| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Congressional Term Limits | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 2 2005, 09:16 AM (370 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Oct 2 2005, 09:16 AM Post #1 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
It seems Washington is out of ideas. The Republicans... Republicans DeLayed: The GOP leadership deficit is one of ideas, not ethics.
And the Democrats... Standing for Something
The answer may be term limits. Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever
Some additional resources: Citizens for Term Limits, US Term Limits. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Oct 2 2005, 09:36 AM Post #2 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
What I would really like to see is this: 1. Politicians can only raise and/or receive money from registered voters in their district. This would mean the President could raise money all over the country, but not all over the world. Senators could raise money all over THEIR state, but not all over the country, and on down the line. Since Corporations are not registered voters, they could give no money. 2. Lobbyists, corporations, and PACs or other organizations like them can plead, conjole, cry, or whatever else they wish to do, but can give no money to any candidate in any manner including trips, dinners, ads, etc. They can present their positions to candidates and elected officials. 3. Registered voters are limited to donating 1/10 of 1% of a candidates salary over the office term, during any one term of office. If a senator makes $150,000 each of 6 years in office, the most any one of his constituents can give him is $900 in a six year period. This will prevent buying favors and make every voter feel as if they have equal access. It will also make candidates be more frugal and imaginative in their election expenditures. 4. Any candidate running for election or re-election can only spend 5% of what they will recieve in salary over the term of the office on any one campaign. This way no one can try to buy the office because they have unlimited funds. If this was the case, the need for term limits would disappear and I would change my vote to "no." |
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 2 2005, 02:36 PM Post #3 |
|
Member
|
A few years ago, a guy came out of nowhere in Washington State and defeated the Speaker of the House-Tom Foley. His mantra was term limits. He swore that if he was elected, he would not seek a second term. We--his mane was Nethercutt and he did run again, and again. So--somewhere within the congressional spa and perks he lost his mantra.
|
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Oct 2 2005, 03:32 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Lowell
|
The same thing happened to a guy from Colorado named Tom Tancredo. His pledge to limit himself to two terms was just hot and air and empty rhetoric. Since then, he has been an embarrassment to the State. |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| MDPD6320 | Oct 2 2005, 08:34 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Frank - Gainesville, Florida
|
I'm not so sure one way or the other. I can see benefits on both sides of the question. I'm less interested in the house, but in the senate where the terms are 6 years... Well, Byrd wants to run again and I think he's 87. Sometimes it's a little over done. John, Very interesting concept. |
|
" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have." "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Oct 2 2005, 09:43 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Jane
|
The only problem I see with this one is that some State districts are much richer than others and some States are much richer than others, so the offices would still be bought by the rich, wouldn't they? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 2 2005, 10:37 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
Wasn't there a senate campaign a few years ago in California where the challenger spent 20 million dollars or more of his own money trying to get elected? |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| Jelly Bean | Oct 2 2005, 11:10 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Member
|
Was it for governor? I think he bowed out and endorsed Mc Clintock..is that the one? He helped in the recall efforts though of Davis. Is that the one you are thinking of? His name escapes me. Corky would know. |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | Oct 3 2005, 02:01 AM Post #9 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
There was a state senator from our district here in FL that raised most of his money outside his district from south FL corporations. Who do you think he was interested in representing? (I guess we could change a letter and call him a "sinator" and add it to Mur's list of Mensa words. ) While some districts of a state may be richer, each "donor" is limited to a rather small donation in relation to what can now be given, and also limited to registered voters. The concept is to give the representative back to the "people" and specifically the people who are going to elect him. Where Perot made his biggest mistake was financing his whole election himself; if he had said he would limt his donations to $10/person and match that money with his own, he would have spent less, had a good idea of who would really vote for him (people usually follow their money with their vote) and his followers would have felt more a part of the process. As you probably know, large corporations hedge their support by giving to both parties so as to garner favors from whoever wins. In many cases, the corporations are not in the district which is supposed to be represented. You can count that if I gave $100,000 to a candidate who won, my phone call would be answered. Since I can't afford to do that, my calls go unanswered, and letters are just part of the pile.
|
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 3 2005, 04:56 AM Post #10 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I think what John proposes would go a long way to help another problem, namely, the nationalization of state and local elections. Good example was running Keyes in Illinois. Could say similar for Clinton in NY. Both parties looking to centralize government and remove United States from America, so to speak. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | Oct 3 2005, 05:56 AM Post #11 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
We all who used to support the Reps now see that they are as addicted to power as the Dems, just slightly different agendas with supporters and fringe groups on their side. How do you keep power once you get it, by buying yourself in year in and year out with other peoples money. Perhaps if you know that you can't make a lifetime project out of it you will be less willing to be bought. Remember being bought is not just out right corruption but the subtle things like feeding the ego about how insightful and important to the peoples business one is. |
|
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 3 2005, 08:07 PM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
The senority system, particulary in the senate give a disproportionate amount of power to senior senators. Who are in turn relected by their constituants because of the influence they have. I think term limits are a good idea. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











) While some districts of a state may be richer, each "donor" is limited to a rather small donation in relation to what can now be given, and also limited to registered voters. The concept is to give the representative back to the "people" and specifically the people who are going to elect him. Where Perot made his biggest mistake was financing his whole election himself; if he had said he would limt his donations to $10/person and match that money with his own, he would have spent less, had a good idea of who would really vote for him (people usually follow their money with their vote) and his followers would have felt more a part of the process. As you probably know, large corporations hedge their support by giving to both parties so as to garner favors from whoever wins. In many cases, the corporations are not in the district which is supposed to be represented. You can count that if I gave $100,000 to a candidate who won, my phone call would be answered. Since I can't afford to do that, my calls go unanswered, and letters are just part of the pile.

1:04 PM Jul 11