IMO, if we're going to have two parties, we must pass groundswell amendments

which give tight term limits and cut off lobbyist payments, direct or indirect for the entire lifetime of all politicians, before and after their one term in office.

There would be million (or billion) dollar fines for those caught lobbying in a "persuasive" way, or taking money or gifts from lobbyists.

IMO, our politicians could solve any problem America has if they were totally honest.

But they get influenced by how to stay in office and how to get richer than their salary.

6 years for President, 4 for Senate, 4 for House, 10-15 for Supreme Court.

 

So the funding for their campaigns would come from individual donations with limits? Or would you be against that too?

 

(Hi! I'm a newcomer and this is my first post)

The only influence on politicians' ethics and objectivity is money. Any person will side with the source of their income and funding. AND, they will tend to reflect the interests of those with similar incomes to their own.

So the question is whether politicians should serve the majority and society as a whole, or whether they should serve the most successful business interests.

I submit that if a politician serves the interests of the majority and the society as a whole, they CERTAINLY will not act contrary to the interests of business because business is the essence of life in America. So let's not shy away from the idea of politicians serving the majority and society as a whole above all other alternatives.

So if we want them to serve the majority and society, allowing corporate influence in politics is destructively stupid. They should only receive funding and pay from the whole society, i.e. taxpayers.

This makes the solution simple. Make it illegal for business or special interests to contribute to politicians' paycheck and campaign funding. Provide that the ONLY source of dollars in politics is that of tax revenue. Disallow any favors, gifts, or value of any kind from business and special interests. Limit lobbying to 2 lobbyists per business or wholy owned subsidiaries. Require that every business that lobbies congress must also provide funding for one lobby that represents the public.

Then freeze politicians' pay until it becomes equal to 300% of the median income.

So regarding amendments, the first would be one that states that corporations are not "persons" and money is not speech.

Any modifications?

 

And about funding . . . with 100 million workers, if they each paid just $5/year in a tax to fund campaigns, that would total $2 billion over 4 years. Shouldn't that be enough to fund all election campaigns?

 

As long as We The People have free elections.......then we already have term limits.
.
.
.

 

We don't have free elections for the Supreme Court. They need a limit.

The 2-year House limits are ridiculously short and should be at least 4 years, this I can easily get with. Those guys seems to spend 1 year working and the next year working on being reelected.

 

I would be against that too, don't know about him.

 

Is a hundred dollars too much? Have you heard of Buddy Roemer?

 

The Supreme Court needs to be a lifetime appointment. It helps to ensure that they don't return to the private sector and use their influence as the top court to rule on things beneficial to them. It also prevents lobbyists from having influence over them.

As for lobbying well that is part of our access to our representatives. If you put them all in glass bubbles and don't allow access to them than you create an even bigger problem. You and I have the exact right to try and influence our officials that corporations do. This is a vital way to make sure that our interests have a way of being heard.

And before you say that regular people can't influence our officials I would suggest you read about the founder of AARP. She was nothing other than a woman who felt that the elderly were being mistreated. On her own she formed this organization and built it up and today it carries more weight than any corporate lobby.

 

The supreme court is far from being immune to lobbyists. In fact several on there are pretty much in the hands of certain lobbyists and receive substantial financial bonuses for the rulings they make.
Another bad part is that if they're bad and corrupt we're pretty much stuck with them. I firmly believe a few of those people in the Supreme Court are often making rulings simply to help pad their pocketbooks. And we're stuck with them... because getting rid of a Supreme Court person is easier said than done...

 

One more dude trying to treat the symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease.

The disease is not the money.

The disease is excessive government power.

 

Any Supreme Court member can be removed if need be. There are specific procedures in place to handle this. You don't need to set limits on them. An important fact that is often overlooked is that the court leans from liberal to conservative fairly regularly. It is this balance that eventually evens out their decisions. Trying to arbitrarily influence that would be a huge backfire.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to add extra members to the Supreme Court because they kept declaring his policies unconstitutional and this is the type of thing we need to avoid. Trying to manipulate the court to ensure more favorable rulings is a flawed concept. Their rulings eventually balance themselves out but its the consistency which is important.