Would setting term limits and wages tied to average wage help motivate congress?

samsmart said:

Term limits wouldn't reduce corruption. Rather, it would increase it. Politicians who are naive as to how lobbyists influence them would be at greater risk to them.

Click to expand...

Why? What reason would a lobbyist have to funnel money to someone who can't run for reelection? And what reason would a politician have to accept a lobbyist's money if they aren't running for reelection?

Also, long-term politicians can have a better feel of the pulse of all their constituents, including those who belong to the opposing party.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It seems to me that the ones who are best in tune with their constituents are the ones who have been in Congress for the least amount of time. The longer they've been there, the more insulated they are, and the more important their DC connections become relative to their local connections.

radcen said:

I believe that the majority of people who enter politics early in life do so for honest and noble reasons, and end up being corrupted by outside money and power well into their careers.

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I support term limits.

Removing the money influence keeps the job attractive to them while they're still reasonably honest.

Click to expand...

One can't just pass a law removing money from politics.

Totally agree there are many qualified people. Still doesn't justify removing the voter's right to make their own choices.

Click to expand...

I disagree, preventing corruption and a dysfunctional legislature are perfectly valid reasons for slightly constraining the voter's choice...especially since the voter's choice isn't being constrained THAT much since there are plenty of other qualified and ideologically-similar people in every district.

It's a relative statement. I favor, "can't vote, can't contribute", which would go a long way toward solving the money issue without stepping on individual citizen's rights to make their own choices at the ballot box. Term limits would make the urgency of special interests getting the 'right' person in office even worse. You want to take away the money, just take away the money. Don't dance around it.

Click to expand...

Then you have the problem of people or groups contributing money to independent groups rather than to the campaigns themselves. And if we cracked down on that (even if it could be done without running afoul of the Supreme Court on freedom of speech), then new entities would spring up through which money could legally be spent on politics.

Kandahar said:

Why? What reason would a lobbyist have to funnel money to someone who can't run for reelection? And what reason would a politician have to accept a lobbyist's money if they aren't running for reelection?

Click to expand...

Candidates would be "pre-qualified" prior to money being spent on them, if you get my drift.

Kandahar said:

One can't just pass a law removing money from politics.

Click to expand...

Actually, yes, one can. That's what the law-making process is.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :2razz:

I'm presuming you mean that it's not a quick process, and I agree, but staus quo is not necessarily unchangeable.

Kandahar said:

Then you have the problem of people or groups contributing money to independent groups rather than to the campaigns themselves. And if we cracked down on that (even if it could be done without running afoul of the Supreme Court on freedom of speech), then new entities would spring up through which money could legally be spent on politics.

Click to expand...

The idea of "can't vote, can't contribute" is that, unless it can enter a voting booth and cast a ballot, then it cannot contribute money. Period. This goes equally for corporations, unions, PACs, any lobbying special interest group, etc. Living breathing voting-eligible citizens only. If it would take a Constitutional amendment to get around the free speech angle for non-living "people", so be it.

Kandahar said:

And if so, how much of that is due to seniority rules and back-slapping connections with other "professional" legislators, as opposed to actually writing better legislation?

Click to expand...

Why do you think this matters? The job is the job, and getting it done is more important than how you get it done.

radcen said:

Candidates would be "pre-qualified" prior to money being spent on them, if you get my drift.

Click to expand...

If the politician isn't running for reelection, then he has less motivation to do what the lobbyists want. Even if they gave him money to get him elected in the first place...he got what he wants from them, so where's his motivation to stick to his end of the bargain? In the current system he risks that his lobbyist friends will stop giving him money for his reelection campaign and/or give it to someone else to run against him. If he's term-limited, then that wouldn't be a problem.

Furthermore, the lobbyists themselves would be well aware that politicians no longer have the same incentive to do their bidding, and so they'd stop spending as much in the first place. Sure, they might still spend SOME if they feel that a candidate is a true believer in the things that they want, but it'd be risky to spend a lot of money on someone they weren't sure about.

Actually, yes, one can. That's what the law-making process is.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :2razz:

I'm presuming you mean that it's not a quick process, and I agree, but staus quo is not necessarily unchangeable.

Click to expand...

As I see it there is no way to get money out of politics by limiting who can contribute or who they can contribute money to, because there will always be ways around that.

The idea of "can't vote, can't contribute" is that, unless it can enter a voting booth and cast a ballot, then it cannot contribute money. Period.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "contribute money"? Can a corporation run a political ad with their own money, unaffiliated with the campaign itself? Can they pay a $2,000 bonus to any employee who pledges to contribute $2,000 to a certain candidate?

This goes equally for corporations, unions, PACs, any lobbying special interest group, etc. Living breathing voting-eligible citizens only. If it would take a Constitutional amendment to get around the free speech angle for non-living "people", so be it.

Click to expand...

It would be easy to drive a truck through the loopholes of any campaign finance amendment, so it would necessitate another amendment to fix the loopholes, then another, and so on. Given how cumbersome the amendment process is, this doesn't seem like a practical solution to me. A better solution would be to simply make it so that the leverage that lobbyists have over politicians (i.e. their reelection funds) isn't an issue, by instituting term limits. Term limits, unlike campaign finance laws, are simple and not particularly subject to a lot of loopholes. So a single constitutional amendment would be sufficient for something like that IMO.

Kandahar said:

It would be easy to drive a truck through the loopholes of any campaign finance amendment...

Click to expand...

Not my amendment.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Why do you think this matters? The job is the job, and getting it done is more important than how you get it done.

Click to expand...

The point is that if the better performance of "professional" legislators was due to seniority rules and/or back-slapping connections with other professional legislators - rather than because they were better at crafting great legislation - then the overall performance of Congress would not decline if it was instead run by rookies. They would all be in the same boat.

And I don't even see much evidence that professional legislators ARE better than the rookies, even with those advantages.

radcen said:

Not my amendment.

Click to expand...

What would your amendment say? I bet I can either find a loophole and drive a truck through it, or be horrified at its free speech implications.

Not sure about the wage thing.

But term limits aren't a very good idea I think.

Congresspeople already have Term Limits.

They're called elections.

rocket88 said:

Term limits are just a cop out for the voters. There are term limits - they're called "elections." If you feel that strongly about the incumbent, vote for the other guy.

Click to expand...

I've said this for YEARS. I am completely against term limits of any kind.. including that imposed in the 22nd Amendment, which I think should be repealed. Term limit are, as you said, elections.

jamesrage said:

That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that most registered voters do not pay attention to what their elected officials do.

Click to expand...

That's not a problem with the system and no reason to create term limits.

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

As far as salaries go, well, you get what you pay for.

apdst said:

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

As far as salaries go, well, you get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Boehner is dissappointing the hell out of me right now. Sometimes you have to compromise, but he almost seems willing to pull the trigger on anything that comes his way. I haven't given up on him but he needs to live up to the potential that was seen in him. Landry was a pleasant surprise to me, I always had a negative feeling about him but he's been rock solid. Gingrich is brilliant, he's got baggage to shed though. Overall though I completely agree with your point.

apdst said:

Term limits are a double edged sword. On the one hand, it would be a way to insure that some hoople-head--Kennedy, Byrd, Frank--doesn't spend 30+ years in Congress. On the other hand, it would insure that great statesmen--Landry, Beohner, Gingrich--aren't allowed to do great things for the country.

As far as salaries go, well, you get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Actually, I see it the opposite way. Term limits WOULD allow idiots like Gingrich to not harm the country over the long haul, but have forced good people like Kennedy out.

LaMidRighter said:

Boehner is dissappointing the hell out of me right now. Sometimes you have to compromise, but he almost seems willing to pull the trigger on anything that comes his way. I haven't given up on him but he needs to live up to the potential that was seen in him. Landry was a pleasant surprise to me, I always had a negative feeling about him but he's been rock solid. Gingrich is brilliant, he's got baggage to shed though. Overall though I completely agree with your point.

Click to expand...

I understand you personal opinion of those individuals, but I was just illustrating my point with my own POV.

I wasn't claiming that just because I like, or dislike a certain congress critter, that everyone should agree with me.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Actually, I see it the opposite way. Term limits WOULD allow idiots like Gingrich to not harm the country over the long haul, but have forced good people like Kennedy out.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it's a double edged sword.

apdst said:

Like I said, it's a double edged sword.

Click to expand...

I agree. Ultimately, though, I think we all should be responsible for who represents us. You don't like your Congressman... vote him out. I don't want to be told that I can't vote for someone I like because he has achieved some sort of arbitrary limit.

apdst said:

I understand you personal opinion of those individuals, but I was just illustrating my point with my own POV.

I wasn't claiming that just because I like, or dislike a certain congress critter, that everyone should agree with me.

Click to expand...

Understood. Felt like putting my 2 cents in about it. Landry was a good surprise, I don't know whether I'll vote for him or Boustany but they both are good representatives. I say let representatives stay as long as they can get elected because of the double edged sword, but strip away the things that we can from the "incumbent advantage" so that the race comes back to ideas. How to do that? Hell I have no idea but it's worth a look.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I agree. Ultimately, though, I think we all should be responsible for who represents us. You don't like your Congressman... vote him out. I don't want to be told that I can't vote for someone I like because he has achieved some sort of arbitrary limit.

Click to expand...

I hate to say this about a first amendment issue but I can't even blame the voters to as high of a percentage as in days gone by. We have a full scale media failure that picks a candidate and shapes coverage to get them the most time and best shot at being nominated and elected. I am not a fan of media control laws but until straight news organizations can get back on track to objective reporting maybe it's time for some temporary standards to be set, I like the idea of a "journalistic malpractice" charge. Hell, a doctor botches an operation it messes up one life, if the media likes a complete dullard and wants them in it can mess up a whole country. Given my history here I'm sure that carries a little weight.

LaMidRighter said:

Understood. Felt like putting my 2 cents in about it. Landry was a good surprise, I don't know whether I'll vote for him or Boustany but they both are good representatives. I say let representatives stay as long as they can get elected because of the double edged sword, but strip away the things that we can from the "incumbent advantage" so that the race comes back to ideas. How to do that? Hell I have no idea but it's worth a look.

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

I agree. Ultimately, though, I think we all should be responsible for who represents us. You don't like your Congressman... vote him out. I don't want to be told that I can't vote for someone I like because he has achieved some sort of arbitrary limit.

Click to expand...

I believe that the bottom line is, instead of holding the politicians responsible, we should hold the voters responsible; not literally, because there's no way to do that, but there needs to be a movement in this country to get people more involved, politically, no matter which side of the political fence they may find themselves on. If nothing else, edcuate people on the difference between, "Liberal", and, "Conservative", and be able to identify the speaker, the vice president, the whips, etc. IOW, a political literacy test to qualify to vote.

LaMidRighter said:

I hate to say this about a first amendment issue but I can't even blame the voters to as high of a percentage as in days gone by. We have a full scale media failure that picks a candidate and shapes coverage to get them the most time and best shot at being nominated and elected. I am not a fan of media control laws but until straight news organizations can get back on track to objective reporting maybe it's time for some temporary standards to be set, I like the idea of a "journalistic malpractice" charge. Hell, a doctor botches an operation it messes up one life, if the media likes a complete dullard and wants them in it can mess up a whole country. Given my history here I'm sure that carries a little weight.

Click to expand...

I agree. If I were President, my first act would be to execute every member of the media.

Seriously, until we get some reasonable NEWS organizations, not "infotainment" which is all we have now, I have no faith in the American people to put into office anyone decent. Our politicians are spoonfed to us by the media.

apdst said:

I believe that the bottom line is, instead of holding the politicians responsible, we should hold the voters responsible; not literally, because there's no way to do that, but there needs to be a movement in this country to get people more involved, politically, no matter which side of the political fence they mey find themselves on. If nothing else, edcuate people on the difference between, "Liberal", and, "Conservative", and be able to identify the speaker, the vice president, the whips, etc. IOW, a political literacy test to qualify to vote.

Click to expand...

Probably one of the most thoughtful on target posts I've seen in a long time.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I agree. If I were President, my first act would be to execute every member of the media.

Seriously, until we get some reasonable NEWS organizations, not "infotainment" which is all we have now, I have no faith in the American people to put into office anyone decent. Our politicians are spoonfed to us by the media.

Click to expand...

I get the tongue in cheek, but I would have a damn hard time opposing such a measure. :rofl

CaptainCourtesy said:

Probably one of the most thoughtful on target posts I've seen in a long time.

Click to expand...

I bet that stings a little. :rofl

apdst said:

I bet that stings a little. :rofl

Click to expand...

Not at all. I never mind seeing a member... even one I often disagree with make a good post. In fact, I rather like seeing things like that. Shows that even folks who can disagree on most things can find some common ground.