Something most Americans can agree on, with Solution

It seems that no matter what side of the political fence one is on, both sides seem to agree that their elected officials do not represent the people, but represent their own interests, whether that be money or power.

So my first question to ATS is can both left and right minded people agree on the statement above?

If so, I have a simple, yet effective solution.

1. Give each state government back the ability to appoint the two senators from their state. This originally was how congress was set-up. The reason being that the state's would then have a voice in federal laws and regulations affecting the states. This would curb some of the "state's rights" issues, because they would then have a say in Congress, and it would also curb federally-mandated-but-unfunded programs that state's are constantly trying to pay the bill for.

2. Limit financing of campaigns to the jurisdiction one is running to represent. Basically, a person running for office can only recieve money from individuals, businesses and groups that have a physical presence in that district. An example is a congressman can raise money only from his district, because that is who he will represent, but a gubernatorial candidate can raise money throughout the state, because they will represent the whole state.

This would limit the power of PACs, Unions, and Big Business, because they could not donate to everyone in congress, only those that represent a district that they have a physical presence in, i.e. a headquarters. Additionally, this would also greatly diminish the power of any individual representative, becuase they could not control others campaign contribitors.

Interested in all thoughts.

Does a franchise count?

Have to set up all the possible loophole restrictions.

If say McD's has a store in say Lubbick Texas, can the corporation of McDonald's campaign on behalf of someone in the Lubbick area?

Give us a few more ideas like can someone not in the district campaign on behalf of the candidate?

I could come up with a couple more examples if you do not see what I am getting at.

reply to post by indianajoe77


I agree with point 1 completely. Good luck getting it passed, though. The mindless masses will never go for it. Point 2? I like it, but I think a good lawyer could probably make a 1st amendment issue out of it. That's why its SO hard to squash all of the problems with campaign finance.

I definately agree with your first statement and your solution looks like a great start. Also, if we decentralize power from the federal government to the states, then the power would be much more difficult to corrupt from a small number of huge corporations.

Also, we should allow each state to come up with their own currency. This would allow the differrent states to come up with a monetary system that is not debt based and therefore not beholden to the banks.

I think our number one problem is the central banking system also known as the Federal Reserve and our debt based currency. It basically enslaves through debt and steals our money through taxation which ultimately makes us wage-slaves. Just my 2 cents.

--airspoon

[edit on 4-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by indianajoe77
Give each state government back the ability to appoint the two senators from their state.

By this do you mean we would elect our state government but have no say in who our senators are? If so, wouldn't removing that choice from the hands of the people lead to more political favoritism, fraud, and backroom deals than there already are?

Trying to make sure I fully understand what you're proposing before actually commenting on your OP.

reply to post by Jenna


Well, one of the problems with democratically electing in the States is the two party problem.

If a group of elected officials were able to choose, they could do it without the two party paradigm problem.

They could sidestep the inherent problems with the campaign process.

reply to post by endisnighe


I agree with you on the two parties. Both sides have shown themselves to be more concerned with their own pockets than with the country as a whole. The problem I have with elected state officials appointing representatives to Congress is that it's open for a whole new kind of abuse and it seems like that would actually remove power from the people.

What's to stop those elected officials from appointing their biggest financial supporter or the person most likely to do exactly as they say? Something like this wouldn't end corruption in politics. It just seems to me that it would create more opportunities for corruption than there already are and heaven knows there's enough of that going on already.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Jenna

 

Well, one of the problems with democratically electing in the States is the two party problem.

If a group of elected officials were able to choose, they could do it without the two party paradigm problem.

They could sidestep the inherent problems with the campaign process.

Except they would most certainly choose representatives based on who slipped them the most money under the table.

The problem with appointing Congress-people is if you rely on only a few to make that decision then they become far easier to corrupt than say an entire state of voters. Without a foolproof system of checks and balances it's just asking for trouble.

Case in point - Blagojovich.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by sos37]

Also, we should allow each state to come up with their own currency. This would allow the differrent states to come up with a monetary system that is not debt based and therefore not beholden to the banks.

they tried that once and it was a huge pain in the hind end. it didnt work because there were questions like, "what is a virginia dollar wot compared to a pennsylvania dollar?" and "why ist my dollar worth more than yours? virginia is bigger than connecticut!"

reply to post by Jenna


Keep in mind, that originally, the 2 Senators from each state we're appointed by eithe the state's governor or state legislative body. The people would still elect their Representatives from each state as well as their state reps, senators and governors. Essentially, the 2 Senators are looking out for each states interests in legislation. This would mainly curb over-reaching federal legislation that places burdens on the states.

reply to post by endisnighe


I do see what you're getting at. Loopholes would definatly need to be looked into and closed.

I think the individual franchise owner should be able to donate, but corporations should only be able to if they have a headquarters in the area.

Again, this is just a start to solving this representative problem, and I by no means have it completely worked out to the legal letter.