A Blueprint for Fair Elections in America By Restoring Democracy For Citizens

    September 16, 2024

The United States, long regarded as a beacon of democracy, faces significant challenges in ensuring that its electoral system truly reflects the will of the citizens. Structural issues such as the disproportionate influence of wealth, gerrymandering, and voter suppression have undermined trust in the democratic process. To restore the integrity of U.S. elections and ensure that only American citizens participate, we must implement a series of comprehensive reforms aimed at levelling the playing field and making elections more representative, transparent, and fair.

The following is a unified vision for addressing these challenges and reestablishing democracy’s core principles:

1. Capping Campaign Donations Based on Income Taxes

One of the primary drivers of inequity in U.S. elections is the vast financial influence exerted by wealthy individuals and special interest groups. To reduce this, we propose capping all political donations—whether by individuals, corporations, unions, or interest groups—at 2% of the donor’s paid federal and state income taxes from the previous year. This ensures that political contributions are proportional to the donor’s financial capacity, preventing an elite few from exerting undue influence.

2. Uniform Donation Restrictions

Applying the same 2% donation cap to all types of donors—whether individuals, corporations, or special interest groups—ensures a level playing field. This prevents any group from finding loopholes or exploiting their wealth to circumvent campaign finance rules. By holding all donors to the same standards, we reduce the influence of money in politics and ensure that candidates are accountable to voters, not special interests.

3. Spending Limits for Candidates

To further prevent the distortion of democracy by wealth, we propose that no candidate may spend more than two years’ worth of the base annual salary for the office they are seeking. This spending limit includes personal funds and all donations combined. By tying campaign spending to the salary of the office, this reform discourages excessive expenditures and encourages candidates to focus on grassroots support rather than financial clout.

4. Gerrymandering and Redistricting Reform

Gerrymandering—manipulating district boundaries to favour certain political parties—has distorted democratic representation. To fix this, we propose the creation of independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions that would draw electoral districts based on impartial criteria. This would ensure that district lines are fair and that elections reflect the true preferences of the electorate.

5. Public Financing Options

Public financing of elections would further level the playing field by reducing candidates' reliance on private donations. Publicly funded campaign options would allow qualified candidates to receive government funds, reducing their dependence on wealthy donors and allowing them to focus on policy and voter engagement.

6. Real-Time Disclosure

Transparency is a critical aspect of any functioning democracy. To enhance public trust, we recommend real-time online disclosure of all political donations and campaign expenditures. This would allow the public to monitor contributions as they happen, increasing accountability and reducing the influence of dark money in politics.

7. Strengthening Voter Access

Voter suppression remains a significant barrier to fair elections in many states. To combat this, we propose the adoption of universal voting rights protections, including:

• Automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens.
• Election Day as a national holiday, allowing everyone to vote without work conflicts.
• Expanded early voting and mail-in voting options to ensure all citizens can participate without unnecessary barriers.

8. Citizenship Verification and Protection Against Foreign Interference

To ensure that only American citizens participate in U.S. elections, we recommend the implementation of automatic citizenship verification using secure government databases. This would protect the integrity of the voting process while ensuring that no eligible citizen is wrongfully excluded. Additionally, we propose stronger cybersecurity measures and public education efforts to combat foreign interference and disinformation campaigns, ensuring that elections are free from external manipulation.

9. Enforcement and Penalties

Finally, to ensure the success of these reforms, we must create robust enforcement mechanisms with clear penalties for non-compliance. This could include fines, disqualification from office, or criminal charges for those who violate campaign finance laws, voter suppression rules, or election integrity measures. A central regulatory body should oversee these reforms, with the authority to investigate and enforce violations swiftly.

---

Conclusion

By addressing the deep-rooted structural issues in U.S. elections, these reforms would make the system more democratic, transparent, and fair for all American citizens. With a focus on curbing financial influence, strengthening voting rights for citizens, and ensuring transparency, these proposals aim to restore faith in the democratic process.

It's time for a government that truly reflects the will of the people, where every citizen's voice is equal, and elections are won on ideas and merit—not on money or manipulation.

US Democracy Can Be Bought for $14.4 Billion

 

September 15, 2024

Introduction- The alarming truth:

In this article, I will delve into campaign finance, exploring how vast sums of money can shape the democratic process.

The 2020 US elections made history with a staggering total spend of $14.4 billion, raising concerns about money's influence in politics. This astronomical figure begs the question: can democracy and its elected officials be bought?

The Price Tag of Politics:

In 2020, the presidential and congressional elections saw unprecedented spending. Billionaires, corporations, and special interest groups poured money into campaigns, often with strings attached.

This creates a system where those with the deepest pockets hold significant sway over elected officials. The Impact on Democracy When money plays such a dominant role, democracy becomes vulnerable to manipulation. Elected officials may prioritize donors' interests over constituents' needs. This erodes trust in government and undermines the very foundations of democracy.

This is a concerning trend that democracy is significantly influenced by amounts of money in various countries, including those in the G7.

The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors; special interest groups and unions can undermine the principles of democratic equality and representation.

This phenomenon is known as the "oligarchization" of democracy, where a small elite wields disproportionate power and influence over the political process.

Democratic societies must address this issue through campaign finance reform, increased transparency, and measures to promote equitable representation without further delay.

Buying Influence:

With $14.4 billion at play, the potential for undue influence is vast. Donors can.

1. Shape policy agendas

2. Secure favorable legislation

3. Gain access to exclusive events and meetings

4. Enjoy preferential treatment

The Consequences:

The consequences of a system where money talks are far-reaching.

1. Disproportionate representation: The voices of the wealthy and powerful drown out those of ordinary citizens.

2. Policy bias: Laws and regulations special interests over the greater good.

3. Erosion of trust: Voters become disillusioned, leading to decreased participation and faith in democracy.

Reforming the System:

1. Capping donations at 2% of the previous year's income taxes: This idea helps prevent wealthy individuals from dominating campaign financing. It's a fair and progressive approach, ensuring that donations are proportional to one's financial capacity.

2. Uniform donation restrictions: Applying the same limits to all donors (individuals, corporations, special interest groups, unions, etc.) promotes equality and prevents circumvention. This helps reduce the influence of money and special interests.

3. Spending limits tied to office salary: This proposal prevents candidates from buying elections with their wealth or excessive donations. It's a reasonable limit, ensuring that candidates focus on grassroots support rather than relying on personal wealth or excessive funding. Additional suggestions to consider: -

4. Real-time disclosure: Require prompt online disclosure of donations and expenditures to ensure transparency.

5. Enforcement and penalties: Establish clear enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance to ensure the reforms are effective. Overall, these proposals aim to reduce the influence of money in politics, promote equality, and enhance transparency, in my view.

G7 Leaders Acting Like Mobsters in Seizing Russian Assets as Collateral for Ukraine Loans

US President Joe Biden and the other leaders of the G7 are acting like a bunch of New York Mobsters, as opposed to being leaders of democratic governments and the upholding of international laws, in my opinion, and based on their combined actions of illegalizing the frozen Russian Assets as collateral for very questionable and substantial loans to Ukraine to further its war against Russia.

The G7 attempts to seize Russian assets as collateral for billions of dollars in loans for Ukraine pulled back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history but with the pen rather than armies. 

Declassified documents, from the Clinton Administration, revealed a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

International law on the arbitrary seizure and liquidation of assets, particularly when one country seizes the assets of another country without due process, is complex and involves several principles and conventions.

Arbitrary asset seizure without due process or court decisions violates international law and can lead to diplomatic disputes, economic sanctions, and legal challenges in international courts or arbitration tribunals.

The complexities and far-reaching consequences of asset seizures in international relations shall involve prolonged legal battles, international arbitration, and diplomatic negotiations, resulting in financial compensation or the return of assets.

Further, using illegally seized assets as collateral for a significant loan would be highly problematic and risky for several reasons listed below.

In summary, using illegally seized assets as collateral for a large loan is fraught with legal, reputational, financial, and ethical risks. It is crucial for lenders to thoroughly vet and ensure the legitimacy and legal status of any assets used in such transactions to avoid severe consequences or possibly World War 3 atomic consequences.

Legal Challenges:

Ownership Disputes: If the assets are contested, the original owner can file legal claims to recover them. This could result in lengthy and costly legal battles, potentially voiding the collateral agreement.

Court Rulings: International courts or arbitration bodies may rule in favour of the original owner, leading to the seizure or return of the assets, making them unavailable as collateral.

Reputational Risk:

Credibility: Lenders or financial institutions accepting such collateral risk damaging their reputation and credibility. Engaging in transactions involving disputed assets can be seen as unethical or illegal.

Market Perception: Investors and stakeholders may view the institution as unreliable or engaging in risky behaviour, potentially leading to a loss of confidence and financial instability.

Sanctions and Penalties:

International Sanctions: Entities involved in the transaction could face sanctions from governments or international bodies, restricting their ability to operate globally.

Penalties: Financial institutions might face hefty fines and penalties for dealing with assets considered illegally seized or subject to international sanctions.

Financial Risk:

Asset Volatility: Disputed assets may be difficult to value accurately due to their contested status, leading to volatility and potential financial loss.

Liquidity Issues: If the collateral is seized or frozen due to legal disputes, it becomes illiquid, leaving the lender without recourse to recover the loan amount.

Ethical and Compliance Issues:

Due Diligence: Financial institutions must perform rigorous due diligence to ensure the legitimacy of the assets they accept as collateral. Failure to do so could result in compliance violations and regulatory scrutiny.

Ethical Standards: Using contested assets may violate ethical standards and corporate governance principles, leading to internal and external repercussions.

Here are a few significant examples:

Iran Hostage Crisis and U.S. Assets (1979-1981):

Background: In 1979, after the Iranian Revolution, Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 American hostages. In response, the U.S. froze Iranian assets.

Legal Actions and Consequences: The Algiers Accords were signed in 1981 to resolve the crisis, leading to the establishment of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at The Hague to handle claims by U.S. nationals against Iran. The Tribunal has since resolved thousands of claims, often resulting in financial compensation.

Iraq and Kuwaiti Assets (1990-1991):

Background: During the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and seized its assets, including gold reserves and other valuable properties.

Legal Actions and Consequences: Following Iraq's defeat, the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) was established to process claims and compensate victims of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Iraq has been required to pay billions of dollars in reparations to Kuwait and other affected parties.

Libyan Assets (2011):

Background: During the Libyan Civil War, several countries froze the assets of the Libyan government and entities linked to Muammar Gaddafi.

Legal Actions and Consequences: The UN Security Council passed resolutions authorizing the asset freezes. After Gaddafi's fall, the assets were intended to be returned to support the rebuilding of Libya, although the process has been complex and ongoing.

Russian Assets in Ukraine (2014-present):

Background: Following Russia's annexation of Crimea and its involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, many Western countries imposed sanctions and froze Russian assets.

Legal Actions and Consequences: Various legal cases have been brought before international courts. For instance, Ukraine has pursued claims against Russia at the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). These cases are still ongoing, with significant political and economic implications.

Venezuela and U.S. Sanctions (2019-present):

Background: The U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela and froze the Venezuelan government's assets, including those of the state oil company PDVSA.

Legal Actions and Consequences: The Venezuelan government has contested these actions in international courts, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ongoing legal battles have significant impacts on Venezuela's economy and international relations.

Articles:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2020-11-02/putin-clinton-transitions

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/putin-calls-g7s-deal-on-frozen-russian-assets-for-ukraine-loan-theft

Canada’s Housing Paradox: Growth Amid Stagnation

Canada is experiencing a unique and complex scenario where record population growth is joined by a slowdown in new home construction. At first glance, this might seem contradictory, but a deeper analysis reveals underlying issues related to government policies and financial leverage.

The measures introduced by the CMHC and the GoC are more about providing bailouts to developers and maintaining land values than addressing housing affordability. Extending amortization periods might offer a short-term solution, but it fails to tackle the fundamental inefficiencies in the housing market.

This approach underscores the need for transparent and long-term planning in housing policy. Real solutions should focus on sustainable development and affordability, rather than temporary financial fixes that could lead to greater problems down the line.

Government Claims and Confidential Revelations

The Government of Canada (GoC) publicly attributes the housing slowdown to regulatory constraints, implying that housing is "illegal." However, a confidential memo to lenders reveals a different story: the issue is rooted in leverage. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has discreetly informed lenders of plans to extend the maximum amortization periods, allowing loans to be repaid over an extended period of up to 55 years for certain projects. This move aims to prevent defaults on projects by enabling borrowers to spread their repayment over a much longer timeframe.

CMHC’s Multi-Unit Mortgage Loan Insurance (MU MLI) Program

The CMHC’s MU MLI program plays a critical role in this dynamic. It provides mortgage insurance for multi-unit residential housing, transferring the default risk from lenders to the state. Traditionally, the capital for this program was raised through investors. However, due to a significant pullback from Canadian investments, the GoC has started borrowing money to purchase these bonds, initially setting a cap of $40 billion for 2024 and proposing to increase it to $60 billion.

Leverage and Its Consequences

Despite the housing minister’s assertion that the solution lies in "legalizing" housing, the changes to the insurance program suggest otherwise. The root cause of the slowdown is excessive leverage, which the CMHC is paradoxically attempting to address by introducing even more leverage.

Starting June 24, 2024, the CMHC will extend the maximum amortization period for new construction market projects from 40 to 50 years. Additionally, for re-amortization as a default management tool, the period will extend from 40 to 50 years for loans under Market MLI, and up to 55 years for loans under MLI Select.

Implications of Extended Amortization

Introducing longer amortization periods may seem like a temporary relief for borrowers, but it leads to several significant issues:

1. Increased Inefficiency: More leverage exacerbates inefficient project fundamentals. Research from central banks indicates that while more credit might lower costs temporarily, it ultimately leads to higher long-term costs.
2. Housing Costs: Increased leverage can drive up the cost of housing, as the same pool of labour and materials competes for construction projects.
3. Building Lifespan: The average lifespan of residential housing is typically shorter than the mortgage period being offered. With an average service life of 50-60 years, many buildings will become functionally obsolete before the mortgage is fully repaid.
4. Policy Implications: The government’s focus appears to be on maintaining home values to support investments, rather than genuinely improving housing affordability.