Republicans In Disarray

netdude wrote: I also would be in full support of election reform, take all of that money away from influencing elections to the detriment of the individuals.

Limit all contributions to say $100
Or eliminate them all together and create a pool that funds the campaigns, either way, return the voice to the individual citizen and away from the corporations........

I still think the best way to handle it is give each candidate a limit they can spend if they can even get that much. Say $1 or $2 million total. Then they have to learn how to handle a limited amount and they have to prove they can handle a budget and expenses and advertising. Like Bennett whose comercials are on 4 times every hour must be spending a few million per month or week.

Let's make them prove to us that they know how to manage and make the most out of a limited amount of money. Then we can see who is better at handling a budget. If one runs out of all their money in September, then they suck at handling money and we don't want them anyway. So then they don't get to advertise in October. Pretty simple. It shows us who would be best at handling 'our' money too.

How would you limit PAC advertising?

I'd like to see them forbidden from mentioning any specific candidate. Limit them to issues only and the abuse would lessen.

Some people are naive to think that limiting donations will limit influence. You would just increase the under-the-table activity. And looking at my example, Martin Marietta may only be able to give $100, but since they employ many people in your district, you will still listen to them over Joe Sixpack.

And the final nail in the coffin of campaign reform? The people voting on it are politicians who want the money and to keep their jobs. Most new campaign reform I have seen is aimed at keeping incumbents in power.

SS109 wrote: Some people are naive to think that limiting donations will limit influence. You would just increase the under-the-table activity. And looking at my example, Martin Marietta may only be able to give $100, but since they employ many people in your district, you will still listen to them over Joe Sixpack.

And the final nail in the coffin of campaign reform? The people voting on it are politicians who want the money and to keep their jobs. Most new campaign reform I have seen is aimed at keeping incumbents in power.

You are exactly right.

I don't think you will limit contributions, so I would be much more in favor of each candidate being required to have a searchable website with every $1 of donations listed. Donor, and amount.

SS109 wrote: Some people are naive to think that limiting donations will limit influence. You would just increase the under-the-table activity. And looking at my example, Martin Marietta may only be able to give $100, but since they employ many people in your district, you will still listen to them over Joe Sixpack.

And the final nail in the coffin of campaign reform? The people voting on it are politicians who want the money and to keep their jobs. Most new campaign reform I have seen is aimed at keeping incumbents in power.

Remember however many of those Joe six packs work for Martin.

SS109 wrote: Maybe we just need more direct democracy.

The quickest and surest way to the demise of the country is the move towards democracy and away from a republican form of government. That is one thing the founders knew for certain, that democracies inevitably devolve into states of tyranny. If you have any doubt of this, look how the direct election of Senators by the voters, a move towards more direct democracy, has increased the amount of corruption in that body and bred a political elite class who essentially serve for their entire lives. Look into the past of the Senate and you will not find it filled with the likes of Teddy Kennedy, John McCain, Strom Thurmond and others with a 20, 30 or 40 year residency.

No, the reform that is necessary is a return to an open ballot election where anyone seeking the office gets a chance to be elected. We need to ensure that we have the best possible people elected to represent us, not the winner of a primary party vote being the sole representative of that party on the general election ballot. If we are not going to return to the original intent of the Constitution and have our Senators selected by the state legislatures, we could at least have a ballot that included Benett, Romanoff, Maes, McInnis, Tancredo and the rest of them to choose from in November.

This, too me, is the election reform that is necessary - a return to a more pure form of the republican government, the foundation upon which this nation is built. We should also correct the largest problem that Thomas Jefferson had with the Constitution when it was proposed, that it lacked a guaranteed rotation of representation by limiting the amount of terms that anyone could serve consecutively without returning to private life.

Why look at the direct election of Senators? Just look at the mess direct elections make of the Colorado Constitution.

This is not the nation that existed in the 1700's. There was a reason for the other 17 Amendments beyond the original ten. As much as some would like to go back to the original system, it was not designed with the evolutionary changes that have taken place over the centuries, and the founders were smart enough to allow succeeding generations a mechanism to deal with that. Repealing the 17th isn't going to happen, any more than repeal of Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and the progressive income-tax.

I'm not worried about SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of the social welfare programs that have become "mandatory" spending items in the last 100 years. They will eventually collapse under their own weight of unfunded liability as all Ponzi schemes eventually do.

This nation has enacted and then repealed amendments to its Constitution when the populace became convinced of the error that had been made. It is my hope that the 12th and 17th will eventually fall for the same reasons. A mistake was made and it needs to be corrected.

Times have indeed changed since the adoption of our Constitution. A standing army, once thought to be avoided at all costs, is now, due to the advancement of technology since the Constitution was written, an absolute necessity if we are to have an effective force capable of defending our liberty and protecting our national interests. No longer can we count on having a year or even 6 months to raise and train an army to defend us.

The march away from state sovereignty in favor of a powerful central government on the other hand, is not really progress at all. It is leading us down the pathway to a social democracy complete with a ruling political class akin to the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons that our founders found so intolerable that they were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape it. If you read Jefferson's letters written while he was serving across the pond in the diplomatic corps while the Constitution was being written and ratified you will see that he had an ill feeling about not implementing the limitations of serving in the Congress contained within the original constitution that established a confederation between the sovereign states. IMNTBHO, he has been proven right given the corruption that has run rampant within our federal government for quite some time now.