Is this why Congress can't get anything done?

[Deuce]

It's the idea that all elected officials are corrupt that has paralyzed us. We need term limits to keep people from hoarding power and to let us see that there are options other than accepting the corruption. Our elected officials MUST be above the influence of campaign donations and we accomplish that by taking away as much of the campaigning as possible. We also should make EVERY donation public information - no more anonymous donations of ANY size. Then we start playing connect the dots between the $$ and the decisions made by our elected officials and if anything looks out of whack, the elected official gets out of office. We've accepted a low standard from our elected officials and it's time to bring that to a screeching halt and start DEMANDING the highest standards.

And by what mechanism would you remove someone if something "looks out of whack," and what standard of evidence do you uphold for this? Who is in charge of determining what crosses the line? Obama's DOJ?

 

[faithful_servant]

And by what mechanism would you remove someone if something "looks out of whack," and what standard of evidence do you uphold for this? Who is in charge of determining what crosses the line? Obama's DOJ?

The ballot box. No standard of evidence, just the will of the People to choose to set a standard high enough that even the appearance of impropriety is enough to get you sent back to dog catcher school...

 

[Captain Adverse]

That's the problem. It shouldn't take a lot of money to run for office. The money is used for political advertising, which informs no one and misleads the gullible. How much better would it be to simply have interviews and debates on TV, paid for in the usual way by pushing pills and selling cars on the side, and not have any fund raising at all?

As already stated, you run afoul of the First Amendment when you attempt to limit political advertising which, unlike commercial advertising, is considered a part of free political expression. Just like debates, interviews, rallies, speeches, etc.

 

[Deuce]

The ballot box. No standard of evidence, just the will of the People to choose to set a standard high enough that even the appearance of impropriety is enough to get you sent back to dog catcher school...

Ok. Well, I have good news and bad news for you.

The good news is that we've always had this ability.
The bad news is that we're not going to use it. The problem isn't the government. The problem is the people. People are easily fooled, and none of us are immune.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As already stated, you run afoul of the First Amendment when you attempt to limit political advertising which, unlike commercial advertising, is considered a part of free political expression. Just like debates, interviews, rallies, speeches, etc.

That is a problem for sure. The founders had no idea how money could influence elections when they wrote freedom of speech into the Constitution. The thing is, now we've decided that money is speech. Money is money. What needs to be done is to limit the amount of money that can be spent. They can say anything they like, they just can't spend a hundred million on a slick TV ad to say it.

The only alternative is for the voters to simply ignore the ads, but that's going to be difficult to get across.

 

[Deuce]

The only alternative is for the voters to simply ignore the ads, but that's going to be difficult to get across.

Impossible, actually. We get influenced. Even when presenting with something we're highly skeptical of, there's still influence. A friend of mine who has been in marketing for a long time phrased it this way: "I'm not entirely convinced free will exists as we think of it." There's a reason all the political attack ads take on the same tone and coloring, use similar facial expressions for the Bad Person they're attacking. **** works. Even if we consciously say "ugh another attack ad," underneath that **** sticks.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Impossible, actually. We get influenced. Even when presenting with something we're highly skeptical of, there's still influence. A friend of mine who has been in marketing for a long time phrased it this way: "I'm not entirely convinced free will exists as we think of it." There's a reason all the political attack ads take on the same tone and coloring, use similar facial expressions for the Bad Person they're attacking. **** works. Even if we consciously say "ugh another attack ad," underneath that **** sticks.

Then we need to work towards a DVR in every home and everyone simply fast forwarding through all of the commercials. That should end commercial TV altogether eventually. Who is going to pay for ads if no one is watching them?

 

[Thrilla]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

it's not a new thing at all.. congresscritters have been whining about this for as long as i can remember...... and citizens united has nothing to do with it( campaign donations are still limited, CU addressed independent expenditures)

 

[Deuce]

Then we need to work towards a DVR in every home and everyone simply fast forwarding through all of the commercials. That should end commercial TV altogether eventually. Who is going to pay for ads if no one is watching them?

Product placement will just up the ante. Next episode of Law & Order: Traffic Court will have conspicuously placed posters saying "HILLARY CLINTON: CAN YOU REALLY TRUST HER?"

 

[Thrilla]

Have the government fund the election?

I like how England elects its parliament.

have the government fund the elections eh?

the same government run by the two parties who would then control every aspect of not only elections, but also funding for races..... all the while limiting and/or banning the public from supporting their preferred candidate through donations.

well, i guess if you're looking to never see a 3rd party ever again in hte united stated, controlling their funding is a good way to go about it.


i think i'm fine with allowing people to express their 1st amendment rights by donating to whatever candidate they feel like donating to, for whatever reason.... no need ot confiscate their money and give it to a candidate they do not support.
as campaign contributions are limited to mitigate bribery, I'm good with the status quo.

if congresscritters hate dialing for dollars... they can stop doing it on their own.... or they can continue to do so... i'm good either way.
the more they are on the phone, the less they are producing new laws.... and , in general, that's good for us.

 

[Thrilla]

Have the government fund the election?

I like how England elects its parliament.

have the government fund the elections eh?

the same government run by the two parties who would then control every aspect of not only elections, but also funding for races..... all the while limiting and/or banning the public from supporting their preferred candidate through donations.

well, i guess if you're looking to never see a 3rd party ever again in hte united stated, controlling their funding is a good way to go about it.


i think i'm fine with allowing people to express their 1st amendment rights by donating to whatever candidate they feel like donating to, for whatever reason.... no need ot confiscate their money and give it to a candidate they do not support.
as campaign contributions are limited to mitigate bribery, I'm good with the status quo.

if congresscritters hate dialing for dollars... they can stop doing it on their own.... or they can continue to do so... i'm good either way.
ther more they are on the phone, the less they are producing new laws.... and , in general, that's good for us.

 

[Kal'Stang]

..or enact term limits and kick the bums to the curb after 2 terms. That way they only have to do this once and once only.

There is a drawback to term limits for senators and congressmen. Experience. Experience teaches how to get things done. What should be able to be done constitutionally and things that shouldn't be done as it may piss off your neighbor.

Yeah the plus side is that it makes it harder for corruption to influence the average American, but the negative there can be just as bad.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Product placement will just up the ante. Next episode of Law & Order: Traffic Court will have conspicuously placed posters saying "HILLARY CLINTON: CAN YOU REALLY TRUST HER?"

That could be. Now, if those posters are paid for by the Sanders campaign, if they could be changed to instead show him in a negative light, then you're right: No commercials still won't solve the problem.

Maybe we're just screwed. Our Congressmen will still have to be good telemarketers, and their politics still won't really matter.

 

[fmw]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

Nobody and that's fine with me. The less legislating they do the better.

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

People who want political power.

 

[fmw]

One proposal that I have advocated to assist with this issue is to increase the amount of years that Congressmen serve per term to three years. Certainly it is not a panacea, but I figure that making it such that not every other year into an election year should, in theory, reduce the need to always raise additional capital or voters.

Make it 4 years and limit them to a single term. Then you don't have to worry about re-election.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nobody and that's fine with me. The less legislating they do the better.



People who want political power.

and that's the problem. The person who wants political power badly enough to spend hours begging for money to keep it is not who we want representing us. It should be about public service, not about money and power. That's now how the founding fathers envisioned our government.

 

[fmw]

and that's the problem. The person who wants political power badly enough to spend hours begging for money to keep it is not who we want representing us. It should be about public service, not about money and power. That's now how the founding fathers envisioned our government.

People like that don't run for office. Sorry, you are stuck with those greedy for power. We just need to regulate them better. i.e. single term limit.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

..or enact term limits and kick the bums to the curb after 2 terms. That way they only have to do this once and once only.

Why would discarding elected officials every two years help create good government? And what would stop these term limited politicians from seeking another political office?

 

[AlbqOwl]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

The only way to stop this kind of thing is:

A. Make an iron clad law that except for the Presidential candidate, a candidate can receive campaign contributions only from legal residents of his/her state or district. And except for those campaign contributions that will be used for the candidate's own campaign within his/her state or district. . .

B. Make an iron clad law or preferably a constitutional amendment that no person in government whether elected or appointed or hired can use taxpayer monies to benefit any person, entity, group, demographic that does not benefit all.

That would ensure that if a candidate is fund raising, he at least is dealing with people in his/her own state or district that he/she represents. It would keep the permanent political class from rigging elections by pouring massive amounts of money into them. And it would ensure that no campaign contributions would buy anybody any favors or special privileges. Folks could give as much as they wanted but they would be giving to the candidate they thought would do the best job, and not the candidate who would have power to pay them back in some way.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The only way to stop this kind of thing is:

A. Make an iron clad law that except for the Presidential candidate, a candidate can receive campaign contributions only from legal residents of his/her state or district. And except for those campaign contributions that will be used for the candidate's own campaign within his/her state or district. . .

B. Make an iron clad law or preferably a constitutional amendment that no person in government whether elected or appointed or hired can use taxpayer monies to benefit any person, entity, group, demographic that does not benefit all.

That would ensure that if a candidate is fund raising, he at least is dealing with people in his/her own state or district that he/she represents. It would keep the permanent political class from rigging elections by pouring massive amounts of money into them. And it would ensure that no campaign contributions would buy anybody any favors or special privileges. Folks could give as much as they wanted but they would be giving to the candidate they thought would do the best job, and not the candidate who would have power to pay them back in some way.

Great idea.
Who is going to pass this law, again?

 

[matchlight]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

Most of us conservatives don't want Congress to get anything more than the bare necessities done--let the states do the rest. We know the Constitution deliberately designs a lot of friction into the federal government, so that the default situation is rivalry and deadlock, and movement, in domestic affairs at least, can occur only when there is fairly strong popular consensus. We see the beauty in that design; but leftists, because they have a fundamentally un-American taste for totalitarian rule, despise it

 

[Dittohead not!]

Most of us conservatives don't want Congress to get anything more than the bare necessities done--let the states do the rest. We know the Constitution deliberately designs a lot of friction into the federal government, so that the default situation is rivalry and deadlock, and movement, in domestic affairs at least, can occur only when there is fairly strong popular consensus. We see the beauty in that design; but leftists, because they have a fundamentally un-American taste for totalitarian rule, despise it

Congress spending most of its time soliciting donations in order for the large donors to curry favor is certainly a right wing value, on that we can agree.

 

[yankintx]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

The cushy expense account, and retirement scheme. All of Congress needs term limits, all of them.

 

[yankintx]

Most of us conservatives don't want Congress to get anything more than the bare necessities done--let the states do the rest. We know the Constitution deliberately designs a lot of friction into the federal government, so that the default situation is rivalry and deadlock, and movement, in domestic affairs at least, can occur only when there is fairly strong popular consensus. We see the beauty in that design; but leftists, because they have a fundamentally un-American taste for totalitarian rule, despise it

Damn

You had me until the last sentence, some good ideas, leaving the States to there own devices. Describing that those who may see to the left of your political leanings with hyperbole, detracts from the intelligence in the post. Just saying is all.

 

[beerftw]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

I would love to be a member of congress, low working hours, massive benefits, retirement, oh and never actually having to do my job but being nearly impossible to be fired, and easy re elections because no matter how much everyone hates congress, they always think it is everyone elses congressmen not theirs that are the problem.