Oh Yes - Reform is Needed
Those who were great proponents of campaign finance reform passed a law
that was clearly an abridgement of my First Amendment rights. restrained
"special interests."
I don't know about you, but I cannot afford to donate $2000.00 bucks to
a politico. I can afford to join like-minded folks and donate a smaller
amount, expecting the "special interest group" to espouse my
views. Now, such a group is proscribed from expressing my views at certain
times dictated by election dates. My small voice is silenced. Do others
have more say? It seems some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
Now we find that members of congress may have accepted money, quid pro
quo, from a lobbyist. Say it ain't true Ethel! Oh, woe is they. Campaign
donations may even be in play. Before we fall through our backsides, let
us be sure we have all the facts. Who did what for what and to whom.
Even though some would have us believe that only Republican representatives
are involved. Check this link and then come back and read on: http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp
You may have noticed that one may get the information from the above link
configured in several ways. Spending a lot of time will display some interesting
information:
Bacus - $22, 500
Bayh - $6,500
Biden - $1,250
Boxer - $20,000
Cantwell - $21,765
Carper - $7,500
Clinton - $12,950
Dodd - $14,792
Dorgan - $79,300
Durbin - $14,000
Feingold - $1,250
Harkin - $45,750
Johnson - $14,250
Kerry - $98,550
Lincoln - $14,891
Miculski - $10,000
Murray - $78,991
It did occur to me that I was too lazy to dig deeper. When the Dems controlled
both houses of congress for 40 years, would the lobbyists have made more
contributions to them than the Republicans? I wonder why, if I were trying
to influence something, I would donate to a loser? Just a thought.
I have a couple radical ideas. First, no politician should be able to accept
donations from any person or entity not located within the geographical
area he or she represents. wait, no apoplexy yet. If not then why not?
Does the politician represent folks outside their district or state. The
answer is obvious. Of course they do. Their representation increases as
their level of office increases. In the US House and Senate, one would
hope that their oath of office would cause them to represent the best interests
of our Country. However, to get there, does a representative from Indiana
have any reason to accept bucks from an Indian tribe in Arizona or any
of its supporters? Does it make any difference what form the bucks take,
campaign contributions, trips abroad, etc.?
One may cry, "no fair." Some geographical areas are more affluent
than others. Candidates do not compete against another candidate in a more
affluent area, do they? A representative should be beholden to those they
represent and the Constitution, shouldn't they?
This is 2006 not 1906. I'll bet Bill Gates would donate the software. Information
about bucks or anything that costs bucks taken by a politician or any entity
with which he or she is associated should be available to his or her geographical
constituents within 72 hours of the check clearing. If my guy or gal is
taking bucks from a source that does not please me, then I can make a determination
whom I will support in the next election.
How about anyone wishing to lobby must be a registered voter within the
representative's geographical area of representation? Woof!!! The elite
wouild have to depend upon us old country boys back in here.
More Info
OLD SARGE