Almost the only thing that could get money out of politics is to make holding money the most shameful thing imaginable, and even that would just force the flow of capital/power underground, not actually curtail anything.
As I get older, I realize more and more that the thirst for power will never go away, and these cycles of accumulation and overthrow will be the overall flavor of human existence for the foreseeable future.
Unless we figure out how to shame people out of wanting power, maybe?
Most countries do not have strong protections on speech. The US does. There's no way to distinguish Fox News Media, a for-profit news organization with a distinct partisan slant, from One America News, a money-losing, overtly partisan news organization, from Citizens United, a political action committee trying to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-per-View.
You can't donate unlimited sums to candidates, but you can spend as much as you want on political media, including advertising. I'd love to hear how we can overturn Citizens United, but maintain things like Fahrenheit 9/11, a different political documentary critical of George W. Bush, and released right at the height of the 2004 election campaign.
Lawrence Lessig has a proposal to offer political donation vouchers to each and every private citizen. I think this is a great take on public financing that would help to level the playing field, while maintaining this country's strong protections on speech.
The facts of the case were this: Citizens United wanted to run ads for its documentary . But it was within the window of time set for increased restrictions on political ads. Citizens United crucially was not a political action committee, but just a non-profit corporation. As such, it could only run the ads by either making a PAC or using money from a segregated fund (you've seen this if you've ever signed up for a union) collected specifically for political activity. Note that the lawsuit was over the ads, not the documentary itself.
Before the ruling, Citizens United was allowed to spend money on political activity. They were allowed to spend money on political activity close to an election. They were allowed to spend money, close to an election, to broadcast issue-based political advertisement (e.g., for or against a ballot initiative) on TV. They were allowed to spend money distributing their documentary in any way other than broadcasting it on TV. They could show it in theaters. They could put it on the internet. They could print DVDs and mail them out. They could distribute it to PACs and campaigns for them to spend their own money distributing it, including broadcasting by on TV. They could pay money, close to an election, from a segregated fund, to broadcast their documentary on TV. All they weren't allowed to do was spend money, close to an election, on broadcasting something expressing views for or against a political candidate, on television or radio, to an audience of at least 50,000.
The courts argument hinged on the unacceptability of "identity-based" restrictions on speech. But there are such restrictions elsewhere. See you, for example, prisoners, or executive branch employees.they just invented a first amendment principle out of thin air and selectively applied it to corporations.
To reach their decision, The court rejected numerous opportunities to rule on narrower grounds. They did no factfinding to determine whether or to what extent the restrictions chilled free speech, substituting congress's research for their own opinions. They gave no opportunity for the government to do their own fact-finding. And they would have if Citizens United hadn't dropped their attempt to overturn the law (until Scotus revived it) while the case was still at the District court. Scotus could have kicked it back down to do that fact-finding, but they had already made up their minds.
I don't think any country has the same laisezz-faire approach to buying politicians... certainly not in the name of free speech. I don't think the argument has even been made.
That said, even in the US there isn't a real constitutional barrier to doing something about money in politics. You could make candidates wear sponsorships on their jerseys, like racecar drivers. No free impediment. That's a joke example, but you see my point. That particular ruling is not an actual barrier, the barrier is a legislative majority.
I'll less interested in sound byte-like fixes like "wear sponsorships on their jerseys" and more with what you can realistically change without overturning Supreme Court precedent or ignoring the Constitution entirely.
I think the joke/soundbite example demonstrates a point: The Jersey Rule would be ok constitutionally. Even with that ruling standing, there is plenty of room for legislators to fix "money in politics" practically, without contradicting the SC. Laurence Lessig has some of the best known proposals.
The problem, as I see it, is status quo bias within any congress/parliament. Actually removing money from politics crashes their industry, puts all their friends out of work, and challenges their power. Every unsuccessful candidate, campaign manager, staffer, and such makes their living this way. Every successful candidate was successful at this way of doing politics.
It's a similar problem to legislation (or even customs) that would enable 3rd parties to succeed. It's against the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties, so it won't happen.
Not addressing the actual question that's being discussed here, but you can always amend the law
What about people writing books about politics?
in the UK political donations over £500 have to be registered and be by someone on the electoral role.
the Brexit Party was funded by millions of donations of £499 from Russia and US sources via paypal.
America needs to go through a revolution of thought, like the one that lead to the 'Separation of Church and State' principle. For many of the same reasons, we need a 'Separation of of Economy and State' movement. Only then will you get money out of politics.
You can't. Economic and political power are the exact same thing: the ability to direct other people to do your bidding.
The idea that you can separate them has always been a fiction, and it's a fiction that is perpetuated for exactly one purpose, to support oligarchic capitalism by keeping people distracted by their engagement in the hunt for the “one weird trick” to make politically egalitarian democracy work without dismantling the radical economic inequality of capitalism.
I've been CTO for a dozen startups, and this sort of thing would almost certainly deter me from exerting the effort required to go through the always-grueling startup process. It's hard enough not getting screwed over as a founder without wealth taxes!
Assuming that you are incredibly successful, you may need to contribute a bunch of money (mostly from interest, not principal) back to the common good.
I really don't see Mark Zuckerberg (as an example) deciding not to create Facebook because if he was incredibly successful he'd have to pay a wealth tax. It just doesn't strike me as likely at all.
This is (sadly) Paul Graham taking a valid argument and turning it into a reductio-ad-absurdam.
It's not like he believed he was gonna end up a billionaire when he moved FB to California.
Inflation changes this detail daily. A billion is just a number of units of an arbitrary currency.
The real issue goes beyond the number and is more about generative assets vs liability / depreciating ones.
IMO the real problem is money in politics. Fix that and many of these issues with billionaires will sort themselves out as the system corrects itself.
EDIT: By "money in politics" I mean big money that overwhelms small distributed money. (ie money that does not look democratic) . Obviously it's always going to _take_ money to run campaigns