• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Senate Dems pussying out again

Term limits without public financing of elections equals much more corruption and influence of money and lobbyists.
 
RJKarl said:
Term limits without public financing of elections equals much more corruption and influence of money and lobbyists.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. We need term limits badly. I'm still mad at the pub class of '94 who ran, in part, on a promise to introduce term limits. Some of those guys are still there.
 
If you know you'll have to find a job by X date, many will act accordingly trying to set themselves with lucrative positions. They will support the interests of those who will hire them.

Also since there will be massive and constant turnover, the new people will have to find the money necessary to run. Where do you find that? Bottomless pit interest groups. They will have far more power.

If you think interest groups have too much influence now, it won't compare to what will happen with term limits.
 
RJKarl said:
If you know you'll have to find a job by X date, many will act accordingly trying to set themselves with lucrative positions. They will support the interests of those who will hire them.

Also since there will be massive and constant turnover, the new people will have to find the money necessary to run. Where do you find that? Bottomless pit interest groups. They will have far more power.

If you think interest groups have too much influence now, it won't compare to what will happen with term limits.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Obama is just going to be a complete lobbyist pawn during his second term?
 
Shorty said:
You're actually trying to convince me you're right about something that WOULD happen IF we did something?
Click to expand...

And your entire premise is something Would be better If we followed term limits.
 
RJKarl said:
And your entire premise is something Would be better If we followed term limits.
Click to expand...

No. I just think elected officials would be more likely to vote for needed but unpopular measures if they knew they weren't standing for reelection every two years.

But I certainly wouldn't state that as fact. The only way to find out would be to implement term limits.
 
They still have to get re-elected multiple times. The only time that may work is in their last term. Plus, I think is it more likely they will play nice with people who may hire them after losing the seat.
 
Lots of states and cities have term limits without public financing of campaigns. Does this mean that they are more corrupt as a result of the term limits?
 
National is dramatically different than state or local.
 
sailordeac said:
Yup. We need term limits.
Click to expand...

They sound great, but term limits would be a disaster. Instead of congressman taking orders from special interests with 75% of their opinion based on the money they need to get reelected, as happens now, they'd make decisions with 100% of their choice based on sucking up to a future corporate employer. Everything in Washington would be about positioning yourself for your job after the term limit. You think special interests own Washington now? Add in term limits, and our congressman could just go ahead and start wearing patches on their suits like NASCAR drivers. "Future oil executive." Future pharmaceutical company consultant." Nightmare.

Campaign finance reform is the only way to lower the fiscal bar so that people with ideas not beholden to special interest money can effectively compete for office. And you don't want to term limit those people.
 
Well, there's the devil you know (no term limits), and the devil you don't.

I think the Constitutional intention was for people to serve and then return to their old jobs. But, perhaps that is naive. Assuming corruption, I don't think there are an unlimited supply of $1M jobs to hand out in DC with turnover in the hundreds every election. And if there were, then the corrupt congressman, who can take only one job, is beholden to only one special interest and its issue. He could vote freely on every other. This is still better than our current system where he must cobble together money from multiple special interests to fund his re-election.

We need about 5-10% of the population to vote anti-incumbent to enforce term limits through the voting booth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top