Sharyl Attkisson Reports On Congressional Fundraising Corruption: Buying Top Spots On Powerful Committees

[AUFAN78 3,926]

I can't imagine this shocks anyone. For the people..................

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/29/sharyl_attkisson_reports_on_congressional_fundraising_corruption_buying_top_spots_on_powerful_committees.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I can't imagine this shocks anyone. For the people..................

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/29/sharyl_attkisson_reports_on_congressional_fundraising_corruption_buying_top_spots_on_powerful_committees.html

Just shows how corrupt and money hungry the swamp is.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

This should surprise no one. Both parties are equally corrupt. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

I would like to see multiple things change one is term limits, two with modern technology why can't our representatives work and vote from Office in their home state. By removing them from the swamp it makes access for everyday people in the state easier and it makes it harder for the Lobbyists to reach them. Just think about the difference of Congressman and Senators living in their home states instead of Washington they would know what their people want not what Washington insiders would like.  I work on huge projects with people all over the world we have conference calls tools for sharing documents. In the case of voting the congressman can use some type of bio scan fingerprint or eye scan before voting to be sure it is the congressman voting.   We need to use modern technology to disperse our representatives by the way in case of an attack from a foreign power we would be safer with that dispersal.

The best way to drain the swamp is to remove our representatives from the swamp and periodically replace our representatives.

[Strychnine 1,803]

53 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I would like to see multiple things change one is term limits, two with modern technology why can't our representatives work and vote from Office in their home state. By removing them from the swamp it makes access for everyday people in the state easier and it makes it harder for the Lobbyists to reach them. Just think about the difference of Congressman and Senators living in their home states instead of Washington they would know what their people want not what Washington insiders would like.  I work on huge projects with people all over the world we have conference calls tools for sharing documents. In the case of voting the congressman can use some type of bio scan fingerprint or eye scan before voting to be sure it is the congressman voting.   We need to use modern technology to disperse our representatives by the way in case of an attack from a foreign power we would be safer with that dispersal.

The best way to drain the swamp is to remove our representatives from the swamp and periodically replace our representatives.

 

Term limits have always been an obvious thing to me.  As for removing representatives from the swamp, geography really has nothing to do with it, and relocating them will not fix it.  Lobbyists and corporate representatives have no issue with travelling.  The problem is us, we the people.  Partisanship has become more important than results, and both parties understand this.  We obviously approve of what the two parties are offering us as elected officials, and what they are doing, as we keep sending them back.  Seats flip from D to R, and vice versa, but the results stay the same.  We have put Congress in a position where Congressional action is the only way to reform it, and we pack it mostly full of people that are not even interested in a serious discussion about the matter.  We might complain, but we keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.  D or R, that is all that matters.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

26 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Term limits have always been an obvious thing to me.  As for removing representatives from the swamp, geography really has nothing to do with it, and relocating them will not fix it.  Lobbyists and corporate representatives have no issue with travelling.  The problem is us, we the people.  Partisanship has become more important than results, and both parties understand this.  We obviously approve of what the two parties are offering us as elected officials, and what they are doing, as we keep sending them back.  Seats flip from D to R, and vice versa, but the results stay the same.  We have put Congress in a position where Congressional action is the only way to reform it, and we pack it mostly full of people that are not even interested in a serious discussion about the matter.  We might complain, but we keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.  D or R, that is all that matters.

You are correct that geography would not totally resolve the issue but it would have an impact. When they are all together a single Lobbyist can talk with multiple members in a single day when they have to travel to El Paso and then drive an hour or two to get to a member of congress it limits how many members they can contact on a regular basis.  This would dilute their influence but it would not stop it. Add that to term limits it would help.  yes I realize they will still contact via phone, e-mail, etc.

I also think getting  members of Congress back home where they hear and speak to their constituents on a regular basis as opposed to hearing the people in the DC area on a regular basis will keep them more grounded with the needs of their State and country.

[Strychnine 1,803]

4 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You are correct that geography would not totally resolve the issue but it would have an impact. When they are all together a single Lobbyist can talk with multiple members in a single day when they have to travel to El Paso and then drive an hour or two to get to a member of congress it limits how many members they can contact on a regular basis.  This would dilute their influence but it would not stop it. Add that to term limits it would help.  yes I realize they will still contact via phone, e-mail, etc.

I also think getting  members of Congress back home where they hear and speak to their constituents on a regular basis as opposed to hearing the people in the DC area on a regular basis will keep them more grounded with the needs of their State and country.

 

Lobbyists and corporations are not gaining political influence from the weight of superbly compelling arguments.  It is gained by money, which geography cannot put a dent in.  That also was not really my point.  Term limits, and the prospect of remote representation to dilute special interests' influence would require Congress to act upon them.  Neither of our two parties are going to back such initiatives in any meaningful way, and we keep letting them get away with it by continuing to send more of them.  Despite perception to the contrary, Washington D.C. and its influences are not the problem.  The problem is what we do when we are given a chance to fix it at the ballot box.  A third party or independent candidates cannot swell to influential numbers when we keep sending Democrats and Republicans while foolishly expecting different results.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

Lobbyists and corporations are not gaining political influence from the weight of superbly compelling arguments.  It is gained by money, which geography cannot put a dent in.  That also was not really my point.  Term limits, and the prospect of remote representation to dilute special interests' influence would require Congress to act upon them.  Neither of our two parties are going to back such initiatives in any meaningful way, and we keep letting them get away with it by continuing to send more of them.  Despite perception to the contrary, Washington D.C. and its influences are not the problem.  The problem is what we do when we are given a chance to fix it at the ballot box.  A third party or independent candidates cannot swell to influential numbers when we keep sending Democrats and Republicans while foolishly expecting different results.

yep...and once in Washington...none of them will vote against their own interests ...no matter what they promise during a campaign....so the "term limits" argument is just a dream.    unfortunately.

[homersapien 11,415]

I really don't think term limits would change anything.  They might make it even worse.

 

[bigbird 60,578]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

I really don't think term limits would change anything.  They might make it even worse.

 

Why do you think that?

[auburnphan 6,050]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Why do you think that?

cuz term limits limit your time to sell your vote to the highest bidder and become infinitely richer by doing less.

[homersapien 11,415]

12 hours ago, bigbird said:

Why do you think that?

Well, for one thing they would eliminate contraints on conduct.  They would also punish experience.

And money might become even more important in the electoral process - if that's possible - with more elections.

I think it could be a possible improvement, but I think there are a lot of other areas that should be addressed first, like the influence of money and gerrymandering.

[bigbird 60,578]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, for one thing they would eliminate contraints on conduct.  They would also punish experience.

And money might become even more important in the electoral process - if that's possible - with more elections.

I think it could be a possible improvement, but I think there are a lot of other areas that should be addressed first, like the influence of money and gerrymandering.

Interesting. Thanks for the response.

[AU64 10,122]

On 6/1/2017 at 10:25 AM, homersapien said:

 

Good points but not sure how the gerrymandering thing would change.  In many states, deals are made by the parties and Federal judges to guarantee one party or the other a likely voting majority which is one reason that incumbents have such a high reelection rate.  

But...how do you get rid of gerrymandering when both political parties support the concept and even collude in establishing the district boundaries ?   NC's famous 12th district was about 20 miles wide and 150 miles long and was designed to guarantee a minority member of congress.   It was redrawn a few years ago, but again, the boundaries were established to guarantee a minority member of congress. 

I think the money issue changes because individual candidates would not be able to raise big war chests and instead the political parties would be even more important as fund raisers and would be able to sell their seats..and the party hacks / leaders would have the ability to pick their candidates.  It would be very hard for an up and comer to run independently of the party.....if you don't toe the party line we don't give you any money.   You can ask a local guy I know who ran as a Dem last election and the Dem party basically froze him out because they figured he could not win....and he was too independent.  He is a good but naive guy who thought he could run as a Dem...but not be accountable to Nancy P.....which was foolish.   So....not sure that making the parties stronger and less answerable is a good plan either.

"Term limits"  is not going to happen....but also, it's not the solution that some people seem to think it is...JMO