C:-) C:-) C:-)*****

As much outrage by the public and as much political promises we've had in this country the past few years, it's amazing the amount of power and influence that special interests and lobby groups continue to swing.

This is one those, "...if it weren't so sickening, it would be funny...." moments.
I have no idea who the first "Lobbiest" was, but I am sure the cause was a good one, because as with many other 'things' in our lives lobbying was likely begun to rectify some wrong.
However, as we all know from first-hand (or some such hand) experience, lobbying has become a way of life at all levels of government.
I just find it sad that "the people" don't have a lobbiest to turn to.
Oh wait, we do! It's our elected officials. The very ones we send to wherever it is they are supposed to be doing business for our benefit.
Isn't the definition of a lobbiest?
Well, it looks as though we should be looking into replacing them with a whole new batch, and continue doing so until we find a group who will actually do what they promise before being elected.
Working on behalf of those who got them elected. Not merely those who contributed the most money.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

The story yesterday about Gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey bemoaning the disadvantage in which he now finds himself because of the General Assembly's campaign fundraising laws just about made me cry.

Currently, anyone in the legislature is forbidden from raising campaign cash during the actual term of the legislative session. Some of Ramsey's cronies, however, tried to amend the law to exclude anyone in the legislature who would be running for a non-legislative position.

WHAT?

That makes no sense at all. The point of the law is to prevent campaign donors from trying to buy the favor of legislators while laws and policies are actually being made. It doesn't matter what office legislators have in their sites for the future. Accepting cash during the session might still effect their perspective on the state's business.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and that bill died in committee.

The state law is a good start, but if you want the corrupting influence of campaign contributions stripped from minds and agendas of our elected officials, the ban should be extended from the four months of the legislative session to, say... the twelve months of the calendar year.

This could refer to the spate of donation letters I've recently received from different political sources requesting money to support their efforts for and against bills passing.

One "Grassroots?" letter used FEAR in their effort to sway!
This one came from FOX, roundabaout, through Beck.

Sigh!

Boy, I couldn't agree more, Ollie.

Our system seems expressly designed to encourage the peddling of political influence. We, as country, should demand that our elected officials accept ABSOLTELY NO MONEY above and beyond what they're paid to perform their duties as a lawmaker.

If our elected officials salaries come solely from the people they serve, perhaps their decisions will be solely motivated by serving the people.

toonfan- may I also add that we should demand that no legislation immediate family members be employed by lobbyist and a lifetime ban for legislators being employed by lobbyist. The revolving door is one of the most obscene practices in Washington.

A major problem is the cost of running a campaign. In order to have a chance to win an election, you must have a lot of money in order to advertise your name to the public. The amount spent on a lot of these campaigns come from special interest groups. These special interests groups want to be paid back by the people they are giving money to.

In order to solve this problem, voters, instead of just voting for a name that they know, need to really do their research to find the candidates that have not been heard of as much. These are the ones that are not influenced by special interests groups, well at least not as much.

Right now, the cost of a political campaign is like the arms race. If your opponent spends more, you have to spend more. But, if all candidates are limited to the same amount of campaign spending, the cost of a campaign wouldn't escalate, and the amount of spending would be less likely to determine the success of a campaign. Instead, voters might judge a candidate on his or her ideas, qualifications, or experience.

Under this system, election campaigns would have to be publicly funded, with all qualifying candidates getting the same amount in operating funds. To qualify, a candidate would present a petition with a number of supporters that seems reasonable enough (by district size) to be fair, but substantial enough to qualify a serious campaign.

Incumbents will always have a certain advantage due to name-recognition, but in the case of some politicians, name-recognition (or incumbency) may be a double-edged sword.

You're right in one respect- voters will have to pay more attention when they aren't exposed to non-stop campaign commercials. But on the plus-side, voters will be less likely to base their decisions on non-stop campaign commercials.

So far, these posts are definitely leaning towards elmination of lobbying, and severely limiting campaign funds
and completely eliminating those, too.

That was great about getting rid of nepotism, too.

Hurrah! C:-)

Toonfan, I'd also like to remove the ability of the Congress and the Senate to set their own pay!
AND,
I once asked a congressional aide, many years ago, how much it would cost to run for a state senate office, or was it the house. In any case, he thought $10,000 to the Democrats would do it.

You got it Clay, that is how it works. Truth in this art.

It has become the norm for special interests, i.e. lobbyists for special interests such as big oil, the coal industry, drug manufacturers, on and on, to control our Congress on nearly every vote that comes up! Nothing truly good can get passed because they are always looking to the next election cycle and lining their campaign coffers! We, the people who elected them to begin with have sadly been shoved to the pavement! When your congressmen and senators betray your district's needs in their votes--resolve to BOOT THEM OUT NEXT ELECTION! Self-seeking power trips, flings with women not their wives on the taxpayers, choice jobs in the industries they regulated in Congress, it goes on and on! The House and Senate need to reform and STOP this money and power race! Building fortunes was NOT the reason their constituents sent them to Washington; tell them we are watching.