noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.3K
active users

Starmer could introduce new law to block Musk from donating to Reform, minister suggests

As a US citizen, Mr Musk cannot legally make a personal donation to a UK political party but he could do so through the UK subsidiaries of his companies.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli

The Independent · Starmer could introduce new law to block Musk from donating to Reform, minister saysBy Millie Cooke
@LoriQuaid The answer to this is very simple.
Disband political parties so politicians have to stand as independents and form coalitions.
If we really cannot bear to do this, then put a cap on donations (say no more than £500 per year) and ban corporate donations so that only private citizens can donate.
The question we should be asking is would these politicians complain if Musk were donating to their party?

@KeepTakingTheSoma @LoriQuaid If those politicians wouldn't complain, they should.

Cit United makes it impossible to cap donations here, and subsidiaries of foreign corporations is one of the ways a noncitizen can funnel money into our campaigns. Elon has already shown he's willing to destroy democracy, free speech, the electoral process, "to save it"; I don't think this is an overreach.

(I don't think banning corporate donations is such a bad idea. I'm all in favor of it.)

@LostInCalifornia @LoriQuaid Back when political labels meant something, I was centrist with some left/some right leanings on particular policy.
I'm heartily sick of it all now, especially the *person* is our saviour, or *it's ok when our team does it.*
Anyone with serious money using it to buy/exert political influence should make us suspicious.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @LoriQuaid Yes. They should make you suspicious. Especially when they promote such flagrant lies as "bot driven facts are truth."

I started as a ban all parties person. A prof told me off early on. Yeah, it's a bout bit about "teams", but it's more about collective action. I'm still convinced she was right.

I'm still left of center, but the center keeps moving.

@LostInCalifornia @LoriQuaid The problem with parties is that the party becomes more important than the policy, and people will be sacrificed accordingly. Even an idealistic politician will eventually take the coin and do as she's told rather than what is right.
WS Gilbert put it so well:
When in that house MPs divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum too,
They have to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @LostInCalifornia I think that the 17th Amendment to the US constitution is at least partly to explain. Previously, US senators were elected by their respective state legislatures, which forced them to represent their state's regional interests. After they were elected directly by the people, instead of representing their region, they became the plaything of whichever political party funded and conducted their campaign.

@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma Plaything of the people who elect them directly.

"States rights" is a fool's game.

California has 30 million people. It has 2 senators. Wyoming has a half million. It has 2 senators.

Regional differences for low population areas are adequately represented in in the Senate.

LoriQuaid

@LostInCalifornia @KeepTakingTheSoma The whole point in having two US senators from each state is to represent the state which elected them.

@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma And how does that change with direct elections?

Besides, you know, the whole eliminating the old, corrupt state official crony appointments, how do the people electing a senator change regional representation?

The state is also elected by the people. The 14th Amendment is supposed to guarantee that. The state has no business other than the people.

@LostInCalifornia @KeepTakingTheSoma When a person ran for the U.S. Senate as originally conceived, it cost nothing. The candidate's campaign amounted to talking to people in the state legislature. Moving to direct elections by the populace meant that campaigns were now expensive, and the candidate became beholden to the political party that was financing him/her. The political parties grew in power, and the region that was supposedly being represented lost power

@LoriQuaid @KeepTakingTheSoma Yes, there is a ton of money in senatorial elections. There is also a ton of money in cronyism for a select few.

Reforming campaign finance will address the first issue. The second, not so much.