Proposal for cleaning up Presidential Politics

[sjt18]

My disagreement was more directed toward this part:

1- Limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections;
2- Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office;
3- and Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

What a great concept!

As for #1 listed by you in the last post: This would allow someone to stake out positions contrary to their record with absolute impugnity... especially Dems and liberals. The MSM would rip conservative candidates but liberal candidates could say anything they liked and the MSM would run interference for them like they did Obama. I don't disagree with the desire to vote "for" someone but there are times when the "bad" of one candidate is just as important.

As for #2, you are equating wealth or access to it from a sponsor with insidious motives. I would submit that someone elected through the work of union volunteers, organized religion, environmental groups, civic groups, special interest groups, etc pose an equal danger of being corrupt or untrustworthy.

I am not denying the problem you cite which I take to be politicians corrupted by controlling contributors. I just do not think you have thought it through or that the solutions you later cite would be equitable or assure the fairness that we all would like to see.

The only real answer IMO is to do all that we can to make our reps and Senators as accessible as possible and moreover to increase the value of a single vote/voice.

If you are concerned about campaigns being fair or the influence of money then I would again suggest you consider increasing the size of the House by a factor of about 4X. The Senate should either be returned to the Legislatures (unlikely I know since it is too easily demagogued) or increased in size also.

The office of Senator was designed to be a "state's man". The House was for the reps of the people. The senate was for the reps of the state. Very, VERY excellent design that was corrupted when we went to direct election of Senators. Senators are no longer effectively accountable to anyone other than their contributors and party.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

As for #1 listed by you in the last post: This would allow someone to stake out positions contrary to their record with absolute impugnity... especially Dems and liberals. The MSM would rip conservative candidates but liberal candidates could say anything they liked and the MSM would run interference for them like they did Obama. I don't disagree with the desire to vote "for" someone but there are times when the "bad" of one candidate is just as important.

As for #2, you are equating wealth or access to it from a sponsor with insidious motives. I would submit that someone elected through the work of union volunteers, organized religion, environmental groups, civic groups, special interest groups, etc pose an equal danger of being corrupt or untrustworthy.

I am not denying the problem you cite which I take to be politicians corrupted by controlling contributors. I just do not think you have thought it through or that the solutions you later cite would be equitable or assure the fairness that we all would like to see.

The only real answer IMO is to do all that we can to make our reps and Senators as accessible as possible and moreover to increase the value of a single vote/voice.

If you are concerned about campaigns being fair or the influence of money then I would again suggest you consider increasing the size of the House by a factor of about 4X. The Senate should either be returned to the Legislatures (unlikely I know since it is too easily demagogued) or increased in size also.

The office of Senator was designed to be a "state's man". The House was for the reps of the people. The senate was for the reps of the state. Very, VERY excellent design that was corrupted when we went to direct election of Senators. Senators are no longer effectively accountable to anyone other than their contributors and party.

And I would suggest that perhaps you have not thought it through. History and data will support that those candidates that raise the most money more often than not win the election. Thus, by making money equal for "qualifying" candidates it accomplishes a few things: (1) it opens the door to those who currently may not even consider running (but could be a very good candidate), (2) it reduces the possibility that politicians are bought or in some way "indebted" to a group, company, or individual, and (3) it forces candidates to demonstrate an understanding of "managing their finances" as opposed to spending money anywhere and anyhow they choose because they've raised enough that it doesn't matter... and if they need more they'll just raise more. This practice of raising and spending by candidates is essentially the same practice that carries over to our elected officials IMO.

To your second bolded point above, I am definitely not in favor of increasing government.