[L,TOWM]

Try talking to your congressho without writing a large check first. What the article conveniently ignores is that the people that have the heaviest money spend it extravagantly on candy dates from BOTH parties.

Heads they win, tails they win.

Representative government loses.

[OneWingedShark]

What the article conveniently ignores is that the people that have the heaviest money spend it extravagantly on candy dates from BOTH parties.

You're right; this is one reason I think we need an Article V convention.

[JimRed]

Try talking to your congressho without writing a large check first. What the article conveniently ignores is that the people that have the heaviest money spend it extravagantly on candy dates from BOTH parties.

Heads they win, tails they win.

I have long advocated a cure for that problem. All political donations should be ANONYMOUS. A politician can't sell influence if he doesn't know who is buying. To limit the dollar amount of donations would limit the right of constituents to back the candidate of their choice, IOW, limit their FREEDOM. So if an individual or a business believes that the policies of a particular candidate will benefit them, they should be able to fund them as they please. As I said, FREEDOM.

A benefit of this is that politicians will have to make their positions on multiple issues known, in order to encourage donations from like-thinking folks. But since they won't know who gave or didn't give, they won't be able to make moves that specifically favor a business or individual(s).

Finally, make it a felony for the donor to disclose or the recipient to attempt to learn who gave what. Some will try to cheat, but a few frogmarched off in cuffs will give pause to those considering it.