- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
WASHINGTON — When Representative Ed Pastor was first elected to Congress two decades ago, he was comfortably ensconced in the middle class. Mr. Pastor, a Democrat from Arizona, held $100,000 or so in savings accounts in the mid-1990s and had a retirement pension, but like many Americans, he also owed the banks nearly as much in loans.
Today, Mr. Pastor, a miner’s son and a former high school teacher, is a member of a not-so-exclusive club: Capitol Hill millionaires. That group has grown in recent years to include nearly half of all members of Congress — 250 in all — and the wealth gap between lawmakers and their constituents appears to be growing quickly, even as Congress debates unemployment benefits, possible cuts in food stamps and a “millionaire’s tax.”
Just all the more reason for term limits. Which ain't gonna happen, as Congress would have to vote itself off the gravy train.
I don't see how term-limits would make a whole lot of difference. In today's electoral atmosphere, it takes a wealthy person to be able to run an effective campaign. The average middle-class American simply doesn't have the resources to do this. This isn't going to change that, and frankly I'm a bit tired of folks throwing out term-limits as a catch-all solution for all of Congress's problems. The problems go a lot deeper than that.
I agree....I also think that experienced Congressmembers that are use to dealing with each other is pretty important to compromise and getting things done.
Money in politics can be solved via other methods. Having Tea Party Congress types or OWS Congress types serving just 1 or 2 terms would create gridlock.
don't need public finance of political campaignsExactly right. We've never had term-limits before, but Congress was at one time more or less functional. Experienced Senators and Congressmen knew how to get stuff done when it needed to be done through informal and formal relationships that they built with other Congressmen. The guys up there now mostly dislike each other "both on and off the court" to use a basketball analogy.
I do have a problem with money in elections, but I don't know how we'd solve that short of introducing public campaign finance, a system which will have its own drawbacks. I have a bigger problem withthe fact that we keep on electing more polarized types, leading to dysfunction in Congress. This is a function of the winner-takes-all electoral system, and results in a Congress that doesn't really accurately reflect the beliefs of the American people.
don't need public finance of political campaigns
what we need are a few more rules
only those registered to vote can make campaign contributions, not to exceed $x amount per candidate
if the person running for office will not appear on your ballot, you cannot contribute to their campaign
ALL funds contributed MUST be posted on a specific federal web site within 10 days of such contribution, identifying the name of the donor, the amount donated, and the form of the donation
any donations received but not posted on that web site within the time frame will be viewed as an illegal bribe
campaign contributions not spent on the campaign by the candidate can be held into perpetuity or given to the US Treasury
what does this do:
eliminates foreign countries, multinational corporations, PACs, trade unions from being able to buy political influence
eliminates wealthy citizens like soros in new york from buying political offices in places where they are not registered to vote, ohio, for instance
we can distinguish legal contributions from illegal bribes
candidates such as palin cannot personally benefit from their collected campaign contributions
finally, we get to see how well candidates can effectively allocate their campaign funds; if they are unable to do that for their own campaign then i don't want them making decisions about spending taxpayer dollars if we fail to implement such changes we will continue to have the best government money can buy
Incorrect. All one needs do to get around that is to send in anonymous donations.
And none of it keeps a politician from using his office and knowledge gained from being in office to gain millions and millions of dollars, even at the expense of the people that he/she represents. Which is mainly what this thread is about.
and under those rules, for the candidate to accept those monies he makes himself vulnerable to conviction for accepting a bribeIncorrect. All one needs do to get around that is to send in anonymous donations.
those major campaign contributors are giving money to the politician often with the expectation to buy influence. this would end that practiceAnd none of it keeps a politician from using his office and knowledge gained from being in office to gain millions and millions of dollars, even at the expense of the people that he/she represents.
thought this thread was about politicians being unfairly enriched because of the laxity of rules governing their behaviorWhich is mainly what this thread is about.
don't need public finance of political campaigns
what we need are a few more rules
only those registered to vote can make campaign contributions, not to exceed $x amount per candidate
if the person running for office will not appear on your ballot, you cannot contribute to their campaign
ALL funds contributed MUST be posted on a specific federal web site within 10 days of such contribution, identifying the name of the donor, the amount donated, and the form of the donation
any donations received but not posted on that web site within the time frame will be viewed as an illegal bribe
campaign contributions not spent on the campaign by the candidate can be held into perpetuity or given to the US Treasury
what does this do:
eliminates foreign countries, multinational corporations, PACs, trade unions from being able to buy political influence
eliminates wealthy citizens like soros in new york from buying political offices in places where they are not registered to vote, ohio, for instance
we can distinguish legal contributions from illegal bribes
candidates such as palin cannot personally benefit from their collected campaign contributions
finally, we get to see how well candidates can effectively allocate their campaign funds; if they are unable to do that for their own campaign then i don't want them making decisions about spending taxpayer dollars
if we fail to implement such changes we will continue to have the best government money can buy
how does that violate the fourth amendment?So much for the 4th Amendment.
how does that violate the fourth amendment?
i missed the portion of your post showing us where a violation of the 4th amendment would existIt violates my right to make a political donation without having my name plastered all over the internet, possibly inviting intimidation from someone who doesn't like my political lean.
Just like a ballot, my political donations should be private.
i missed the portion of your post showing us where a violation of the 4th amendment would exist
try again, please
actually, you didn'tI already explained it to you.
you cannot expect me to comprehend something you failed to postIt's not fault that you don't get it.
i'll make it easier for you; here is the fourth amendment:What's next? Publish the names of who voted for who?
Fourth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information InstituteAMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don't buy this rationale at all, but I see this all the time. Most Congresspeople don't enter into politics in order to get rich in office, as the vast majority of them are already wealthy. How do you think they run all these multi-million dollar campaigns? They actually take a pay cut to serve in the legislature.
and under those rules, for the candidate to accept those monies he makes himself vulnerable to conviction for accepting a bribe
those major campaign contributors are giving money to the politician often with the expectation to buy influence. this would end that practice
now, the one seeking to influence the political outcome might use other means, but they no longer get to buy influence in the form of legal bribes, also known as campaign contributions
the offer of a job to a politician or his staff is something which would not be prohibited under such a revision, but that would not prevent other rules becoming effective to eliminate revolving door influence
thought this thread was about politicians being unfairly enriched because of the laxity of rules governing their behavior
which means it violates the rules requiring the donor amount and form to be identifiable. so it goes to the treasuryHow? You can't stop someone from sending an anonymous donation, that interfere's with the right to privacy. Whats the politician suppose to do about it? He/she can't send it back as he/she has no idea who it belongs to. Which also means that he/she has no idea if its someone bribing him/her or if it is an honest donation.
because the donations/bribes are sent that way does not mean they are then found acceptable. the politician would violate the rules by being unable to identify the donor. the $ would have to be transmitted to treasury to prevent the politician from being culpable for bribe takingAnd one way to "use other means" is to send in donations anonymously.
in my federal position i was prohibited from going immediately to work for those i assisted in my governmental capacity. for seven years prohibited from aiding/working for those with whom i served as their contracting officer. good rules to prevent the revolving door. otherwise i could have arranged a sweetheart deal for the contractor, payable with taxpayer dollars, to open the door to a good paying job with my former client. we should do the same ethical cleansing with congress and congressional staffAs it should not. You can't stop someone for offering a position in thier company to someone.
good, we both acknowledge i was correct about the thread topicIt is,
... but if you read the article they are mainly talking about them making money while in office. Which means campaign contributions is a seperate issue. The rules we need to determine is how they should act while in office.
which means it violates the rules requiring the donor amount and form to be identifiable. so it goes to the treasury
because the donations/bribes are sent that way does not mean they are then found acceptable. the politician would violate the rules by being unable to identify the donor. the $ would have to be transmitted to treasury to prevent the politician from being culpable for bribe taking
in my federal position i was prohibited from going immediately to work for those i assisted in my governmental capacity. for seven years prohibited from aiding/working for those with whom i served as their contracting officer. good rules to prevent the revolving door. otherwise i could have arranged a sweetheart deal for the contractor, payable with taxpayer dollars, to open the door to a good paying job with my former client. we should do the same ethical cleansing with congress and congressional staff
good, we both acknowledge i was correct about the thread topic
actually, you didn't
you cannot expect me to comprehend something you failed to post
i'll make it easier for you; here is the fourth amendment:
Fourth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
now, please point out the violation you insist would result
don't run from the question. answer it. or fold your tent
you keep evading the question. defend your position and explain why such rules would violated the 4th amendmentYou actually believe that people don't have a right to make private donations to political campaigns?
It violates my right to make a political donation without having my name plastered all over the internet, possibly inviting intimidation from someone who doesn't like my political lean.
Just like a ballot, my political donations should be private.
I already explained it to you. It's not fault that you don't get it. What's next? Publish the names of who voted for who?
So you ant to be able to exercise your political rights in the dead of a dark night underneath a hood of anonymity so to speak without having to explain anything to your fellow citizens?
Why would you need that sort of protection?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?