Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil21
Agreed. Somewhat.
Term limits by themselves simply don't do it. It would have to be "public service limit" or something, I'm not sure how it would work.
Right now, you generally have career politicians. They don't start off as a senator. They start small, work their way up the chain. It may take someone 20 years before they reach a relative position of power.
Need to somehow limit that chain entirely.. Maybe 12 years total or something like that.
I don't know, I also hate making laws like this in general - as it limits people's freedom. There is nothing wrong with the theory that someone may simply want to be a public servant, and enjoys that work the most (and is good at it). However, the practice just leads to a bunch of either corrupt, or at best completely out of touch, folks in government.
|
Well I'm for term limits mostly because that seems to be the best way to get the money out of the game. That's the real problem.
If there was public financing of elections, and campaign contributions weren't allowed, then that would serve the same purpose.
That won't work though because the courts have ruled that money is speech, and even without direct contributions the special interests can still flood the airwaves with independent ads for their candidate, which gives them undue influence over our pols.
Banning lobbyists from the capitol wouldn't be a bad idea either. If you want to lobby you have to do it in the candidate's home district. Those are the people who should be lobbying anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradM
lenny2 = flaming liberal bleeding heart
|
You say that like it's a bad thing.