OK... Let's Assume for 2 Minutes that the Democrats Win BIG in Both Houses

[gilpo]

There are two changes that I would like to see our politicians grow a set to solve.

1. Politicians are in Washington way too long, we have to have term limits. Even the hero of my home state, Paul Wellstone went back on his promise to limit himself to two terms. Two terms is enough. I have often said that you cannot swim in a cesspool without getting shit on yourself. Well, limit the exposure to said shit.

2. Money. Plain and simple, money corrupts politicians. All federal elections need to be completely publicly financed. I would even get behind a plan that put an obscene amount of money to the task, so long as you cannot point to a particular person or institution other than the treasury as a source.

I am really not optimistic that these two things will ever happen, politicians (all of them) are addicted to power and money. However, I don't think there is a problem in Washington that would not be solved by either kicking the bums out after two terms or cutting off the corruption stream.

[sam sarrha]

1. they said it would cost citizens $6 a year for presidential elections

id pay $20 not hear their crap over and over .. and allow a standard limited donation and NO corporate money..

the thing about corporate money is the board that allocates the money already have maxed out their personal contribution and them Give Away Someone Else's money.... MILLIONS of dollars that doesn't belong to them.. the shareholders money..

[NewJeffCT]

2. Still, a big if, but...

I would suspect there would be some sort of lobbying reform passed, which Bush will threaten to veto... but, will then sign and decide not to enforce it via a signing statement.

I think if there were an open vote tomorrow, a majority of the American public would vote for publicly financed elections. However, the monied interests will fight it tooth & nail & hold it up for years with lawsuits in courts that are dominated by Republic-appointees.

[Vinca]

3. First and foremost, I'd like our Constitution returned. nt

[gilpo]

9. That too!

:hi:

[SheilaT]

4. While I would certainly like

to see my least favorite politicians out of DC, the problem with a two-term limit would be you'd never have anyone with more than one term's experience. No institutional memory going back more than 11 years. And only three years in the House. Every single aspect of Congress would be in constant upheaval and turmoil, because fully half of each side of Congress would be newly elected each and every election cycle. Well, actually on the Senate side it would be one sixth each two years, but in their case every six years half of the Senate would be new.

I agree to the federal financing. But it would absolutely have to include no ads for any candidate from any other source. And a shorter election cycle. No ads prior to some specific date about six weeks before the election.

Of course, our presidential cycle is completely out of control, although at least we're not yet seeing ads for any of the potential presidential condender. I give that about six months. The problem there is that the entire primary/caucus season is both too long in that it starts too early, and too short in that the candidate is decided well before all states have held primaries or caucuses.

Added on edit:
Such a rapid turnover would only increase the lobbying opportunities for former Senators/Representatives. Which probably would not be a good thing.

[gilpo]

8. I really don't see that as a negative....

"the problem with a two-term limit would be you'd never have anyone with more than one term's experience. No institutional memory going back more than 11 years. And only three years in the House. Every single aspect of Congress would be in constant upheaval and turmoil, because fully half of each side of Congress would be newly elected each and every election cycle. Well, actually on the Senate side it would be one sixth each two years, but in their case every six years half of the Senate would be new."

I also disagree that there would be constant turmoil. Change would be good, positive.

[Polesitter]

5. "Winning" doesn't mean you get your way unless you can

get 60 votes in the Senate to break a filabuster. You also need 2/3 vote to override a veto, that's 67 in the Senate and 290 in the House.

In other words, you can block, but you can't push through your agenda.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi Polesitter!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Toots]

6. Extreme Court ruled against both of those things

Extreme Court ruled Term Limits were unconstitutional but not for the President. They also ruled that money was speech and to deny money to politicians was the same as deniing speech to them.

[Philosoraptor]

7. I will expect MUCH from my elected officials if they win