Plotting a Coup In the Internet Age 183
chrb writes "The Guardian is reporting on the attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US. The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence."
Just like here (Score:0, Interesting)
Not unlike what happened hereinto US.
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:5, Interesting)
Other countries just cap expenditures, campaign advertising, etc. I think this is the entire point... America has a broken political system where its perfectly acceptable to buy an elected official and rather than look to the rest of the world for how to solve this they just declare that they are already living in the best of all possible worlds.
Re:Colonel Cathcart (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, sounds more like Milo Minderbinder. From TFA:
"Documents seen by the Guardian show that Cathcart has acted as a paid agent for Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr al-Qasimi in a multimillion-pound campaign to "undermine the current regime's standing"...Cathcart, a miniature steam train enthusiast and chairman of his local parish council who operates from modest offices in the outer London suburbs, cuts an unlikely figure in the plot, which involves highly paid US PR consultants, Washington lobbyists and former US-special forces strategists hired at a cost of at least $3.7m (£2.6m)."
Is this a serious attempt to 'undermine the current regime's standing', or just a successful scheme for undermining the Sheikh's bank balance? I guess Cathcart's alleged cut of the proceeds will really help him expand his model train layout, though.
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think that's necessary. I believe it's been shown in studies that there is a basic threshold for monetary expenditures in elections: below that, and your message doesn't reach the whole electorate well enough. but beyond that point, more money doesn't help.
we will never keep money out of politics. there is just too many ways to give gifts, favors, contributions, bribes, you name it.
However, we CAN make political survival not dependent on private money. the answer is public campaign financing to adequate levels for well qualified candidates, coupled with free access to the airwaves for set amounts of time for well qualified candidates. I wouldn't even be opposed to some legislated mandate for airtime/space in any media outlet owned by a public corporation.
if that were done, private money may still buy favor to some degree, but at least clean politicians wouldn't be handicapped compared to ones that are happily bought and paid for.
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
1) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public." Later that night a hundred thousand dollars in cash is transferred.
2) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public. And here's a check for a hundred thousand dollars."
Your scenario 1 isn't realistic because large oil companies is happy to pay the hundred thousand dollars, and the politician is happy to received the hundred thousand dollars regardless of whether it's legal or not. Outlawing it will simply make it underground.
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
But there is already a way that those groups and all others, including those not affiliated with an organization, can have their say in Washington. That's by voting in order to elect representatives. The only reason why voting is so broken is because we have a very high (around 90%) incumbency rate at the federal level and once in office, to whom will the politician listen? The voter who is 90+% likely to re-elect him, or the lobbyist who gives him cold hard cash? The answer to that seems rather obvious. If you want voting to once again be something better than "the lesser of two evils" you need to eliminate lobbying as a necessary first step. The necessary second step would be to allocate an amount of public money for candidates' campaigns, a very generous amount that is adjusted yearly for inflation, and then outlaw as bribery all other financial contributions to a candidate or his/her campaign.
...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?
-- Matthew Parris
Then and only then does the vote start to mean something again. Since the people vastly outnumber the corporations and their owners, and the corporations do not get to inject their superior concentrated wealth into the political system, you end up with a vote that means more and a system that tends to represent the people better than it represents the corporations. It's not a matter of taking the money out of politics, for (as others have pointed out) that's not feasible; it's about making the money meaningless by having a large amount of it available for all candidates. Even a very large amount would cost us far less than what we now finance because of special interests and others with clout.
I would be in favor of this being done in such a way that the "minor parties" would have an equal ability to put their candidates onto ballots and to finance campaigns. Only when a real diversity of political philosophies all have an equally viable chance at winning elections can you have real choice for the people. Among many other things, that would imply a replacement of the two-party dupoloy with the recognition that the domination of politics by two parties is equivalent to the negative effects for customers caused by an economic duopoly, with or without collusion. Only when the people have real choice can the powers-that-be claim true legitimacy.
Right now it isn't the throne, but the power behind the throne that is important. Matthew Paris said:
Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life -- no, not even politics -- more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
Right now that is how politics works. "Fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited." Fifty, or maybe fifty thousand or more people would like to hold public office. Only the fellows of the requisite opinion, as evidenced by party affiliation and loyalty/orthodoxy, were invited to receive campaign contributions. Those with the cash to contribute have that cash because they benefit from the status quo, and could benefit more from a stronger version of it (caused by proceeding further along the course it has been on). Now you inherit a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that wants to become more so. Nowhere in this do you have free choice for the governed, only for those to whom the governed has surrendered his power.
I RTFA and no reference to Twitter or blogs (Score:1, Interesting)
Where did the new media angle come from?
Similar to "The Whole Truth" by David Baldacci (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
You think you have a point.... but you really don't.
Petition does not mean offer money, or some other form of compensation. It means, in this context, "a written document signed by a large number of people demanding some form of action from a government or other authority".
No, it does not "explicitly" state anywhere that the act of proffering anything other than words is constitutionally protected behavior.
It was an interesting argument, but 60 seconds with a dictionary kind of tears your argument apart there.
Now of course, I am equating Lobbying "explicitly" with the act of proffering money in return for preferential representation in government. Just from observation alone, that would seem to be what is happening quite frequently. Perhaps we nee another word for such a disgusting practice, rightfully lamented, and wholly responsible for the hopeless state of affairs that is government.
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the greater point is that corruption doesn't always look like corruption. Other countries have helped mitigate this problem, but I seriously doubt the public knows about even a fraction of how often this happens on a global scale. Especially given how many countries are not open books when it comes to these sort of things. Not to mention the rampant corruption organized crime helps create. While a bribe is always a bribe, a bride doesn't always look like one.
The companies that offer bribes also need to be punished for doing so. The US enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/) to combat this problem but few companies ever get more than a slap on the wrist and a wink & nod. Both sides need to realize that offering or accepting a bribe is something that can cost them more than just a few dollars (or whatever the currency).
Now for the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption [wikipedia.org]
The global costs are quite large.
Re:Is there a missing link? (Score:1, Interesting)
The headline says "Plotting a Coup In the Internet Age".
It doesn't necessarily imply anything to do with the internet, just the period of time during which the internet is shiny and new. One day when we have casual space travel there will be articles on /. called "Plotting a Coup In the Casual Space Travel Age".
Re:It's legal for foreign money to be spent lobbyi (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with almost everything you have said and that has been more or less my position for a while. The only point where I take issue is on alternatives to democracy. I personally don't think that we have ever given them a fair shake. We have tried a few variants on the structure of democracy (parliamentarian, congressional, constitutional monarchy, even a little direct democracy) , and we have tried a few variants on authoritarian forms of government (military dictatorship, communism, monarchy, theocracy, plutocracy, etc). I contended that there is a vast region of unexplored government types that we have never given a real shot.
Consider for a moment a draft republic. Instead of deciding which politicians represent the people, you simply pull names out of a hat. If you get selected, you have to serve for a period of time. Once your time is up, you leave. Any attempt to stay in office or create a law to let you stay in office is considered treason and results in immediate banishment.
In such a system you would NEVER give one politician any real power. You would have no president. You would want as many hands on power as possible because anyone, from a genius to a retarded idiot, could be one of those hands. Only by diffusing power could you safely operate such a system. Unlike literally all other forms of government (democracy included), you would see the government try and spread out decision and making instead of concentrate it into the hands of a few.
As an added bonus, you could probably do away with political parties. With no way to influence who serves as a representative, the only way left corrupt a politician is direct bribery. There can be no promises to help them get re-elected or any of that silliness.
I'm not saying the idea is without flaws, but it is a non-democratic and non-authoritarian form of government that doesn't rely on utopian ideals. I am pretty sure that there are other forms of possible government that could fit the bill. It isn't going to happen in the US, but I would love to see other countries give it a try. How many failed developing nation democracies do we have to have before we realize that maybe democracy isn't the end all be all?