Just 3 things... and the government is ours again!

[moot]

Require our representatives in congress to stay in the state or district they represent and telecommute?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime
2. The quest for Public Office means your private finances are Public Record.

Doesn't work. We have such laws here for years.

OTOH it's a very good way to get rid of unwanted candidates. Candidates need to declare all their income and property, so, simply find something like a car that he sold 10 years ago but it's still listed on his name - and here we go, court rejects him, doesn't matter if the elections are tomorrow.

I LMAO when I hear some of that fat bastards, who wear herrings around the neck even when they go to sauna, that they only own "one 1985 Lada", and a "countryhouse on 600m2 of land" when they spend my monthly salary on coffee daily

[Nashwan]

The way the public financing proposals get around that is to make acceptance of public financing voluntary. Basically, you agree not to take other money but get your campaign paid for up to a certain (competitive) amount.

What happens if the candidate agrees to public financing and takes the money, but a "concerned citizen" pays for adverts as well, either adverts for the candidate or for his main campaign proposals?

[john9001]

Originally posted by Mini D
I'd add a 4th:

Any bill brought before congress can only have one item on it.

what? no more pork bills riding on the back of a needed appropriation?

i thought they gave the president line item veto years ago?

[Holden McGroin]

My 4th step is to require Senators and Representatives to be in a virtual legislature.  Do all their stuff online from their home states.  

That way I can go bang on his door if I am pissed off, and a lobbist needs to travel to 535 different locales to take somebody to lunch.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
I do not favor term limits.  It encourages even shorter term thinking.  And short term thinking has, and will, continue to cause a significant number of problems.

I want to see something which makes these clowns accountable.

Here is something radical (forgive me, I am thinking as I am typing).  If they make 10 campaign promises and do not keep any of them, they cannot run again.  As a matter of fact, force them to make promises.  You want to run, give us your platform and what you plan to do if you win.  You fail to accomplish X percentage of your goals (it would be unreasonable to ask for 100%), and you are out, for good.
If you violate any of your goals (voting the other way), then you are immediately ejected.  If you fail to attend a voting session, you are out, unless you can prove it was some type of family emergency (and traveling to the Caymans to check on your bank account is not an emergency).

As a whole, if they fail to do thier jobs, they have to accept a 10% pay cut each year.  This is for all politicians, from the President down.  They make thier goals, they get a raise.  Put the money where thier mouths are.

That just might work Skuzzy.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Mini D
I'd add a 4th:

Any bill brought before congress can only have one item on it.

Winner!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by john9001
what? no more pork bills riding on the back of a needed appropriation?

i thought they gave the president line item veto years ago?

IIRC, the SC struck it down as un-Constitutional.

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Elfie
That just might work Skuzzy.

Well, it would take a ton of changes, and none of them will happen.

I am firmly convinced the reason we are where we are is lack of accountability.  Politicians can lie with complete impunity.  There is no reason for them to tell the truth.  People accept it, so here we are.

"I promise a Ferrrari in every driveway if I am elected!"  Of course, it does not happen, but then nothing happens to the politician who makes that promise.
They would probably embellish it in the next election.  "One year's worth of free gas for your Ferrari, if I am elected!".

Term limits are a bandaid, as far as I am concerned.  People say, politicians do what they want for themselves.  Well, hold them up to the fire then.  Make them accountable for what they say and do.  Watch how fast they change.

But, it will not happen.  What politician would vote for such a measure?  Hehe.  And therein lies the real problem.  Can you say, "conflict of interest"?  They should not be able to have any control over the laws/rules that they should serve by.  We, the people, put them in office, we should also be able to mandate thier actions.

[Shuckins]

One of the changes in government proposed by Clinton that I actually agreed with was the passage of the line-item veto.

It is successfully used by the governors of several states and it would have allowed the president to trim a LOT of pork out of the federal budget.

Congress killed it of course.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Nashwan
What happens if the candidate agrees to public financing and takes the money, but a "concerned citizen" pays for adverts as well, either adverts for the candidate or for his main campaign proposals?

Thats exactly how "soft money" works.

If you want real campain (pun intended) reform, you have to have to do away with PAC's, limit induvidual contribution size and disallow soft money advertising.

I worked quite hard to get term limits passed here in my state, sad to say they dont work. It went from the power of the encumbent to the power of the dollar.

They just have to get corrupt faster and they dont give a crap because they are leaving anyway and already have a sweetheart deal from a lobbyist.

It's a tough job, kind of like squeezing a balloon, both parties will try and derail anything that works.

If both dems and repubs are screaming its against free speach, I will support it.

shamus

[FiLtH]

If your last name starts with a K and ends in Y you cannot run.

[StarOfAfrica2]

What Hawaii did was rather interesting, and apparently totally unintended.  Which is probably the only reason it passed.  What they THOUGHT they were passing was a law limiting individual contributions to PACs to $1000.  What they got was a law limiting how much ANYONE, including the corporation(s) setting up the PAC could contribute.  Not just at one time, but per election!

As of Jan. 1 this year, corporations that run PACs can no longer transfer unlimited amounts of money from their treasury to the PAC.  They are limited to $1000 in a Primary and $1000 in a General election.  Individual employees can contribute up to $1000 as well, but there has to be a separate account for such funds and each amount has to be clearly recorded who it came from.  The people in charge of running the fund are not allowed to contribute(through the PAC anyway).  There can be no mixing of general funds and campaign funds.  They also limited companies with open contracts who have not been paid yet from contributing.  

The law was challenged by PACs and the state SC pretty much told them the wording is clear, if a little convoluted, and tough luck.  The legislature tried to repeal it but we swamped the phones at the capitol and the repeal effort was defeated.  Every politician and PAC in Hawaii is squirming now trying to find a way around this.  And I'm loving every second of it.  

[Debonair]

Originally posted by john9001
what? no more pork bills riding on the back of a needed appropriation?

i thought they gave the president line item veto years ago?

the supreme court said they would eliminate the line item veto if was ever used & then challenged, but that was a while ago (shortly after it was 1st used), maybe not so anymore

[lazs2]

yep... line item vetos and..

There is a guy who is proposing that we all pay $6 apeice to go into a national fund for federal candidates... If a candidate accepts this money then he can't accept any other money.

The beauty of this would be that people with other messages (good and bad) would be able to get out there and get it across... it would allow people to see that some alternatives to the other two are out there and thereby.... change (however slightly) the directions of the other two.

Any other candidate would of course be able to collect money in a "business as usual" way but I think full disclosure is good.

Some of you think the kinky thing in Texas is good...  Imagine if many more offbeat candidates had a chance in the ring... had commercials on TV and were allowed into the debate...  Only a billionaire can do it now.

lazs