White House most expensive tourist attraction

"Donor lists and visitor logs show that of those who gave $100,000 or more, about three-quarters of them visited the White House" (New York Times). Dispersal of political decision making would make it much less attractive to concentrate political lobbying on single individuals - whether heads of government, ministers or parlamentarians.

Government for Sale?

Rich donors get invited to State Dinner. This abuse of privilege is perpetrated by politicians from all parties. It demonstrates the need for giving the citizens a safety valve so that all decisions made by government and influenced by lobbyists can be checked at the ballot box.

Super Rich control US Politics

"...we know America’s elite Super Rich gained virtual control over Washington the past three decades" says Paul Farrell (Marketwatch). Only radical reform based on comprehensive introduction of Direct Democracy will allow to neutralise the influence of Lobbies.

At least partial public financing of parties and elections is inescapable

States Martin Wolf (FT). We beg to disagree. While the purchasing of political power as currently demonstrated in the US is certainly objectionable we think that the introduction of direct democracy would put a major spanner into the works of lobbies. In conjunction with other reforms (term limits, less reliance on individual politicians such as Presidents, Chancellors to name just a few) power would be based on persuading the public rather than just bribing voters to tick a box once every so often to give nearly unlimited discretionary powers to certain parties.

The Rich are electing the next US President

The decision to allow give more freedom to corporations and similar entities to donate money to advocacy groups in a relatively unrestrained way illustratea that excessive reliance on a handful of judges in a Supreme Court does not necessarily result in good legislation. The 2012 Presidential Campaign is more than ever going to be decided by the spending power of the respective candidates and the contributions of the 1 per cent will in all likelihood be a decisive factor.

65 % believe politicians can be bought

Says an opinion survey in Austria. That does not necessarily mean that this view can be found in all other countries (though in some the percentage may be even higher) but we would venture a guess that the results would not be more flattering in most countries. The regulation of party and campaign financing as well as the end to state subsidies and hidden financing (such as advertising in party-controlled media outlets) is essential to restore faith in elected representatives. The lack of direct democracy is responsible for the fact that the electorate seems to be resigned to this lamentable state of affairs. Only direct control of political decision making would make it possible to enforce adherence to stricter moral standards in political life.

How to control the influence of money in politics

Reports that property developers have been major donors to the Conservative Party in the UK highlight the role that money plays in politics. Some rich individuals blatantly spend their wealth on getting elected to public office (Schwarzenegger, Bloom berg, Corzine in the USA come to mind) while at the other end of the spectrum the hapless citizen-taxpayer is powerless to stop the gravy-train of public subsidy to the establishment parties in countries like Germany and Austria. Dirdem would at least give the voter a say in the regulation of party finances. In addition the requirement (or mere threat) to hold a referendum on any issue will make the outcome of any political decision subject to the approval of the electorate thus providing a safety-valve against behind-the-scenes manoeuvring.

Unholy Alliance against Electoral Change

When the leader of the Taxpayer's alliance takes the lead role in the campaign against the introduction of the alternative vote in England one has to wonder when the public discourse in the country will ever be free from short-sighted considerations. The referendum may well cost money - but to object against this (tiny and insufficient) reform of a dysfunctional electoral and democratic system on the basis of what it would cost completely neglects to consider the negative fallout from a continuation of the present arrangements. At a time when the present government tries to win approval for the hollow slogan of a 'Big Society' it would certainly be the best to start giving the citizens a proper say in the running of the government at national, regional and local level. Only the introduction of a comprehensive form of Direct Democracy will move the county in the right direction. One also has to wonder why the No Campaign would not want to disclose the names of their donors? Maybe one would find the names of the same hedge fund oligarchs that pull the strings behind the Conservative Party?

USA: Political System protects existing parties

We do not always agree with Jeffrey Sachs but when he argues that the political system of the USA is corrupted by the influence of party donors and that only a new political force in the form of a third party offers any chance to improve the situation we can offer him a clear alternative: a political system of comprehensive Direct Democracy as advocated by DIRDEM will not completely eliminate the problem posed by the influence of political donors but it will reduce it to a large extent. No final decisions will be made by corrupted parliamentarians and government ministers that are beholden to special interests as they will have to consider the potential outcome of any referendum. Thus the influence of special influence groups will be diluted and a more rational debate on an issue-by-issue basis will become the norm.