U.S. slips to historic low in global corruption index
BERLIN (Reuters) - The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday.
The United States fell to 22nd from 19th last year, with its CPI score dropping to 7.1 from 7.5 in the 178-nation index, which is based on independent surveys on corruption.
This was the lowest score awarded to the United States in the index's 15-year history and also the first time it had fallen out of the top 20.
We're sick of it, frankly. We're sick of the rich guys and corporations winning and us losing. We're sick of the money that's going into our politics. We're sick of our politicians being bought. It's all just too much.
So rather than just complaining, I propose, yet again, three solutions to our problems:
First, we need to get that ugly money out of our politics. To do that, we need campaign finance reform so our representatives don't have to go begging to the rich, corporations and their lobbyists for money. We need our government to pay for these stupid elections. If we did this, the money would stop buying our officials and their votes because it would be illegal.
Second, we need to make our campaign seasons shorter--by law--so they don't need all this money. And don't say it can't be done, either. The British did it long ago, we could certainly do it.
Finally, we need to put the "Fairness Doctrine" back in our media and so, government, so at least two different sides would have to be discussed any time a political subject comes up on our airwaves. It used to be the law of the land. The Republicans took it out of our laws and we need to get it back. This would take the vitriol and emotionalism and ugliness and bitterness out of our discussions. It won't happen because Fox "News" and the Republicans and corporations and Right Wing wouldn't stand for it and would raise heck about it violating their First Amendment rights and "free speech", even though that's patently untrue. They could still say whatever they want, it's just that the opposing view would have to also be aired.
It's too bad the above won't happen. At least it won't until the American people rise up and demand it. I hope it doesn't require a revolution to get us there.
This used to be a far better country to live in than what we've got now.
And a lot of that is our own fault.
Posts
7 comments:
Government funded elections will nearly guarantee that the corruption will continue. Either the system will pay every crackpot to run for election, so legitimate third party and independent candidates are lost in the noise, or it will ensure that only the existing major parties get major funding. Maybe not quite Soviet-style one party government, but one and a half at best. Apparently I have to pay for my opponents through taxes, but don't get to financially support the party that I agree with the most.
England doesn't have the same constitution that we do, probably why they could reduce the campaign season. There are parts of campaigning we could shorten, but most would fall under freedom of speech.
There are also first amendment issues for determining what is campaigning--Under what circumstances can I publish my views on an issue, or a biography of a candidate? Can I join a group to publish, or do I have to do it all by myself to retain my free speech/press rights? If I publish my views, do I also have to pay to publish someone else's?
I'm not going to spend much time on defending the political speech rights of corporations--but I do think the members of the NAACP, ACLU, AARP and of course the NRA should be able to band together to coordinate their influence. Even the Brady Campaign.
How do the libertarians fall into fairness--we consider liberal and conservative as minor variations of the same statist viewpoint--do we get equal time as well? Would a libertarian broadcaster have to give equal time, and if so, to who?
How does this work for news coverage, and where is the line between news and editorial?
The news is biased left, even taking Fox News into account. Talk radio is biased right--nobody wanted to listen to Air America. Fairness doctrine may have made minor sense before the internet--but now people can get more than sound bites and press releases. The potential for harm is much greater than the potential for good--the government should have minimal involvement in political speech.
Your note proves my points---we won't get what we need to fix the union, sadly, unless I'm mistaken.
And I don't think I am.
mr
Americans are just too closed-minded, short-sighted, unimaginative and, seemingly, incapable of change of nearly any kind, it seems, whether the topic is health care or political campaigns or nearly whatever.
mr
Maybe guarantee the corruption is too strong--But continuing with incumbent-friendly rules isn't going to help.
I have hope that a lot of this influence is and will continue to be reduced by the internet and social media. Ordinary people with some motivation can find way more information on candidates and positions than they could 15 years ago, and share what they find including verifiable sources to others--traditional media still matters, but less and less.
Last week I found a sample ballot with the issues and candidates for my area. I researched the candidates, found their positions on a few issues that matter to me, and made tentative decisions. In a couple of races, I checked poll results to see if the race was too close to vote Libertarian. I also found out what the initiatives were talking about in some detail, all in a fairly short time.
For what it's worth, I'm tentatively planning to vote Democrat for Governor, Republican for state senate, and Libertarian for most other races.
My take on it is not to make "new rules" I'm proposing "incumbent-friendly", for sure.
Would that everyone would do their research on issues and candidates as you did.
mr
Would that everyone would do their research on issues and candidates as you did.
That's kind of my point--Pre-internet that would have been many hours of research, and I don't think I would have followed through-instead I would have based my decisions on far less accurate information, like party and ads.
I am really hoping it gets harder and harder to fool enough people to get elected.
absolutely.
Another thing that would be a great outcome of the internet and technology is if it brought us more together, maybe because of that research, so it's more "us" vs. the politicians and then, finally, all of us, together.
but hey, I can dream, no?
mr
Post a Comment