I've long toyed with the notion that we should go the other way: allow unlimited donations, including from corporations. But force them to go through an institutions which strips off the names and pools the money, so it's impossible to see who donated, or even the size of the individual donations. Once a month, you get a check from the campaign finance bank, and that's it.
I have no idea whether this would pass constitutional muster. But it would certainly cripple lobbying via campaign contributions, while allowing people to give as much support as they wish to candidates who they think will further their interests. The overall result would probably be much less money in politics, with candidates much more dependent on small donors. And it's possible that this could advantage incumbents--who get free television time--even more.
I'm interested to know what others think about this idea. I'll have to think about it a bit more, but my initial reaction is that it wont work because candidates will find a way to signal that they need money and donors will find a way to signal that they've given money, so, in the end, the people that want to know (the candidates and their donors) will all know anyway.
The reason I started blogging is related to the problem of how to finance a campaign without allowing too many restrictions on donors and candidates. I worry that donors have too much influence over candidates, so I would like campaigning and campaign donations to be completely separated from service in elected office. Toward that end, I believe that we should implement a new kind of term limit. Specifically, legislators should not be allowed to serve consecutive terms.
The idea is that you are either amassing the funds and running a campaign or you're serving the public, but you can not do both simultaneously. Once elected legislators would have less reason to be beholden to their financiers since they could presumably find new ones in the two years between their current and future terms.
I interviewed Chuck Purgason (R-MO) last Friday. We talked about his race for the US Senate in Missouri and what his campaign is doing to beat Roy Blunt (R-MO)--the favored candidate in the primary. The winner of the GOP primary will likely face Robin Carnahan (D-MO) in November. Purgason and I also talked about his experience and policies for small business, TARP and banking, bringing jobs back to the US and Missouri, education, healthcare, term limits, and regulatory reform. You can learn more about Chuck Purgason at his campaign website: www.purgasonforsenate.com.
I saw a tweet from gregadams about A Bold Step Back. Everyone seems to be throwing things at the wall to see what will stick. It's great!
Here's the expurgated problem statement (it's a bit windy):
The right has lost focus, we are spending too much, we are taxing too much, we are growing the government too much and we are pandering to the special interests rather than to the people. Our representatives have only one goal once they win an election: to win the next one as well.
We have moved from electing statesmen to electing politicians. From having representatives serving us to those ruling us. It gets rather difficult to tell the two sides apart on many issues.
...
The Republican party has such a stigma to it now that it will be very difficult to recover and get back on track.
And here's the even more heavily redacted solution statement with my comments interwoven:
We rebrand the party. we CANNOT start a 3rd party, as it will only further doom us, and splinter the right. Rebranding is the right move...
I agree that a third party is not viable. But rebranding is going to be hard to do. There are a lot of loyal Republicans who think they are being well served by the party at the state and local level. You don't hear from them because that wheel isn't squeaky. So, I fear that a rebranding effort will go down a lot like a 3rd party.
The geographies where the conservative movement is likely to grow are urban and suburban. These are the Republican's squeakiest wheels. This is where the brand is most damaged. And these areas also tend to be socially liberal. Is it possible to forge an explicit alliance with the Libertarians that would have Republicans support Libertarian candidates in urban areas and Libertarians support Republican candidates that stand for statewide or, in some cases, congressional district-wide, elections?
On April 7th, Saint Louis held an election in which no Republican even filed to run for the office of Mayor. There were four names on the ballot and one was a Libertarian, Robb Cunningham. An alliance between Republicans and Libertarians would not have put Cunningham over the top, but it would give urban Republicans a reason to goto the polls. I suspect many who did go that day simply threw their support to the anti-Slay, Maida Coleman (I), who got a respectable 34% of the vote.
...we find people that understand that they are going in to make a very real difference, some very difficult choices, and DO WHAT IS RIGHT. They will also know that there is a very good possibility that they will not get reelected.
But while there, they will fight hard for our agenda, and NOT COMPROMISE at all.. They will continually submit and fight for legislation to roll back the size of government, CONGRESSIONAL PAY voting to bring their pay inline with those that they represent. Serving should be an honor, not a 'get rich quick' scheme. They will dismantle the Congressional benefits gravy train, scaling back their health care to the same system that Postal Workers get.
Sounds good. Here's a suggestion for conservative (Republican/Libertarian) candidates running for office in urban districts in 2010: promise to take a salary equal to the median salary in your district plus travel expenses.
Term limits 2 terms max at any level, and while your time goes toward govt. retirement, no one collects a dollar in retirement for less than 20 years service. Just like the people that you serve.
The abomination called TARP is why I started blogging last fall and term limits were my first topic. Here are my two points: 1) legislators should not be allowed to serve consecutive terms and 2) use state constitutional amendments to limit the terms of a state's congressional delegation. The idea behind #1 is that our congresscritters need to re-acquaint themselves with their constituents more often, get a real (non-govt) job once in awhile, and never raise money or campaign while on our dime. The elegance of #2 is that state legislators would be creating job openings for themselves in their congressional delegation. State assembles have a vested interest in this. Read my first post!
We will remove thousands of laws from the books, we have so many laws that it is virtually impossible to not break them.
I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile. Whoever the next conservative presidential candidate is, I want them to promise not to add a single new law until every existing law has been reviewed and re-written. At the very least, each re-written law should include a measure of effectiveness test (or tests) which, if not met, sunsets the law. A similar approach should be applied to bureaucratic regulations. Simply put, if the law doesn't do what was promised, what the law's sunset test guarantees, then it should go away.
Massive Campaign reform. No Lobbiest or corporate money. you represent THE PEOPLE, not COMPANIES !!!
I think my term limit proposal goes a long way to addressing this. Some other thoughts... You can only give money to candidates for whom you are able to vote in the upcoming election. That essentially shuts down corporate donations and cross-country meddling. Companies need a voice in government so that regulation may be informed by experience; therefore, I'm not completely on board with the "no lobbiest" rule.
REAL Transparancy... Bills get posted online so that THE PEOPLE can tell you what they want...
Sounds good.
Stop same day registration and voting voting. Eliminate fraud by requiring ID and fingerprint on ballot.
Stop paying Taxpayer $$ to fund 'the arts' unless it's in the School syatem
Stop funding NPR if people want to hear a radio/TV station, they will watch, sell ads like everyone else/
Stop requiring that you must be in a union to work on a govt. project.
Good luck goring those sacred cows! I'm with ya, but we're tilting at windmills here.
Let the states decide issues regarding Abortion / Gay Marraige etc, the Federal government aneed not meddle here
I have no ideas on how to do this, but we need a way to throw things to the Laboratory of Democracy—the states. Abortion and gay marriage are two such issues. I don't think we want to force a decision by compelling the states to vote on contentious issues in a set time frame, just take the issue off of the national stage and let the Laboratory do its thing.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. — Thomas Jefferson
Both sides of the Congressional aisle are deeply mistrusted. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 59% of voters would like to replace our entire Congress. Yet the reelection rate is alarmingly high, sometimes reaching 98% in the House. Senate seats also favor incumbents though not to the same degree. It is time for the patriots and tyrants in Congress to go.
Term limiting members of Congress is politically difficult because existing plans rely on the Constitutional Amendment process. That approach would require Congressional approval—members of Congress would have to vote against their own interest, against keeping their high-paying jobs indefinitely. Their entrenched power tugs against such reform. The following is an implementation strategy that leverages state interests to overcome this political barrier and create a new kind of term limit.
This new term limit is distinct from past proposals. Instead of limiting the number of years that a member of Congress may serve, I am proposing that members not serve consecutive terms. There are several benefits to this approach. First, members will not campaign for themselves while they are on the public's dime (unless they run for an executive office). Second, after serving they will likely leave Washington, DC, and reacquaint themselves with their constituency in anticipation of another race two years out. Third, members will enter office with the expectation that they will have to find a new job—at least for a little while—at the end of their term. Perhaps the most important reason for this reform is that lobbyists would no longer have the pretense of an up-coming election by which to rationalize their "contributions" to sitting legislators. This may make a ban of such donations politically possible.
The main incentive for this term limit proposal already exists. Each state house is filled with legislators eagerly awaiting the opportunity to serve their constituents on the national scene as either a representative or a senator. State legislators have a political and a financial interest to increase the competition for Congressional seats since they would be the chief beneficiary. This incentive can propel state-level constitutional amendments and/or ballot initiatives that prevent members of Congress from serving consecutive terms.
Each state that adopts a term limit law provides an experiment in legislative reform. Collectively, they compose the Laboratory of Democracy. While I prefer the term limit plan outlined above there are many variations on this simple idea. Some states may only want to term limit their US Representatives, while not so constraining their Senators. Other states may choose term limits that follow the traditional approach of restricting the number of years that Congressmen may hold office. Perhaps a few bold states would impose term limits on both their Congressional delegation and their state houses.
The Promised Land of legislative reform is a term limit amendment to the US Constitution. Such an amendment would represent a compromise informed by the experiments within our Laboratory of Democracy. I suspect that such an amendment would be structured to impose term limits on state legislatures as well. Once a sufficient number of states have adopted some form of Congressional term limit the tipping point will be reached for Congress to act on a Constitutional Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is time for the states and the people to refresh the tree of liberty.
Tea Party Conservative who began blogging at http://RebootCongress.NET when TARP passed. Email me: contact@RebootCongress.net. Help support my work: Donate Bitcoins
Posts
