The intention of the Founding Fathers was to construct a form of government with elected officials representing their constituents. Two Senators for every state and Representatives according to the population. These Congressmen are elected to represent their constituents. This system had worked well for over 200 years but as of late..has failed the people. Let's take a look at what happened: 1974 "After Watergate, public confidence in government reaches a new low and stricter campaign finance laws are widely embraced. Congress passes several amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The amendments: create of the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, which oversees and enforces the law. set contribution limits to federal campaigns: individuals cannot spend more than $1,000 on a single campaign and they are limited to a total of $25,000 to all federal candidates; PACs cannot contribute more than $5,000 to one campaign (this provision thereby legitimized political action committees). set spending caps for candidates: presidential candidates can spend up to $10,000,000 for primaries and $20,000,000 for the general election; senate candidates can spend $100,000 or $.08 per eligible voter for primaries and $150,000 or $.12 per eligible voter for general elections; and House candidates are limited to $70,000 for both primary and general elections. establish the provision that presidential candidates can receive public funding if their party received at least 25% of the vote in the previous federal election. In addition, the public fund for presidential candidates will match private donations presidential candidates receive. " This was done during Ford's administration. 1976 "Sen. James Buckley (R-NY) and others challenged a number of the 1974 amendments to FECA, saying the spending limits violated free speech rights. The case ended up in front of the Supreme Court. In Buckley v. Valeo" Buckley and friends gained some ground.. "In order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, Congress amends FECA. Amendments limit the amount individuals can give to PACs to $5,000 and $20,000 to a national party committee, repeal spending limits on candidates (except for those who accept public funding), change how members of the FEC are elected so now the president appoints committee members and the Senate confirms them, and unions and corporations can only create one PAC per organization. " This weakened the 1974 ruling. 1979 "Additional amendments are made to FECA, and they weaken the law by creating the loophole that allows individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited sums to parties and national party committees for "party-building" purposes. These donations are known as "soft money." That is where it went south in a hurry. The 1979 amendments to FECA opened the floodgates for total corruption. and while there have some pushbacks since then;Nothing has come of it. First Amendment rights end where bribery begins. Src: http://www.infoplease.com/us/history/campaign-finance-reform-timeline.html
Tim KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. You are correct. Also the love of money has infected our entire nation. It's gangrene like rot extends to our elected officials as well as to all segments of our population (those in poverty) to those that fleece wall street. Money rules all those that are addicted to its power. And that is not all. Witness an activist SC. Presidents that use the pen to circumnavigate the Constitution. Just as my father said its the creeping generational moral decay that effects pauper to president. I wish I could be optimistic of our nations good future but I am not, not at all. reva
There is a possible solution but it would involve an Article V convention because none of Congress is going to vote themselves out of all that bribe money.I say: Have the Convention,set the rules..give them 6 months before actively enforced..and full enforcement the next time elections come up.See who all really wants to serve the people and be an incumbent after that.
Americans aren't represented by Congress because there are over 300 million of us and only 535 of them. That means there are over 560,000 American citizens for each member and that's using a flat 300,000,000 as the population, which is lower than what it actually is.
So they vote for the corporations? Dude..Having a lot of people in your constituency is not an excuse.
It's an excuse for sure. What it is not is a reason. Politicians generally have to do enough for their area/state to get reelected. Some people at least are benefiting from what they do, even if more people get screwed and a few people benefit. Politicians will generally represent whomever they perceive as having the most power. Sometimes that's through a majority of people, and others because of the benefits of supporting the causes of those that can reward them, even when that means screwing people. The only defense is constant vigilance by an informed and participating public.
People don't pay enough attention to those things. Corporate influence in politics is not good...and rampant. I don't think you realize the extent of it..insider trading..Drugs..(legal ones) ..Stock options..
The rise of Donald Trump answers this question. He himself brags about the favors/legislation that can be bought from pretty much every politician. At the level of the average citizen, we have very little to persuade politicians to represent every day average causes. I have stated many times in this forum that our system of justice has done our country a huge disservice. We are creating Felons out of good, hardworking citizens simply for smoking pot, or getting caught with a handful of our parents' hydrocodone. This in turn insures these people will not get a good job, even after their sentence/probation has been served. The sad part is only a massive contribution to a politician or to many politicians will give them any reason to even look at the problem.
Oddly enough this problem will most likely be solved by the problem within the system itself. Legalized states are now generating very strong revenue from marijuana sales, marijuana companies are creating thousands of jobs. The Marijuana lobby is now becoming financially strong enough to begin to purchase "change" from once hesitant lawmakers. Laws will be changed, legalization will speed up in states who were once fence sitters, or even opposed simply because the growing MJ lobby now has the funds to purchase the votes of politicians who oppose change.
Welcome to Capitalism. He with the gold makes the rules. Nobody ever promised a Republic such as our would be inexpensive, or even that effective.
Personally, I believe you're barking up the wrong tree. It was not the intention of the founders for their to be federal citizens outside the territories and DC, they were all state citizens. Next, it was not the intention of the state citizens to have representation but to be represented, seemingly a twist on words but in actually totally different results. But as to why things are so messed up one need but look at the desecration of the original constitution. Start with Amendment XII in 1803 that in essence set the stage for the party system for the executive office, a weakening of the original intention of checks and balances. The second weakening of the check and balances was in 1866 when the states rights were curtailed by Amendment XIV. Then the coup d'etate for the states in Amendment XVI in 1909 removed the requirement for the states to have a say in the federal budget, made the states instead of financiers, beggars. Then even before Amendment XVI is ratified, the states are hit with Amendment XVII in 1912 that served the coup de gras, a total removal of the state from that which the states created. This was the most critical of the failures because of some of the unique roles played by the state controlled Senate, checks on both the judicial, the Representatives and more importantly the executive. Now one of the prime controls on the federal government has been lost.
Have you really thought this through, I would say not. One need but look at what happened with the last convention to amend the Articles of Confederation and we end up with a new constitution. Now bear in mind that at least in that convention we have the founding fathers that were determined to establish a republic for the protection of rights and property for their prosperity. Now contemplate the sort of individuals that would make up this new convention, the same set of Bar members that make up a congress that not just ineffective but actual consider their constituents their enemies. You had better believe that will not end well.
