That could be true. But if you chew out people who gets elected now as a RINO or a wimp you may not like who your state legislators send to Washington. "State interests" may turn out to be the interests of state legislators and the people who contribute to their campaigns.
Agreed. Here is my boilerplate response to this point:
I think the difference is that they are corrupt for their own state interests.It's easier to manage 50 corruptions localized to their individual states, instead of the collusion of corruption at the federal level that is nationalized.
At least with the states, you have the self-interests of the other 49 states to balance the corruption of a runaway state. National corruption ends with weaponizing the arms of government against its people in order to protect the establishment.
At the very least, doing away with the elections will dry up the existing money spigots, such as McConnell's NRSC or Schumer's counterpart. They will have to rebuild new power networks to replace it, since it would be harder for Senate leaders to use national money to influence state appointments.
Also, end 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years, and we also stop the flow of money from the donors to the media, laundered through the Senate campaigns.
Kill the MSM beast by repealing the 17th amendment and cutting off the cash flow to the MSM.
-PJ