Posted on 03/04/2002 12:32:50 PM PST by Bryan24
I'm sick of hearing how all the poiticians want "campaign finance reform". They argue and argue and argue and argue and argue. Nothing gets done. Well, here is an easy solution.
1. Amend the US Constitution to make US Senators appointed by state legislatures. This is the way it was originally devised. The Senate was to be for issues that were primarily State issues.
This is where all of the big money is spent, outside of the Presidency. Make them appointed by the State legislatures and the big money leaves the Senators.
2. Amend the US Constitution to make Representatives to the House elected on a 30,000 to 1 ratio, as originally intended. This would put the size of the US house of Representatives at slightly less than 10,000.
Also, make a part of that Constitutional amendment language which prohibits:
a. Any candidate from receiving ANY funds from outside of his district.
b. Any candidate from receiving any money from anyone other than private citizens. NO CORPORATE OR PAC MONEY.
3. Eliminate all taxes on businesses. All taxes should be paid by private citizens. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
4. Eliminate the 7.5 percent tax that businesses pay on employees for SS. Make individuals pay the tax themselves.
5. Eliminate Federal Income Tax Withholding. At the end of the tax year, each citizen pays his tax bill in full.
2. A constitutional limit on government spending -- a fixed percentage of GDP. Actually if you put this limit on spending it doesn't matter what the source of tax revenue is. It would settle out in a few years.
If you eliminate the election, you eliminate the need for campaigns and campaign finances.
I had some more ideas on this in The Elegant Campaign Finance Reform.
-PJ
If we could undo the SS stick-up that'd be great. However, at this point, I would not be in favor of putting 7.5 more tax across the board on the tax payer. Better that it come out in the form of higher prices. Part of our family income is self-employeed money that is taxed the full SS amount. It is CRUSHING! Trust me.
If states appointed Senators it would be the same thing just in a different form.
Sorry, but this idea gives too much credit to the unsubstantiated complaints of the liberal left. It also does not address the fact that speech takes money just like the Press takes money to function. It's just a fact of life.
Are you a campaign finance officer for someone? Just curious.
If money corrupts then the Press is corrupt because it is big business too. Giving them a monopoly wouldn't help then would it? We have laws against taking bribes and courts to do the prosecuting. I don't see anyone in court. All I see are a bunch of gossipy accusations with political and financial motivations.
Imagine if the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were enforced as written...
...I'd guess roughly 50% of everything the Federal government does would be declared unconstitutional, including DOE, HUD, and XYZ.
Probably a higher percentage but I am using a 'conservative' estimate.
--Boris
The reason that we have two senators from each state is so that the state can have equal representation in THEIR house, the Senate. When the seventeenth amendment was passed, the Senate was effectively turned into a super house of representatives.
If you let the state legislatures appoint the senators, then you will have senators who are more attentive to their own state's issues, you will not have "carpetbaggers," you won't have enormous amounts of money being spent on a few legislators who will be doing the appointing, you will likely have someone from the state house appointed as senator (who is involved in state affairs) and (hopefully) is less tied to party-line politics, you will have the citizens of the state more involved in state campaigns since that is how they will affect the choice of senator, and on and on and on.
If states appointed the senators, do you think it would be less likely that one man from South Dakota would be allowed to invent a 60-vote super-majority which is really a forty-vote minority rule?
-PJ
This would be strictly state business. I honestly don't know how the states did it prior to 1913. I can't say whether the governor appoints and the legislature confirms, or the legislature votes on their own. I suspect that the governor had nothing to do with it since the Constitution states that the legislatures do the appointing.
-PJ
Socialist Democrat leaders announced today that in an effort to stamp out election fraud and campaign finance reforms once and for all...all elections have been suspended. In a statement released to CNN, the leadership council aswaged fears by insureing that until appropriate points of view are represented, the interests of the coddled would be maintained
Daschle: "The continued corruption and abuse of election procedures as we know them has led the Senate to move swiftly. I have mandated legislation that will outlaw elections until electoral safeguards can be studied, and legislation implamented. The law calls for the convening of a panel to study and make recomendations. House minority leader Dick Gephardt has been appointed to head up the panel. CNN's Larry King will host Daschle and Gephardt tonite to discuss this landmark move. Said Larry King: "This is a rare opportunity to showcase progressive action by our leadership in protecting the collective from narrowly focused interests groups"..."King also said that Administration officials were unavailable for comment until they had concluded a meeting with Daschle and Gephardt in the Oval office.
Political Junkie Too hit the nail on the head. IMO, these reforms lead to other massive reforms. This was to provoke discussion.
First, you would NOT have these huge staffs in Washington and in each district. In fact, you would likely end up with several different congressmen sharing the same staff. That would promote working for legitimate affairs and help end a congressman using his staff for personal and political purposes.
Second, if a congressman is answereable to a much smaller group of people, it is easier for these people to get access to him and let him know their feelings on particular issues. If we have a population of 280 million, that means a single Rep. is trying to represent 643,000 people. That is TOTALLY ridiculous.
Third, with a House of 10,000 members, any laws passed would much more likly reflect the true feelings of the people. And I would venture a guess that the number of laws passed would decrease exponentially. Logistically, this would also make the house be in session less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.