This is a "contract with America" style idea. The Republican party used the contract with America when they were a minority party to re-energize their base and define who they were (eg. horrible, but some people like that?)

The thing about a Contract or Party Pledge is you get EVERY (or almost every) member to pledge to do something significant that people care about:

* No more stock trading
* Contribution Limits eg. end to special interests

1/

This shouldn't be a big ask but I know that it is. The stock thing is just not worth it. It makes every single person involved look ugly. YES the public cares.

The "no more special interests" might raise the worry "but how do you win an election without big money?"

They seem to be able to lose them with big money. Let's try something new. Also, send any donors off to fund alternative media instead.

Keep your little hands clean if your dare.

2/2

This shouldn't be a big ask but I know that it is. The stock thing is just not worth it. It makes every single person involved look ugly. YES the public cares.

The "no more special interests" might raise the worry "but how do you win an election without big money?"

They seem to be able to lose them with big money. Let's try something new. Also, send any donors off to fund alternative media instead.

Keep your little hands clean if your dare.

2/2

@futurebird

What do you do about the fact that Democrats don't have any credibility at all? That's the problem I can't find a solution for.

When a Democrat promises something good around policy, I literally sneer. It's like watching Trump call himself a "mega genius" or something: so transparently false that there isn't even a breath of time when I think "maybe they actually will-!"

Multiply me by 100 million voters, and that's your problem right there

I have other much more radical suggestions but I was tying to think of things you could ... maybe get everyone on board with.

And things that can be acted on in real time.

@futurebird

100% agree. I had a running list of a simple platform that I think would have wide appeal. Added yours and a few others just now, but one door easily remove bullets that don't have widespread support:

- due process under the law for all people
- freedom to criticize the government
- prohibition on secret police/requirement for all law enforcement to identify themselves.
- prohibition on the use of tariffs to punish and bully American allies
- ban on direct congressional stock trading
- overturn Citizens United
- ranked voting
- nationwide ban on gerrymandering
- 18 year term limits on supreme court (like the Biden proposal)

This shouldn't be a big ask but I know that it is. The stock thing is just not worth it. It makes every single person involved look ugly. YES the public cares.

The "no more special interests" might raise the worry "but how do you win an election without big money?"

They seem to be able to lose them with big money. Let's try something new. Also, send any donors off to fund alternative media instead.

Keep your little hands clean if your dare.

2/2

@futurebird What counts as a "special interest" group, though? Is it just industry lobbyists? Or would it also include environmental groups, or the ACLU, or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or any number of civil rights organizations focused on one of the many groups being attacked right now?

@kelson @futurebird

Why is it a problem if these people aren’t allowed to bribe candidates? They can still provide expert opinions to candidates, and the candidates can choose the degree to which they trust these organisations, without a direct profit motive.

@david_chisnall @kelson

They can also still do public awareness campaigns about the things they care about, and those things may make people interested in certain candidates.

What's annoying is when you have third parties spreading information NOT related to their issue to try to influence voters.

@futurebird @kelson

There is a related issue though. Even before Citizens United, the loophole for spending dark money in US elections was ‘issue ads’. Some organisation cares about issue X (typically because some rich people care about that issue). Rather than endorsing a candidate, they run a campaign telling people that issue is importantly and that one of the candidates is opposed to the thing that they’re pushing. It’s hard to ban this kind of thing without trampling on legitimate free speech.

@david_chisnall @kelson

I think it's hard to regulate issue ads, but on the other hand I sometimes think *all* advertising should be regulated. Limited to narrow contexts, clearly labeled as to source, not targeting children, not prove-ably dishonest. With a border around it that says "This is and Ad."

But, people say I'm being "draconian" when I start up on that.

So how about we don't let them give politicians wads of cash?

@futurebird @david_chisnall @kelson All ads should be regulated and mostly banned, and the framework under which it should be done is codifying that paid speech (someone pays you to say something or replay their message) is commercial activity not expression and subject to regulation as such.