Goodbye internet, whatever did we do without you?

[kandrathe]

I just shared that video on fb. I hope many people see it and feel moved enough to write the appropriate parties, however I have serious doubts anything will change since it seems greed and power rule the day.

I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress asking them to support the classification of broadband ISPs as common carriers. Also, I added my comments to the accruing millions at the FCC comment site.

Has our government ever been any more blatantly corrupt than its been this last decade? I've never seen so many civil liberties trampled in the name of social reform, regulations meant to protect us trampled or re-worked, laws setup to limit donations to campaigns struck down, laws altered to allow torture or detaining foreign nationals, etc. I feel that winning the battle over net neutrality would be nice, but would hardly scratch the surface of the real problem currently plaguing our country, which is lobbyists dictating law to the greedy congressmen doing whatever it takes to stay on top.

The short answer is yes. There were more corrupt administrations in our history (e.g. U.S. Grant, or W.G. Harding.) It's the Lord Acton thing. It happens when the people become complacent and ignorant (tired/apathetic) of what their representatives are doing. However, I refute the argument that "would be nice, but would hardly scratch the surface of the real problem currently plaguing our country". I learned recently the Brits have a word for it, "Whataboutism". I just think we need to pick a cause, or twenty and do something about it. Maybe if activism was marketed as vehemently as skin moisturizers... I dunno...

I've never liked how members of congress are basically in there for life once elected; in my opinion, I'd like to see elections every 2-years to *maximum* of 4-years in office, else congressmen they get too powerful for their own good and form alliances, and do what is in their own interests, to remain in power instead of looking after the interest of the people they were elected to serve.

Check in to the fanfare of the STOCK (stops congress from using their secret knowledge for insider trading) act, and its quiet recent demise signed by the same president who trumpeted its original passage. Term limits have pros and cons. The downside is a perpetual newbie congress that is ineffective due to incompetence. The bigger problem is not the term, but the public servant. If we held them accountable, and fully participated in the democratic process, we'd be a bit better off. The other part of the equation is that the people are easily bamboozled due to either blind partisanship, or the aforementioned ignorance (tired/apathetic). Here in my state in 2013, the legislature passed a $2 billion tax levy across the board to shore up a $1.1 billion tax shortfall. Then, a year later they've mysteriously discovered they have a $1 billion surplus. Funny that, how math works. Now the same legislature has patted themselves on the backs for passing about $400 million in "tax cuts". Of course, the "cuts" are not returned to those who paid. It's smoke and mirrors and the ultimate in political deception or marketing if you will.

Old rules struck down within the last decade limiting donations from lobbyists in general and for election campaigns need to be brought back to control corruption. Anyways, some of my thoughts in this rant.

Our Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of political speech, and therefore limiting them risks infringing on 1st amendment rights. The traditions of stare decisis (precedent) would indicate that unless there is an overwhelming change in the underlying assumptions, that no significant change can be made in limiting campaign contributions (i.e.political speech). What can be done would be in transparency. We can make daily/weekly campaign contribution disclosure a requirement without impinging free speech. The people can then decide who is being bought. And, we can be more vigilant in calling out and prosecuting quid pro quo (corruption) deals when they occur.