Speech" issue for them, it is that their endless corruption of the process has broken this government.

Any religious group with "Tax Free" status should similarly be disallowed from politics. If they want to have a say, give up their "Tax Free" status and they can join the discussion again, (so long as they are not a corporation!).

There should be a process in place in Congress whereby a bill is written in stone at least some number of days or weeks in advance of a vote. No more midnight voting on bills which most of the legislators HAVEN'T EVEN READ! Let alone the "earmarks" which allow them to put in Billion$ moments before a vote, so they don't really know what they're voting on!

This would also allow bloggers to dissect the bill, allowing everyone to understand the stakes involved, so The People could have the time to contact their representatives, letting them know which way to vote, (not just voting the way the Lobbyist who took them on a trip or "donated" money to a campaign or library wants them to...).

We need reform such as understanding the cost (and other ramifications) of a bill, BEFORE they are allowed to pass something just to take credit for it, even though only a small minority of the Middle Class would agree.

I would also like to see honest debate about what US Citizens want this Democracy to look and act like in a 20 to 50 year timeframe.

We need long-range planning as never before. Today, all the politicians think about is being re-elected! I assure you all, China has a 50-year plan. Without one, we are at a disadvantage.

I could go on forever about the sad state of our insane government.

• report as spam

The problem of lobbying does not fall solely in the laps of the Corporations. If we are to cut them out, we must also cut out the lobbying of all interest groups. Decisions made in Congress at the behest of small yet powerful interest groups are just as damaging. The politicians cater to these groups who do not represent the interest of the majority of their constituents, but are able to provide each representative with funds. That is where the real problem lies, the fundraising, its been an issue for years, and continues to be, just cut out all private fundraising. And don't let these private groups advertise for a candidate. Swift boat veterans anyone? or Yellow Ribbon mothers for peace or something like that? Those two are on opposite ends of the spectrum and do not have the majority's interest in mind, just pushing their own ideological nonsense.

• report as spam

It's a government of the people, by and for the people. Only people should be able to donate to canidates .. and that excludes all PACS, tax free non-profits, and agenda groups ..

• report as spam

Please excluding anonymous inputs. If one cannot stand up for one's beliefs then one should be ignored.

It will not be enough to be "NOT Republican, NOT Democrat". Unity08 needs a sound platform of concerning NATIONAL issues. These are: Federal Debt, Depencence on others for energy, environmental steward ship and equal rights for all Americans. Equal rights means no laws favoring, or disfavoring citizens who are Gay, Religious, Atheist, Agnostic, black, white, yellow, brown, rich or poor.

Let the individual States worry about things like abortion, and who marries who.

• report as spam

aw .. shucks .. you ruin all my fun.. do you mean no more affirmative actions, senior citizen benefits with free fuel, electric services, drugs .. and my right to cry sexual harrassment and sue up the ying yang .. free education, special marriage tax rate, and allowed to give to charity and deduct from my income tax, and free day care .. deductions for my morgage but not my rent ..

• report as spam

Everything stems from our ability to act as individuals, with rights to our sanctuary, as provided by the 4th Amendment. If our households are not protected by this mandate, we cannot really function in society in an effective way.

As a former broker of mailing lists (turned privacy activist), I am aware of the ultimate outcome of this identity crisis. We can expect Big Brother and George Orwell's "1984" in full force.

I started a blog over a year ago, "The Dunning Letter" and recently did a post on the independent political party. You can find it at: http://thedunningletter.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-case-for-independent-political.html

I firmly believe that an independent party based on the privacy issue definitely has merit. It is a hot subject and I can see some of the apathy to the issue decreasing, because of its urgency, and the incompetency of this administration and our Congressional leaders.

I will welcome comments on my blog.

Jack E. Dunning
The Dunning Letter
Cave Creek, AZ

• report as spam

I have an idea for a platform. As it is not entirely feasible to have a platform that will satisfy everyone, not even all of the moderates, why not consider framing Unity as the party of good government.

Emphasize balancing the budget, eliminating waste, making dysfunctional bureaucracies (like the CIA or FEMA) function. In this sense you can pull everyone in because you are not advocating vast new institutions but rather the competent governance of existing ones.

• report as spam

National security, national debut, and global warming can all be partially addressed by one issue that we all agree on: energy independence.

It is my belief that conservation and biofuels provide the best short term solutions to our dependence on foreign oil.

Biodiesel: Diesel accounts for about a quarter of all US petroleum consumption (don’t quote me on that, but I did glance at a DOE site listed below). We could partially shift that demand on to biodiesel which is made from vegetable oil or animal fat. All diesel engines made after 1994 can run on biodiesel, and all that is needed to update pre-1994 diesel engines is the replacement of natural-rubber parts and adding fuel tank heaters. This relatively easy change could be an important first step towards energy independence. However, it is important to note that “If all of the vegetable oil and animal fat were used to produce biodiesel, we could only replace about 15% of the current demand for on-highway diesel fuel.” But that number could be increase given that farming would become a viable American enterprise once again.

We need various forms of government encouragement of biodiesel refineries and incentives for retailers to carry biodiesel. Perhaps vehicles that fail emission standards can retest as a biodiesel only vehicles.

Conservation: What is the general consensus on the prospect of raising fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg? I believe that this is feasible and necessary. Is this a commonly held opinion?

Ethanol: Switching from gasoline to ethanol will prove to be more difficult because our vehicles don’t already have ability to run on ethanol. This is a topic I know little about. Perhaps someone else could comment on it. I think that Brazil has vehicles that can run on natural gas, ethanol, or biodiesel and that GM had something to do with the creation of these vehicles.

I need to do some research, but, for those that are interested, Brazil can serve as a model for the movement towards fuel independence.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.htm
http://www.me.iastate.edu/biodiesel/Pages/biodiesel1.html

• report as spam

Seriously, am I the only one who questions whether who gets elected should be dependent on the fund-raising capability of their party? Not even the individual's ability to raise funds, but the party's ability? (Emphasis intended.)

I would prefer to see people decide on a candidate based on the issues rather than the amount of money they can spend on advertising.

My suggestion is that each candidate for a particular office only be allowed to spend a certain amount of money. I don't really care how the amount is decided. Also keep in mind that the only 'trickling down' that most campaign fund expenditures do is through the pockets of the media, whose motives I also suspect some times.

• report as spam

Before we can have a platform we must define the issues that are important to us and prioritize them. Only then can we approach the hardest problem - deciding what we want to do about the issues we identify.

I have worked all over the world and can tell you two things about government:

1. Governing is hard work - the easiest answers are often the hardest to implement, there are always conflicting interests that need to be reconciled and there are never enough resources;
2. Most government problems are so complex that the other side - whatever the other side is - usually has at least a couple of valid points to make.

If we are going to make any progress towards fashioning a new political movement of the center, we must make a point of acknowledging the arguments made by those who disagree with us and then attempting to address, not dismiss, them.

I don't see a lot of that happening on this site right now, though it is pretty early in the game. For example: If you think defending our borders against illegal immigrants is essential, please explain how you would actually expel the millions already here. Remember Elian? Think a wall on the Mexican border would work? Why hasn't it been tried in Iraq? If you think undocumented aliens just want to earn a living doing work no native-born wants, please explain why it is right for them to jump to
the front of the immigration line ahead of those who are playing by the rules. What do we owe to people whose first act upon entering the country is to break our laws? You get the picture.

We can achieve consensus on a strong middle program, but only if we actually engage with each other without venting.

I have vented enough for now

• report as spam

There's a part of that I don't like, but I really like the idea of letting the bloggers loose on new legislation before it comes up for a vote.

I am frequently amazed at the bills that come up for votes and even more surprised at the ones that are passed.

This is one area where ignorance is a bad things. But I don't know how we are suppposed to find out about what laws are up for votes. Very few of them ever make the news.

Maybe I just don't know where to look. Maybe there a few million other people with the same problem.

• report as spam

I like it. We have a fixer-upper here, put away the bulldozer and the blue prints for an addition. I think certain issues will require a new vision, but good government should be the cornerstone.

Submitted by Jake Young on June 2, 2024 - 1:02pm.
I have an idea for a platform. As it is not entirely feasible to have a platform that will satisfy everyone, not even all of the moderates, why not consider framing Unity as the party of good government.
Emphasize balancing the budget, eliminating waste, making dysfunctional bureaucracies (like the CIA or FEMA) function. In this sense you can pull everyone in because you are not advocating vast new institutions but rather the competent governance of existing ones.

• report as spam

This has been touched on by numerous other people on this site, but I will put in my two cents as well.

Energy independence is the one area that can help solve numerous other problems, including to help expedite our exit from Iraq. By allowing renewable energy to power our economy as opposed to fossil fuels, so many things could change. The main reason argument against renewable energy is the cost of getting off oil and completley overhauling our economy to operate on renewable sources. This is an extremely short sighted view. In an nation built on capitalism, how could any good capitalist justify paying for something that could be produced for free? For example, while a move to hydrogen fuel would be extremely costly, the majority of these costs would be one time fixed costs, which would allow us to drastically reduce very high variable costs, and save trillions in the long run. By using renewable energy, we could also help with national security. We would no longer have to base large numbers of troops in the Middle East to ensure the supply of oil (regardless of how you feel about the war, I feel it is prudent to have these troops there as long as we are reliant on oil), which would in turn save countless American lives in the long run. Let other countries worry about oil. The money we currently use to buy oil could be used to help in countless other areas, as well as the money saved by no longer having to maintain a large military presence in the Middle East. Other countries would also be likely to purchase our new technology, which would help American trade. Also, the environment would benefit greatly because pollution would be drastically reduced.
We just need to find someone who is strong enough to stand up to the well entrenched and well finaced interests of big oil.

• report as spam

I am here because of a PBS interview of Hamilton Jordan and Doug Bailey wherein they discussed the need for the organization of a third-party for the 2024 presidential election. In starting from those two gentlemen's names in Google searches I came first to the web site: www.unityparty.us/, that claims to be the domain of the Unity Party of America. There I was informed of a myspace page run under the handle “Marathon Man” @ http://www.myspace.com/unitypartyamerica, where a political platform centered on the ideas of: a balanced-budget amendment, a 30/30 taxation principal, carbon taxation, healthcare tax deduction, Social Security tithe pool, dividend tax deduction, economic based affirmative action, generational justice and a natural presidents amendment were put forth. As tenants of political philosophy pegged as a starting point to the creation of the UNITY Party of America, some would seem quite devisive.
At the .us/ web site, there is a draft Arnold Schwarzenegger for president pitch and a promotion of Jennifer M. Granholm as vice president, neither of whom are native-born Americans, and hence the justification and promotion of the Natural Presidents Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I next pursued a lead to this site (http://unity08.com), which I got by re-watching the PBS interview and since this is the only forum excepting input - unless you're a subscriber to myspace - here is where I'll post my questions.
Are these three forum's outlets for the same political movement? If so, why? Don’t you think that you dilute your impact by the ambiguity and the complexity of keeping a uniform message on three fronts?
Next – Who is behind this? – There are 3rd Party advocates all over the map (I’m one!) but what the party’s mission is, Is the ALL Important Factor. America cries for a return to “representative government” – By the People, For the People! Any 3rd Party effort that misses the craving in the electorate for “America 1st, for American’s 1st!” is spinning it’s wheels.
And speaking of spinning wheels; why on earth would you compound the difficulty of mounting a 3rd Party effort ( the regulatory hurdles of the Electoral College, McCain/Finegold campaign finance restrictions and many state regulation making 3rd party qualification next to impossible) by prefacing it with the need to achieve a Constitutional Amendment so your “chosen” candidates could even assume office?
I’ll watch – with interest, as this progresses – or doesn’t, but I see initial conceptual difficulties.
The statement on this site: “We are not looking to build a new and permanent party. ….. our objective is to fix the old parties.” seems to assume that the two party system can be fixed - and I’m skeptical!! Why go to the effort to do anything less than create a permanent political presence to break the deadlock and force all parties to compete for votes on issues important to the people and critical to the survival of the Republic?
C. H. McMillan III

• report as spam

They're different movements, C.H.

The founders council section lists the people behind this.

• report as spam

This forum must be broken down by issue/topic so that users can see and post different policy to solve each issue and come to a plaform. The rest of these comments can be put under a bogus heading then thrown into one big pile and burned. For more information on specific and clear policy solutions visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

• report as spam

The biggest problem confronting our nation isn't terrorists, illegal immigrants, or the budget deficit. It is the mind-boggling level of influence that special-interest groups have over our elected representatives, from the President on down.

The insane amount of money injected into the process by "groups" with an agenda has corrupted the process so completely that we have a government "of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests."

Every effort at reform to date has done no more than change the rules enough to shift the money around the playing field. Soft money, hard money, party money, or however it is classified, one thing doesn't change but only gets worse: The undue influence of the organizations that throw huge amounts of dollars to influence policy at every level of government.

Whether they are groups with specific economic interests, such as the Halliburtons, Archer Daniels Midlands etc, or the organizations with a policy agenda, such as the pro/anti abortion groups, the pro/anti gun lobby, the Christian Right or the Statist Left, these organizations have taken over not only the entire electoral process, but they have hijacked fiscal policy and led to the absurd polarization of the two parties, which in reality have similar agendas, but are forced to posture and pander for their special-interest sponsors.

Okay, so here's the proposal:
1) ELIMINATE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY ORGANIZATION TO ANY FEDERAL CANDIDATE OR NATIONAL PARTY.
2) ALLOW UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH 100% DISCLOSURE OF AMOUNTS OVER $1,000 TO ANY CANDIDATE OR PARTY.

That's it. In one step we eliminate the undue influence of every major group in play right now and put the process back in the hands of the citizenry.

The objection to this will be the "free-speech" rights of these organizations in the political process. This is a hurdle that has held up even at the Supreme Court level in cases to date, but those cases were patchwork quilts of legislation designed to shift money around and pull the wool over the eyes of the American electorate.

But how is this denying "speech" to these organizations? If they want to "speak," they can take out TV ads, radio time, pay for Web Sites, blogs, etcetera, telling us what they espouse, which candidates they support, how we should vote and why.

Then at least we would see who is supporting what, and hopefully why. These groups have more outlets for their "speech" than at any other time in American history, and they should be allowed to exercise it to the depths of their wallets. But no candidate or party should be able to take a single dollar from ANY group, ANY organization, ANY company, ANY institution at all.

100% of the money should come from individual Americans. Maybe then they would start listening to our voices again, instead of the ones whispering in their ears as money is exchanged with one hand and policy is handed over with the other.

• report as spam

That is a BIG BIG problem!
You can't expect success if some similaraly named organization is diluting your message and efforts!
Exclusive name identity is ALL Important!

• report as spam

if you make term limits mandatory i would be for this -

• report as spam

I like Jake's idea as a great starting point. It's one thing on which I think we can all agree, as well as recognizing it as a major departure from the current parties special-interest serving platforms.

Kudos Jake, on a fine starting point!

• report as spam

"Respected moderates from both parties." Well that should be interesting. Yet more leadership by polls.

• report as spam

I am not so bright when it comes to all the financial stuff of a campaign (fund raising, accounting, limits, ect…). But it seems to me that the politicians have hijacked our voice by limiting the amount of money we as individuals can give to any one specific candidate.

Let’s be honest here, any one of these corporations; GM, EXON, INTEL, GRUMMAN, PROCTOR & GAMBLE, BUDWEISER, FIRERSTON, SEARS…, can give tens of millions of dollars more than any hand full of billionaires can ever give. Where do you think multimillionaires and billionaires get there money. They get their money from building these companies.

And what are corporations? Corporations are just a form civil protection for the people who run them; public or private. So why do we as real humans beings loose our First Amendment Rights to speak with our pocket book and a piece of paper can spend limitlessly?

Real campaign finance reform must start by making it illegal for any corporation, llp or partnership to give money to politicians; hard or soft. I think that would put a quick stop to all special interest groups.

If a millionaire wants to spend their millions to get themselfs elected good for them. Even if it is a group of rich guys that want to elect their buddy. I say go for it, because in this age of technology, the millions of us can speak with the voice of millions and raise billions.

• report as spam

One thing that I think is counterproductive to our current Congressional system is what is called "pork barrel" junk. That is additions to a bill that generally has nothing to do with the bill being brought up for a vote. It is stuff that is added just so some congressman can go home and say to their constituants "Look what I did for you". And it adds BILLIONS of dollars that congress spends sometimes unknowingly. (Actually it's not unknowingly, it's just suppressed)

Also I believe a Line Item Veto must be part of the system. I am not real sure the President (whoever he/she may be) will have the courage to use it, but at least it will be there.

• report as spam

Timothy Foster and others have an interesting point on campaign finance:

Newsweek has an interesting article on this very subject. Historically, candidates are judged by how much money they can garner in the months and years before an election. Using a "netroots" approach and unlimiting private contributions could really turn this antiquated system on it's ear.

2008 frontrunners like Senator Clinton and McCain recieve media facetime because of their backing by the prominant and influential types in our society. However, the internet can provide an avenue for millions of "regular" people to financially throw their hat in the ring as well. This could allow for a charismatic third party "outsider" to play politics with the big boys.

• report as spam

I agree with you that the crucial issues you mention, the issues which a majority of Americans are concerned about, are of necessity being neglected by our national leaders of both parties in their obsequious pursuit of political and monetary support from special interest groups.

Unfortunately, at the present time in our democracy, this obsequious rule is rule one of the political process.

Your goal, as I see it, is to eliminate the obsequious rule one from the political process; and I will fully support you in this very worthy goal. Thank You!

• report as spam

There is a long history in American politics of candidates moving to the extremes to get nominated and moving to the center to get elected. Usually it is only the extremes that participate in elections. Why and how will you be different. The Internet does not change this basic calculus.

• report as spam

As the father of a service person, this is my primary concern now. This should be thoroughly investigated, as I believe this could be a set-up to frame our Marines. I will contribute financialy and otherwise to the best defense lawyer that can be obtained. Our service people are under extreme pressure, and they only feel the pain. We should have a war tax so everyone would feel the burden. IMO if everyone was forced to sacrifice, this would have expedited the completion of this mission. PLease excuse any spelling errors, I am a 70yr old stroke survivor. Thank you.

• report as spam