A proposal to clean up politics

[Loren Pechtel]

Proposal: The Political Honesty Act

In the legislature (or other such body, such as our county commission) and during press conferences all elected officials are automatically under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, same as if they were testifying in court.

Unlike the court they are free to choose not to answer a question. Also they are not required to disclose anything they legally are not permitted to, if refusing to answer the question would be revealing then they can lie about it. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" Reality: The CIA has found him and a raid is going in. "We have no idea at present" {To do anything else would tip off Bin Laden that he was in danger and thus interfere with the mission.}) Such lies must be documented and corrected when feasible. (After the raid is done "I'm sorry, but I had to lie about not knowing where Bin Laden was to avoid tipping him off to the raid.")


Thoughts?

 

[barbos]

What prompted this?
By the way, Bin Laden at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Proposal: The Political Honesty Act

In the legislature (or other such body, such as our county commission) and during press conferences all elected officials are automatically under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, same as if they were testifying in court.

Unlike the court they are free to choose not to answer a question. Also they are not required to disclose anything they legally are not permitted to, if refusing to answer the question would be revealing then they can lie about it. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" Reality: The CIA has found him and a raid is going in. "We have no idea at present" {To do anything else would tip off Bin Laden that he was in danger and thus interfere with the mission.}) Such lies must be documented and corrected when feasible. (After the raid is done "I'm sorry, but I had to lie about not knowing where Bin Laden was to avoid tipping him off to the raid.")


Thoughts?

When I studied logic my professor thought it was a lark to analyse speeches by politicians. We picked apart quite a few. They're masters at making Barnum statements. They never actually say anything. Legislation like this will only make a bad situation worse.

We want "the people" to be the only judges of a politicians competence. It's an important feature of democracy. Any loop hole that may allow the judiciary to co-opt the process is dodgy. Many dictatorships start out like a crusade against dishonest politicians. And too late do people realise that it's a back-door to persecute any politicians who doesn't agree with the top dog.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Proposal: An Act To Hold Our Feet To The Fire

It is a nice thought though.

 

[couch_sloth]

The problem is that elected officials are sometimes asked questions that are too personal in nature, yet a lot of people think they should get an answer to these types of questions. (A lot of people wouldn't be happy with a straight refusal to answer them, and would assume the politician has something to hide.)
e.g. Questions like: "Have you ever cheated on your wife?", "Have you ever used an illegal drug?", "Do you think there are other religions that are just as valid as Christianity?". "Are you an agnostic (or an atheist )?".

 

[Will Wiley]

How do you clean up politics and promote extra judicial killings at the same time?

 

[untermensche]

You take the profit out of it.

Only public funded elections.

And the networks must provide free air time for debates.

No commercials, just like other vices.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Proposal: The Political Honesty Act

In the legislature (or other such body, such as our county commission) and during press conferences all elected officials are automatically under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, same as if they were testifying in court.

Unlike the court they are free to choose not to answer a question. Also they are not required to disclose anything they legally are not permitted to, if refusing to answer the question would be revealing then they can lie about it. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" Reality: The CIA has found him and a raid is going in. "We have no idea at present" {To do anything else would tip off Bin Laden that he was in danger and thus interfere with the mission.}) Such lies must be documented and corrected when feasible. (After the raid is done "I'm sorry, but I had to lie about not knowing where Bin Laden was to avoid tipping him off to the raid.")


Thoughts?

Isn't lying free speech?

I'm way too old to think we can "clean up" politics. I'd like, however, to at least have two political parties.

 

[Malintent]

Proposal: The Political Honesty Act

In the legislature (or other such body, such as our county commission) and during press conferences all elected officials are automatically under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, same as if they were testifying in court.

Unlike the court they are free to choose not to answer a question. Also they are not required to disclose anything they legally are not permitted to, if refusing to answer the question would be revealing then they can lie about it. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" Reality: The CIA has found him and a raid is going in. "We have no idea at present" {To do anything else would tip off Bin Laden that he was in danger and thus interfere with the mission.}) Such lies must be documented and corrected when feasible. (After the raid is done "I'm sorry, but I had to lie about not knowing where Bin Laden was to avoid tipping him off to the raid.")


Thoughts?

How is this not already a thing?

In addition to that, I think that the names of lobby groups and companies that contribute to a politician's campaign for election should be required to be displayed any time the politician is speaking publicly. NASCAR style coats would be the required uniform, with the size of "corporate sponsor" patches relating to the relative amount of money contributed.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Nice idea, but since it would need to be proposed and passed through congress itself, I think the final bill would probably have all of the oath taking and honesty pieces stripped out and the only thing left to vote on would be a 10% congressional payraise amendment.

aa

 

[Speakpigeon]

Proposal: The Political Honesty Act

In the legislature (or other such body, such as our county commission) and during press conferences all elected officials are automatically under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, same as if they were testifying in court.

Unlike the court they are free to choose not to answer a question. Also they are not required to disclose anything they legally are not permitted to, if refusing to answer the question would be revealing then they can lie about it. ("Do you know where Bin Laden is?" Reality: The CIA has found him and a raid is going in. "We have no idea at present" {To do anything else would tip off Bin Laden that he was in danger and thus interfere with the mission.}) Such lies must be documented and corrected when feasible. (After the raid is done "I'm sorry, but I had to lie about not knowing where Bin Laden was to avoid tipping him off to the raid.")


Thoughts?

I don't think it's a good idea to give judges the power to decide that a politician is lying. People should decide for themselves. Trump didn't get a majority vote from the American people. The shortfall is more than 3 million votes, which is quite a lot in fact so it would be more justified to go into a constitution battle over it.

Lying is what most human beings do, and barely less than breathing. It should almost be a constitutional right to lie. On the other hand, citizens concerned should organise themselves to denounce politicians' lies and show their lies to be lies.

Maybe the difficulty is to decide who is lying most. I think the only way to tell is to try it. The American people have now a unique opportunity to see for themselves how much of a liar Trump is.
EB

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You take the profit out of it.

Only public funded elections.

And the networks must provide free air time for debates.

No commercials, just like other vices.

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding?
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding?
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly?
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You take the profit out of it.

Only public funded elections.

And the networks must provide free air time for debates.

No commercials, just like other vices.

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding?
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding?
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly?
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates?

I'd say that if your party gets X% (say 5% or so) of the vote in an election, their candidates qualify for federal financing in the next election. This can be done at a district by district level, so that minor, local parties aren't shut out of it. A similar system can be used to determine air time and who qualifies for the debates, with additional factors being taken into account such as if a new party's candidate is polling at a certain level.

There's not much to be done to stop wealthy candidates from spending their own money, but in addition to the funding, the government can subsidize campaign costs up to a certain level. For instance, say that the funding and the subsidization cap are $100,000. The government gives you $100,000 and you when buy a $10,000 TV ad, you only spend $5000 on that ad and the government pays for the rest. A rich guy puts in his own $100,000 and he only needs to spend the same $5000 on the ad. Once he's gone over the $100,000 limit, though, he pays the full $10,000 for his next ad. He can spend however much he wants, but the costs of doing so are higher than someone spending less has, in order to even out the playing field.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You take the profit out of it.

Only public funded elections.

And the networks must provide free air time for debates.

No commercials, just like other vices.

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding?
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding?
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly?
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates?

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding? - 100 forum posts mentioning candidate
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding? - Ask nicely
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly? - Create an awesome algorithm
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates? - 1000 forum posts mentioning candidate

 

[Elixir]

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding?
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding?
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly?
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates?

What is the threshold upon which a candidate receives this free funding? - 100 forum posts mentioning candidate
What is to prevent someone who is independently wealthy from augmenting the government funding? - Ask nicely
How will you determine if the free airtime is allocated fairly? - Create an awesome algorithm
How will you determine who qualifies to be in these subsidized debates? - 1000 forum posts mentioning candidate

Lottery. We can't do any worse than we've just done.