Elections and money
August 24th 2011 04:07
If you read my blog, you've probably heard me complain about the impact of money on elections and politics. Those who give the most money get the best representation from their elected officials. I neither believe that corporations should be considered people (regardless of what the Supremes say), nor do I believe that money should be considered speech. Money pollutes the political process. We desperately need to break free of the corrupting influence of money.
With that being said, I am strongly in favor of this proposal from Rob Woodall (R-GA):
Rep. Woodall's proposal wouldn't solve all our problems, but it would be a very good first step. I'm in favor of anything that mitigates the ability of money to sway elections, and I'm GREATLY in favor of anything that weakens the power of incumbents to stay in office for years (even decades) on end.
Will it pass? No. It has no chance of passing. Money is like crack to our junkie politicians. Every thought they have is consumed with it. They live for it and use it to enrich themselves. Still, I admire Rep. Woodall's valiant attempt. With a few more "change" elections, maybe we can get enough folks in Washington to stand up with him and truly bring America the change it needs.
With that being said, I am strongly in favor of this proposal from Rob Woodall (R-GA):
North Georgia U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Lawrenceville) wants to get rid of the campaign war chests many incumbents amass while in office.
Earlier this month, he introduced a bill that would force congressional candidates to spend any money they raise during the election cycle in which they raise it. They would not be able to stockpile money for future campaigns.
Woodall said representatives should not be able to hang onto their seats just because they are incumbents. He said he wants to take money – and fundraising efforts – out of elections.
Earlier this month, he introduced a bill that would force congressional candidates to spend any money they raise during the election cycle in which they raise it. They would not be able to stockpile money for future campaigns.
Woodall said representatives should not be able to hang onto their seats just because they are incumbents. He said he wants to take money – and fundraising efforts – out of elections.
Rep. Woodall's proposal wouldn't solve all our problems, but it would be a very good first step. I'm in favor of anything that mitigates the ability of money to sway elections, and I'm GREATLY in favor of anything that weakens the power of incumbents to stay in office for years (even decades) on end.
Will it pass? No. It has no chance of passing. Money is like crack to our junkie politicians. Every thought they have is consumed with it. They live for it and use it to enrich themselves. Still, I admire Rep. Woodall's valiant attempt. With a few more "change" elections, maybe we can get enough folks in Washington to stand up with him and truly bring America the change it needs.
| 53 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by RickB_GA
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Michael 2
Zed Power
PoetrymanPoetry
National Poetry Month
Go Green or Go Home
Energy Independence Now!
Digital Dreams
Still, gutting corporate power would allow he socialists who run unions to buy communism and Greek style government union politics unopposed.
I am for term limits and full disclosure of every aspect of a politician and the people who give money to him.
Comment by RickB_GA
Anybody but Obama in 2012 ... I just hope I get the opportunity to vote for a good candidate rather than vote against a proven failure. I have not seen that really good candidate yet.
I am going to write my Congressman and urge he support his fellow Georgia Congressman's efforts.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I don't think they need to be paid any better than they are now. They make MUCH more than the average citizen as it is. It's not a huge burden to ask an average, well-meaning citizen to go to Washington and work for $174K per year for a few years. I do believe they should have the opportunity to contribute to a retirement fund, but not the generous pensions they have now. They can use a 401K like the rest of us.
As far as unions, please see my response to Michael. I want ALL "collective" money stopped. I'd even support publicly-financed elections if it took that to de-fang those who are out to bribe public officials with perks and big donations.
One man, one vote, no buying off politicians.
We also need to make it easier for average Americans (i.e., not wealthy elites) to run for office. If you have to raise the funds or self-fund an election with a war chest of several million dollars to be competitive, it provides a huge hurdle for an average citizen to run. Rich folks, which Washington is full of, have rich friends and huge bank accounts. They run and get elected -- and yet they have no idea what the average citizen goes through. Rep. Woodall's bill would help in this regard as well.
Comment by RickB_GA
Re Congressional pay in the world according to Rick, I would be inclined to bump it to say $250,000 per year and they could contribute to their own 401K if they choose. Their post service benefits would be zero. Personally, I would not hesitate to go back and reduce the luxurious benefits past Congressional members are collecting.
I would concur with the thought of no corporate donations to campaigns or PAC's either as long as union donations are also a no - no. I would also maximize the personal donations at about $1000 and no $38k per plate fund raisers. I endorse the idea of publicly financed campaigns. I would also require the tracking of lobbying money from associations, etc. There is a point to lobbying I have never seen discussed on a blog or in the media but I am not going to get into that ball of yarn tonight.
Nice posts by all and good conversations ... thank you.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I would be okay bumping it a little. Heck, they already vote themselves an automatic cost-of-living increase each year. It'll be at $250K before we know it.
I TOTALLY agree about maximizing personal donations at a lower amount and getting rid of $38K/plate fundraisers. Obama is raising a billion dollars and he's "fighting for the average person"?? Please.
I would also shorten the election cycles. I hear they do that in England. They limit any money-raising and campaigning to just a few months. We have perpetual campaigning. It's disgusting.
You and I could sit down and figure this all out. If only we counted to the folks who have now have the power...