The paradox is the majority thinks the vote of politicians can be readily bought by campaign contributions. The truth is that political campaigns are diversions that distract the public from ever recognizing the truth. Politicians are not bought with campaign contributions, politicians use the public treasury to buy the votes of their constituents. Bread, circuses, and socialism are how rulers (whether self-appointed or elected) have gained and maintained their power since the beginning of government.
It would also be a mistake to believe there is no flip side to this coin. Politicians can be legally bought, and there are no affordable laws that can prevent it. Pension plans (public and private) hire "retired" politicians as consultants, officers, and managers. There is also no way to prevent corporations, businesses, or state and local governments from doing the same. It is almost impossible to overestimate how large the "posted elected officeholder" lobby industry has become nor is there a foreseeable way to limit it or its perpetual growth absent Term Limits.
But there is a very important paradox that is extremely difficult for most people to see. Political power is not created for voters who sell their votes. The voters can affect the price at which they "sell" their votes, but no political power is generated in the process as long as everybody knows the votes are there to be purchased and that only the price is in question. These battles are fought in Congress in the form of tax reductions or increases and entitlement growth or limited growth entitlement growth. These battles effect peoples lives, but are again distractions and diversions from the issues that actually matter.
Real political power comes from being able to completely withhold your vote, or better yet to withhold a block of votes, and the larger the block the larger the amount of leverage created, especially in close elections.
More and more Americans are becoming aware that "public education" is an oxymoron, an illusion at best. Polling data shows that almost any issue can be polled and forty percent will be in favor, forty percent opposed, and twenty percent undecided. Thomas Edison once said, "Five percent of people think. Ten percent of people think they think. And the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think."
Teddy Roosevelt did not like William Howard Taft, the incumbent Republican President. Teddy tried and failed to take the Republican nomination away from Taft. Undeterred, and with financing for his campaign from the Rockerfellers and Morgans, Teddy ran on a third-party ticket. The Rockerfellers and Morgans also financed Wilson's campaign and it was Wilson's campaign finance chairman who became Secretary of the Treasury. Wilson won the 1912 election with only 42% of the total vote. That fateful election was the beginning of the end for the United States. The following is a quote attributed to Wilson, ""I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Ross Perot's Reform Party helped or allowed Bill Clinton to beat an incumbent Republican eighty years later and Ralph Nader's Green Party was almost certainly an undeniable factor in the 2000 election.
Third party elections provide some proof of the political paradox being discussed. Every third party vote is A VOTE that has been withheld from one of the two evenly divided major parties. Something akin to third party candidates bargaining their leveraged political power appears in the 1800 election where Thomas Jefferson became the ultimate victor of the process.
Estimates appear on the internet that Free Republic could have as many as 300,000 members or more. No one knows how many lurkers frequent the site. And if we estimate average household size at 1.5 voters, is it reasonably possible that a well-organized effort on Free Republic could determine the outcome of an election? By way of example, there can be little or no doubt that Free Republic's efforts led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Free Republic is made up of independent freedom-loving individuals. "Group think" is not part of the character trait of individuals. Organizing Free Republic brings to mind the image of someone trying to herd cats. Having said that, our small group sees the United States in the same light as the Titanic headed toward the iceberg in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. We believe there is still time to change course in time to avoid the soon to be inevitable crash, sinking, and unthinkable aftermath.
Our small group is convinced our plan is sound and that it can work if it's tried and correctly applied. We have been at this long enough to know that the chances it is going to be tried are slim. But when the odds are extremely high that catastrophe is at hand, SLIM is a lot better than none.
There is another very important political factor to consider when considering tactics that involve withholding votes or voting for third parties. This project is NOT an exercise to use revenge as a way to teach the Republican Party a lesson. Throwing elections to Democrats in order to teach Republicans would be self-defeating. This project is about building a conservative coalition that is large enough that the Republican Party leadership would know that it is the Republican Party that must yield to the conservative coalition. And part of the purpose in building this large coalition is to show and teach not just Republicans, but all Americans the economic and quality of life benefits that are gained by following policies based on freedom, free-market principles, and logical economic thinking. The United States was borne through efforts to increase individual freedom and this Renaissance is going to be spawned on the same principles. This is not about Republicans losing elections; it is about showing them how to win and increase the gains.
After taking my oath when I joined the USAF, I was told about the BMICC- the "big mother in complete control." At Free Republic, that would be Jim Robinson. Is there anybody here who can convince Jim Robinson that what Free Republic and WE the people really need is a "cat-herder" willing to unify a herd and lead them in a new direction before our ship hits the point of no return.
Ping.
I think this would at least get some actual skin in the game for lawyers. They would have to put some level of risk into their effort. It would make them actually consider their chance of a valid suit and consider real potential monetary damages to seek.
Most importantly, it would provide the defense some incentive to fight frivolous lawsuits instead of settling for pennies on the dollar to make it go away and extenuating the precedents.