>> insane amounts of money
I think you said it yourself - not to be snarky or anything. But someone has found a way to get rich, and they use their funds to lobby to keep the current system in place.
I think you said it yourself - not to be snarky or anything. But someone has found a way to get rich, and they use their funds to lobby to keep the current system in place.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/16/117661/sb1070-p...
That doesn't change the game theory aspect of everyone chasing their own interest, and a small minority who cares a ton about an issue over-riding a majority who only cares a little. (Prison owners know 100% they'll benefit, while most of the rest of us assume we won't have 3 strikes against us)
In 1994, Bill Clinton passed a crime omnibus bill (with Hillary Clinton advocating for it) which established a federal 3 strikes provision. Separately a number of states passed their own 3 strikes provisions. It is easier to hit 3 strikes under local law than federal so local bills put more in prison. But the Clintons now acknowledge that their bill is responsible for a big chunk of the increase in mass incarceration, particularly for blacks.
Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation.
For the record, Bernie Sanders voted for the exact same legislation, despite giving lots of speeches denouncing mass incarceration. However his voting record shows that he began voting against increased punishment in 1999. So both flipped, but Sanders did so much earlier.
To add to this, there was actually a huge groundswell of support from black communities in the 90s for toughening enforcement of (and punishment for) crime, including drug-related crime.
In retrospect, the policies were a complete disaster at achieving their original goals, but it's rather frustrating that the 2016 dialogue completely ignores the context in which those laws emerged.
Yes, 90s-era crime laws are largely responsible for mass incarceration of black Americans today. But it's not quite correct to portray the decision in the 90s to support those laws as a political decision against black Americans. At the time, it was perceived by many black advocacy groups to be the necessary response to the devastating effects that crime was having on their communities.
In reality when you have a country of 300M, a single voice is so tiny as to be not worth speaking up. If you are in a town hall meeting it's completely different.
Which is why democracy doesn't work when you get too big. The top governmental level is too removed from the individuals as to be entirely oblivious to it. Citizens feel powerless and the corporations bypass the elective system by going straight for whoever is in power right now. The special interest power in concentrated and the benefit to them from legislation are obvious while the power of the people is disperse and the disbenefits dilute so nobody 'feels' the pain of a tariff or a corporate tax.
Governments should be kept small and local.
Instead of lobbying, what you should have is just hearings. The companies could still be free to offer a witness for the hearing, but it's all going to be public, and it's going to look weird if all of your witnesses are corporate people or all are from law enforcement agencies, when debating a new issue/bill.
Open debates in public hearings where multiple politicians participate beat backroom lobbying deals any day.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/timkowal/2011/06/the-role-of-t...
At my (very highly regarded) university in the UK you'd see this all the time. Pick up bigger bits, resell to friends, keep the "profit" for your own fun.