This sounds to me like another restriction on the honest people and a license for the crooks.
It would work out like McCain-Feingold, which prevented the honest people from expressing their opinions or contributing more than limited amounts, while allowing the dishonest people from doing whatever they wanted.
There used to be a certain balance between Democrat machines and Republican machines. Those days are long gone. The predictable result of a law like this is that the Dems would launder unlimited funds to whoever they wanted, while honest voters and honest politicians would be screwed.
Wouldn’t a BETTER soulution be that everybody gets NO MONEY from ANYONE at ANYTIME and are limited to, say, X number of hours of public airtime for ads before run-offs and a series of ten town hall meetings, after being chosen by their respective parties, split between 2 each for each of the final two candidates to speak about their issues and the remaining 6 for open, free style debate - without time limits?
Then they have TWO TERMS of four years (regardless of office) and either go to another public office or go home. No employment in lobbying firms or any government-related enterprises.
AND they are subject to recall at any point by general election in the event of a breach of the law or ethics violations.
- Traveler
Yeah. That, or it would reward the party that cheats to make donations to its candidates, and uses hired goons to intimidate people out of contributing to the candidates of the other side, because you have just restricted the donors to the candidate of the other side to a small, well defined geographical area.
Sounds good on paper but wouldn’t fly because I will contribute to people running against the sordid liberals Pelosi and Reid and Specter and the RINO McCain, just to have their undue influence out of DC.
Your good paper idea is what’s going on in DC and has for a hundred years. It looks good on paper, but when it’s actually a law, it’s terrible. Like McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy bills. Sounds good, Doesn’t work as good as it sounds.
I had proposed this to my Congresscritter ‘Phil Crane’ almost 30 years ago. He thought that it would have been shot down as unconstitutional. Of course, now we have no Constitution so who knows?
www.50calsilverbullet.com
From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter where the pro-gun members of Congress come from as long as we get plenty of them. I intend to help any that I can.
This would have an unfortunate affect on me. Living in the “deep blue” there is no one here that I care to waste my campaign dollars on. And I refuse to waste it on the GOP. I have, however, spent a great deal of money on candidates in other states where it might do some good.
This would eliminate my ability to that and effectively close my wallet.
Conservatism loses.
The First Amendment prohibits such restrictions in that money donated to campaigns and political organizations for electioneering is constitutionally protected. Under the philosophy of the Constitution, the evils of special interests, or ‘faction,’ in the language of the founders, are best remedied by more freedom, not less. See Federalist No. 10.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
1) term limits.. 2 and you are out..Citizen Representatives not professional politicians.
2) Congress may not pass a law and exempt themselves.
3) Serious jail time for any congressman/senator that is convicted of bribery, change the standard to reasonably prudent instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.
4)Unlimited donations inside the US only.. No money from foreign sources..With full disclosure and then the caveat..if you take more than 25K from any single source.. you must vote present on any issue that involves a contract, an investigation of a competitor or any other topic with material interest to a donor.
5)End all funding to all causes without a constitutional mandate.