Hello! Hello! Hello! Welcome to episode 41 of We Don’t Talk About P-word. Over the past several weeks, we have been talking about what’s the matter with our government. We have discussed each branch of government and I have provided some examples of where we’ve gone wrong. 
This week will be the end of this series of chats. Today, I want to discuss a few more things that would improve our government. Unlike what we have talked about in the past six episodes, these apply to more than one branch. In fact, much of what I talk about today would be useful reforms in the states as well. 
The first I want to comment on was something we covered in episode 37, Too Powerful for Democracy. That is term limits. I showed why it is imperative that we end lifetime appointments to the judicial. Age is not limited to Supreme Court Justices; Senators and representatives age, too. It is important to limit their influence on the government as well. For all intents and purposes, you can remain in Congress for life. Unfortunately, this is rampant in most states as well. That is not acceptable. No one politician should affect politics for that long.
We limited the President to two terms. This is after only three ever attempted it (Grant, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt). Some others flirted with the idea, but nothing serious came of it. Of those three, only one succeeded, but we still felt it necessary to limit the president to two terms. Only one president has ever served more than eight years. The Senate has twenty-five members who have served longer than thirty-five years. The House has thirty-three that have served forty or more years. Yet for some reason, we have chosen to limit presidents only. Not the justices, with lifetime appointments. Not Senators and Representatives, able to be reelected for life. 
When our republic began, all positions had the potential for lifetime service. In 247 years, we have only limited one branch. That doesn’t track at all. We have a national retirement age of 67. Nearly 250 years later, why is this still a discussion?
Unfortunately, the only way to impose term limits is through an amendment. We must pass an amendment ending lifetime access to political office. We could include it with the amendment I discussed in the episode on the judicial. I would not use the same term limits that I suggested for the judicial, because their role is different. Their potential is different. Their power is different. The age limit should be the same, again, a good starting point for discussion is 70 or 75 years of age. For years of service, twenty-four years would be appropriate. 
I didn’t pick an arbitrary number out of the air, so let me explain why. We’ve discussed the minimum ages to serve in Congress: 25 for the House and 30 for the Senate. The theory behind these ages was that you would start in the lower and move on to the upper House. You would gain national government experience. You would gain exposure to foreign affairs. House service would prepare you for election to the Senate. Here's my reasoning for twenty-four years. This would allow three terms in the Senate after serving three terms in the House. (Obviously, there would be those who serve all twenty-four years in one or the other.) This enables the transition envisioned by the Founders. It still limits a single person's effect on the government.
This year alone, we have watched members of Congress serve past the point of being healthy. These are people terrified of giving up power. That is not a reason to remain in office. At some point, you must admit to yourself that you are only serving yourself.
The next thing I want to talk about is how we elect members of the federal government. This one would need a good amount of activism in the states. But it is important to achieve this for all federal positions. 
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.” 
Congress has the right to legislate all aspects of choosing members of Congress. That is everything except the place where Senators are chosen. My potential fix to the way we elect Congress is achievable by Congress. Unfortunately, the Constitution leaves the manner of choosing Presidential electors to state legislatures. That makes enacting these changes for presidential electors more difficult. They would have to be legislated in each individual state. This is where the People of each state would have to demand change. This is part of the grind of a political reset. So, what changes would I make to the way we choose federal representatives?
There isn’t much that Louisiana does right in politics, but there is one. They call it the jungle primary, though I wouldn’t run them quite the same way. The most common type of primary in the US is the open primary. The second is closed primaries. Several states use a mixed form of these. The jungle or top-two primary is currently only used in five. 
The difference between the three is simple. An open primary allows you to vote in the party primary of your choice. It is not dependent on your party affiliation, but it is one or the other and not both. Closed primaries require you to be affiliated with a party to vote. This means Democrats or Republicans only get to vote in their party primary. Voters not registered with either party don’t get to vote in either.
The jungle primary is very different. The way it works in Louisiana is that all candidates run in the same primary, regardless of party. If one candidate receives 50% or greater of the votes, they win outright. If no one receives 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters are placed in a runoff. What makes this different also makes it more in tune with the People’s government. The runoff may pit two Republicans against each other. (Or two Democrats, or two Independents.) Either way, this gives the People much more say in the election. It certainly encourages politicians to cast a wider net. It urges them to run on an agenda that is more popular among all their constituents. If combined with nonpartisan districting, you would see a serious decrease in partisanship. 
This process would work for the Senate and the House. This is not how I would see a presidential jungle primary working. The idea of a runoff doesn’t seem workable, not to mention that the primary could choose the winner. This would be contrary to laws that govern when the President is elected. The best way to administer this would be what I call a modified jungle primary. 
After the counting of votes, three candidates would emerge. Each party’s highest vote-getter becomes their nominee. As we have discussed, we must improve independent access to the ballot. In that interest, the independent with the most votes would also get a place on the general ballot. This might include legislation that stipulates a minimum vote percentage. This type of primary ensures each party's representation in the general election. It also ensures greater ballot access for independent candidates. 
This type of election would provide the parties and the nation valuable insight. Early primary results would show parties the strength of their candidates. This would give the parties time and the information to change course. It would provide good independent candidates with a path to election. The biggest advantage is that candidates would have to rethink their campaign strategy. They would have to better tune their message to the voters instead of the parties.
Besides the primaries, we also need to change the way we vote. A winner-takes-all, binary decision only protects the parties. It is not meant to protect the People; it is meant to force the People to choose a special interest. It is meant to make us vote for the lesser of two evils. It is why so many feel their vote doesn’t matter. 
How do we fix that? Ranked-choice voting. A few states use some form of ranked-choice voting, but not enough. This might be a little technical, so bear with me, as it’s important to understand. Ranked-choice voting allows you to list your preference among the candidates running. If a candidate wins 50% +1, they win the election. If not, it eliminates the candidate with the least number of #1 votes. All ballots listing that candidate as their #1 choice now have their #2 choice added to the count. With no majority, the next lowest is elimina ted. The process continues until one candidate wins a majority. 
The reason this is so important is it ensures a much more representative outcome. The People get to make a choice of candidates and are not forced to choose a party. I hear all the time that voters don’t vote for an independent because it is throwing away their vote. This would help end that. You could choose independent or third-party candidates without fear of tanking the election. This would lead to more independent and third-party candidates getting elected. Independents balance our political system. This makes our democracy stronger. When the choice is binary between two evils, that isn’t a choice. You are just praying you don’t make things worse. 
The only reason not to install ranked-choice voting everywhere is partisanship. The only people benefiting from single-choice voting are the political elites. They force you into choosing their party candidates whether you like them or not. They decide the agendas whether you agree with them or not. It’s no wonder that the quality of candidates has withered. It’s no wonder that so many choose not to vote. 
Currently, there is no reason to put forth candidates that want to represent the People. It is better for the parties to put forth loyalists determined to keep the party in power. When we have no legitimate alternatives, only the parties have power. With a winner-take-all system based on plurality instead of majority, we weaken democracy. With ranked-choice voting, you get more widespread support behind the winning candidate.
Next, I want to discuss political action committees (or PACs). These are organizations whose only purpose is to influence politics, for good or bad. Before we talk about PACs, I want to talk about how politicians get the money to run for office. We’d like to believe that the People fund campaigns. The parties hope we continue to believe that. These days, that's not true, at least not completely, if it ever was.
Note that individual states determine their own contribution laws. The limits we discuss today pertain only to federal elections. Most states aren’t much different, though. All are beholden to monied interests.
These are the numbers for the upcoming 2024 campaign season. An individual American can contribute up to $3,300 per election, per candidate. Additionally, we may donate up to $5,000 a year to federal PACs. Lastly, we can contribute up to $41,300 per year to national political parties. 
Let me put this into perspective. For the 2020, election cycle less than 1.5% of Americans contributed more than $200 to a federal election. That includes candidates, parties, PACs, and other organizations. That’s less than 5 million Americans in a population of over 329 million. The 2020 election was the most expensive election in history. Nearly $14.5 billion dollars was spent. 
It's obvious that the People aren’t funding the entire campaign. That is where PACs and super PACs come in. I am going to warn you that the whole PAC system is “working as intended,” meaning that it is confusing and vague. I will try to simplify it. There are three types of PACs. There are connected PACs and non-connected PACs. Then there are super PACs, which are a similar but separate type of beast. 
Connected PACs are connected to an organization. This might be a business, a non-profit, a union, or a health organization. These PACs can only receive funds from those associated with their organization. 
Non-connected PACs represent special interests. These might be ethical, religious, political, or single issues. Examples include candidate PACs, Congressional leadership PACs, and the Planned Parenthood PAC. These PACs can receive funds from any individual.
I’m going to ignore super PACs for a minute to tell you what basic PACs can do. 
PACs are authorized to donate $5,000 to a candidate or their committee per election. They can donate up to $15,000 to a political party per year. They can also donate up to $5,000 to another PAC per year. 
Here is where the real problems begin. A PAC may make unlimited expenditures on behalf of a candidate or party. This means they can air TV ads and send campaign mail, etc., that support a candidate’s position on something. The only rule is they cannot collude. They just can’t talk to each other about it. It is easy to create complimentary political ads without collusion. They watch their ads. They know their voting history. Sometimes (a lot of times), they collude anyway. The bottom line is it isn’t hard to create complimentary material for a campaign. Admittedly, this has the potential to backfire as well. Typically, the candidate will just disavow the PAC and it’s forgotten. 
Do you want to know the secret to recognize a candidate ad versus a PAC ad? Listen to the end of the ad. If it says, “I’m *generic candidate’s name* and I approve this message.” or some version of that, that’s a candidate ad. Any other ad is a special interest ad. The PAC logo and name will be somewhere near the end or static at the bottom of the ad. 
Then we have super PACs. These are PACs on steroids. PACs have been around since the 1940s, but super PACs were imposed on us in 2010. 
In 2010, the Supreme Court decided a case. You may have heard of it: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The results of this case were a serious blow to the People. In their purchased, unelected wisdom, the Supreme Court sold the rights of the People. They said that corporations were entitled to the rights of the Constitution. They determined limiting the contributions of any person was against their constitutional rights. The opinion said that spending money on politics equals free speech. They connected corporations to PACs by calling them an association of people. According to the case, this entitled them to the right of free speech. It also upheld a lower court ruling: PACs can make unlimited independent expenditures. That is as long as they did not donate to candidates, parties, or other PACs. With that ruling, super PACs were born, allowing corporations to influence politics. 
What makes super PACs different is that they are independent expenditure only. This means they cannot give to candidates, parties, or even other PACs. Everything they do must be independent. (I’ve already told you why that is vague and largely unenforceable.) 
Here is what makes them so problematic. Since Citizens United, the amount of dark money in politics has exploded. Individuals, corporations, other PACs, and unions can make unlimited contributions to these super PACs.  Of those, who do you think is donating the most? Who do you think is gaining the favor of the candidates and parties they indirectly support?
Speaking of knowing who spends the most, that’s the biggest problem. We don’t know. That is why we call it dark money. There are disclosure rules. Super PACs are required to report their contributions and expenditures. Because of loopholes, shell companies, and other pseudo-legal methods, donors can remain anonymous. This is how foreign money is laundered into our political system. US elections law makes receiving campaign funds from non-Americans illegal. That is whether it is directly or indirectly received. If we don’t know where funding is coming from, we can’t stop it.
It is a convoluted spiderweb of political manipulation. When money can influence elections, democracy is not being served. 
The bottom line is that PACs, of any sort, only exist to destabilize our political system. They do this by injecting excessive amounts of untraceable money. This reduces the influence that the average American has on the political process. PACs are designed to quiet the voices of all but the wealthiest Americans. Their only reason for existence is to reduce the power of the People and transfer it to the elites. There is only one possible outcome of unlimited private financing in politics. Money determines power. 
That isn’t democracy. 
Lastly, I want to talk about transparency. An independent candidate must be committed to bringing transparency to the government. Notice I didn’t say bring it back. I am not denying that some secrets are necessary for national security. My job in the Marines dealt with intelligence gathering. I get it. I support it, but the American People deserve more transparency. Their government owes them that where it is possible. The agenda and progress of federal branches and agencies should be the least of what’s possible. 
An independent president must commit to more transparency in our government. In that interest, they must provide regular progress reports on the executive branch. They must be willing to do this at Congress’s request. They must regularly provide these to the People. In the age of the internet, this is simpler than ever. They must encourage their co-equal branches to follow the example they set.
We must bring back trust in our government. The only way to do that is by balancing it and providing transparency. The People must know what their government is up to. They must know what their government is working on. They need to understand why things are not getting done. They need to be brought in from the dark. These updates need to be easy to understand. They should not be steeped in political jargon meant to mislead and confuse. This is the only way to encourage an informed electorate. The only way to do this is by taking partisanship out of the presidency. 
This is necessary to reset our political system.
I have said many times that we must elect an independent president. It should not be any independent president. This person must offer the People an agenda to make the nation better for all. I promised in episode six, Bloodless Revolution, to provide examples of that agenda. Over the last seven episodes, I have provided examples of how we bring balance back. I have shown what we can do to make our government more representative of the People it serves. I have also been honest about the work involved. 
The problem with talking about what’s the matter with our government is that there is no single answer. There is no single solution. Any solution will involve work above and beyond our daily lives. It will require some extent of trial and error. It requires understanding what got us here and how to unravel the problems. I’ve said from the beginning of this podcast, I don’t have all the answers. I’m not arrogant enough to believe the answers I offer are the perfect solution, whatever that means. 
I don’t even ask you to agree with my solutions. It is my goal to highlight and separate the facts from the propaganda. I want you to consider the situation we are in, and how we got here. I want you to think about what we are told and understand the agendas behind it. I want to show you a way out, because too many see the situation as hopeless. 
It isn’t, but it does require hard work. I won’t deny that. It most likely requires failure before success. It requires a grind. It requires the People to care more about their fellow Americans than their own biases. It requires a rejection of the parties and their peddled propaganda. It requires us to understand our vote and who we vote for.
For now, the People remain the sovereigns of this nation. If we want that to continue, we must reset our political system. We must reject the partisan propaganda. We must unite with our fellow Americans to take our government back. Republican... Democrat... Green Party... Libertarian... None of those labels matter if we do not protect democracy.
As we bring this series to a close, I ask once again. What’s the matter with our government? 
More than we’d like, but less than you think. Everything is within our power to control… for now. Before we can fix what is wrong, we must recognize who our real allies are. Then together, we must tame the parties and remind them who their master is. 
It is time for a political reset. It is within our power to achieve. 
But only, together…
We the People are the Power.