The wedge in this debate is that a lot of the folks angered by money in politics are the same ones easily convinced by politicians that rich people are their saviors and that they should be kept untouchable and regarded as sacred (not talking taxes).

Then, since it's rich people that dominate the political world in both participation and financial contribution for influence.......there you have it.

Stuck.

Not likely, because those who run and benefit from this system you describe have come up with a benign-sounding, palatable term for it - "lobbying".

If it were called what it's called in other countries - "bribery" - then maybe it would be more of an uniting issue.

Money is a symptom.

Power is the disease.

People donate because it pays off.

It pays off because the ruling class has the power to make it pay off.

Devolve the power back to the people and the money goes away on its own.

No reason to donate large sums of money if there’s no ROI.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I handle political filings. The rules are written by the politicians. Therefore, they have great latitude in what they can collect for their campaigns and what they can pay for from their campaigns. As one politician told me, "everywhere I go there are voters, so anything I do is a campaign expense". As to disclosure, it is a joke. Remember, politicians write the rules on what they have to disclose. So in theory they disclose everything, but in reality most of the disclosure is designed to obfuscate.

Yeah but the ruling class gives us free things. Don't you want free things?

Actually, I don’t.

I never ask for “bro deals” or for free shit. If someone wants to give me something I’ll take it. If someone forcibly took from someone else in order to give it to me I’d turn it down.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

broad support vs unites populace is a wide divide. Assuming you are thinking federally, the answer is no. Why? Because the power resides in our representative government and has not devolved power to the people. See Duffy's post. Our capitalist democratic society and not communist also complicates.

Monied interests are more easily dealt with in local politics because the power is closer to the populace. The citizen can walk into the mayors office and decry the zoning decision that was made with receipt of a bribe. He can unify his neighbors easily in political support. State level citizen power over monied interests to subsidize businesses and federal level citizenry to influence defining requirements for national security are progressively less potent. Hence, our monied influencers, the bribers, lobbyists or government relation folks, have their voices heard more clearly.

Until we as citizens vote (our power through representation) in numbers that command attention by politicians, your money in politics unifying fight is a pipe dream.

I am confused at what you are getting at here.
Are you stating that a first step towards reducing the influence of money is to increase the number of people voting?

I broadly agree. How do you see a possible route towards devolving power back to the people?

Honestly I don’t see a way. I could say “follow the constitution” but that really hasn’t worked out.

I don’t think it can be done peacefully.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Thank you for the follow up.

yes.

Thank you for clarifying.

No, it wouldn't. and it is merely a slogan that sounds attractive. Sides merely wish to reduce the influence of the other side's money, which allows their agenda to move forward. If one reduces one aspect of influence, then other forces gain power. Reduce political donations, and propaganda sources like talk radio or HuffPo gain even greater influence. We need to complain less about the tactics of politics and take responsibility for advocating for actual policies that work. Like that is ever going to happen...

If I understand you comment, you are taking the view that the major dichotomy is right versus left rather than, say, individuals versus corporations. Yes?

Of course. You said so yourself in your first post. Moreover, this ideoligical divide has solidified, and has increasingly become disconnected from coherent policy. Only 5% of the populace is basically capable of switching sides at all. "Take the money out of politics" (it will always be there, it will simply appear in different forms) or "Drain the swamp" (it is more swampy than when that stupid phrase was invented) are meaningless slogans, usable by both sides that are diametrically opposed.

Thanks for clarifying.