You heard it here first!

Meaning any individual who becomes a politician will inevitably become subject to that universally endemic corruption. Meaning simply voting current individuals out and replacing them does nothing more than change the appearance of the problem.

 

The amount of money required for a candidate (incumbent or not) to compete in an election cycle is just plain obscene.

The idea that there will be no lines crossed is ridiculous - of course they will be. Lobbyists expect to get something for their expenditures. PACs have enormous influence, as they expect performance by those whose officies they help buy.

Getting big money out of our elections SHOULD be one of our top couple objectives.

Look at spending on the 2020 election cycle just this year - and how much has been collected:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/statist...h-campaign-activity-2019-2020-election-cycle/


How can an elected official pay off to such a degree that the big money comes back to them at each election?

 

It has been that way all my life. Power corrupts. The value of voting out politicians and replacing them often is that we should get a government with lower level of corruption on average.

 

Think single term limit. Say it over and over.

 

I do not believe that is an improvement AT ALL.

First, it means that I can't vote for my guy who has proven to be honest and effective.

Second, it means that ALL our congressmen are looking for big money employment, because they know for sure that being a politician is a short term job with no future.

Third, if my guy wants to be a poitician then I want him to know he's likely to be around with skin in the game when their legislative position is enacted. If they are just legislating and leaving, it's easy for them to legislate crap - especially if it helps get them a job.

Fourth, first term congressmen have a lot to learn in order to be effective. Our first term congressment don't actually get much of value done - not just because of seniority, but because they don't know how to make congress work yet, they don't have the contacts, they don't know the process, etc. Having larger numbers of first term congressmen means congressmen who don't know how to get stuff done, who have no experience working within our federal government.

This has a seriously bad side effect in that it puts the permanent staff that we DON'T ELECT in charge of congress. After all, they are the ones with the knowledge of how to write bills, how to conduct investigations, how to marshall a bill through congress, how to raise money from lobbyists, etc., etc.

The LAST thing I want is congressmen who are WORSE at doing their jobs, wo KNOW they wont be around when their ideas blow up in failure, who KNOW that their short time in office needs to be spent finding their next job AND whose jobs end up being done by those that weren't even elected.

I could not be more opposed to term limits.

 

Incumbency is the source of most political corruption. I could not think of anything better for America than to reduce that.

 

I pointed out multiple ways in which term limiting congressmen is not a solution - in fact, is highly likely to make congress significantly worse.

You can't dodge that by repeatedly restating your original thesis.

 

I didn't dodge anything. I simply disagreed with you and continue to disagree with you. Your comments are based on how you wish things were but reality is quite different.

 

If you have no grounds for your disagreement, then your disagreement is worthless, isn't it?

I mean, to cause the kind of change you want you're going to have to have some form of argument that stands up to facts and experience.

 

It is worthless to you, not to me.

 

lol! Yes, I'm sure your argumemtns are important to you.