They're buying unfair government policies (or protection from unfair government policies bought and paid for by competitors). Philanthropic groups aside, moneyed special interests don't pay much for fair government policies (those serving the best interests of the American people).
The only way our "representatives" can pass and/or sustain unfair government policies (and thus be able to sell their political influence for millions) is through deception. They must try to deceive us with specious justifications that hide the truth of the unfair policies (e.g., "aluminum tubes," "mobile weapons labs," "mushroom clouds," "vials of anthrax" as justifications for invading Iraq).
The mechanics of deception in Congress
The most powerful tool of deception used by our "representatives" is the lackey mainstream media (essentially the propaganda arm of our government). Mainstream media are supposed to keep us informed about our government's activities. But as profit-driven corporations that receive billions from our "representatives," they're much more motivated to promote and perpetuate government deception than to expose it. It's simply smart business.
Our "representatives" use various tools to deceive us. But all tools boil down to one thing: evasion. Those supporting unfair government policies cannot possibly defend these policies with clear, rational arguments. So they offer shallow, specious justifications (dutifully passed on to the American people by mainstream media) and then simply evade responding to the obvious flaws in their justifications.
Our "representatives" are never forced to defend their justifications using clear, rational arguments. All we ever get are deceptive, evasive snippets of "arguments" and appeals to emotion, never anything remotely resembling a clear, cogent, rational argument. But usually this is good enough to deceive a sufficient number of Americans to pass and/or sustain unfair government policies.
Demand our "representatives" post a clear, rational argument (defending their positions) on the Internet for all to scrutinize
Our political system's many entrenched mischief mechanisms (e.g., powerful standing committees, filibusters, earmarks) are regularly exploited by our "representatives" to evade clear, rational argument and open debate on their positions. What would happen if we, the people, no longer tolerated evasion from those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests? The influence peddling market would crash.
If our "representatives" couldn't evade, it would be much more difficult for them to deceive us about unfair government policies and thus much more difficult to pass and/or sustain such policies. The market value of political influence would plummet.
Aspects of an Internet-based (wiki) system of congressional accountability
We'd be able to visit an Internet site and view clear, rational arguments for all Congressional proposals (pro and con side by side for easy comparison). We wouldn't need mainstream media pundits to interpret government policies for us; we'd be getting both sides right from the horse's mouth. Evasions and flawed reasoning by either side would be made very apparent. A search capability would allow us to find the current best arguments (pro and con) for any bill in Congress.
When a bill is introduced, those "representatives" initiating the bill would post a clear, rational argument explaining the merits of the bill. Those opposing the bill would then post their (corresponding) clear, rational argument explaining why the bill is unfair and shouldn't pass.
What makes this Internet-based (wiki) system of accounting such a powerful weapon against evasion and falsehood is this: the individual arguments are dynamic. As you will see, using dynamic arguments (referred to as wikiarguments) prevents lots of mischief and tends to punish liars and reward truth-tellers. The individual wikiarguments would be managed very much like Wikipedia entries except there would be multiple entries per subject (pro and con arguments) instead of the one entry per subject in Wikipedia.
Thus all members of Congress would be able to edit (improve) the arguments they favor. Both sides of any issue would be free to update their respective wikiargument as new facts emerge or to correct mistakes. In this manner, arguments for both sides (pro and con) would evolve as collaborative efforts, which would converge toward a best argument (consensus) for each side of any given issue (bill).
A wikiargument system would differ significantly from a forum-type venue (where people argue back and forth) because the emphasis is on an evolving, converging final product (a current best argument for each side). Like robot competition, the emphasis would be on building a superior rational argument for a given position, which would then openly compete with its corresponding (opposing) argument on the Internet.
The American people would get to watch as arguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. We would watch our "representatives" slugging it out using their best rational arguments (instead of using deceptive TV sound bites).
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
