- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Hmmm.... Maybe I should go into a little more detail about how this would work.
Each year, you do a new draw from the pool. The draw establishes a set of teams ("Watchgroups"?) that are randomly assigned elected officials. Each team is tasked with investigating any laws the pols. they are assigned have involved themselves in and they are examined to see if they have undue impact on the major campaign contributors for those pols.
There's no doubt that there would be some political gamesmanship, but exposing the issues that are driving this can only help things. You might have a politicized group watching someone for a year, but next year, they get a whole new group watching them. The pols. are never sure of who will be watching them and thus can never be confident that there would be a Watchgroup that would have their back. In fact, the possibility that there might be a Watchgroup that would pursue them for political reasons would actually be good thing. If they walk in a level of integrity that leaves them above reproach, they would have nothing to worry about no matter who was watching them.
BTW - VERY enjoyable discussion.
How would you account for false positives? If politician A is going to change his stance on policy B regardless of company C being known to find politicians with that position it looks like corruption but might not be. It's a hard problem. Especially since it's not one prone to evidence.
Also how do you define an advocacy group like the NRA within such a system? Do you just ban everything? I think that would throw out the baby with the bath water because it would again reduce the balance of power for the citizenry, which is the fundamental problem. Things are too intertwined.
We have to bypass it entirely and redesign this aspect of the system.
Last edited: