Carville and Begala's anti-corruption reform: Would it work?

[BurtWorm]

:shrug:

Kevin Drum thinks it might, with some adjustments. What do you think?


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.carville.html

First, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay 'em what we pay the president: $400,000....In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

And when it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. You read that right. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.

Challengers, on the other hand, would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits, just as the free-market conservatives have always wanted....The day after you disclose <a contribution>, the U.S. Treasury would credit the incumbent's campaign account with a comparable sum — say 80 percent of the contribution to the challenger to take into account the cost of all the canapés and Chardonnay the challenger had to buy to raise his funds as well as the incumbent's advantage.

[AX10]

1. This should be considered.

[dsc]

2. that actually isn't too bad

though I think the discount is too much. I would give the incumbent more like 90 percent.

[KittyWampus]

3. "Take something from a family member" So Corps give bogus jobs to spouses

spouse takes home huge paycheck... and into politician's wallet.

[Zinfandel]

4. $400K is chicken feed to these people, when they can be driving Rolls

Royce', living in Mansions, lobbyist offering them yachts, five star hotel, first class trips anywhere in the world, pay for their kids college education, etc. etc...

You think any congressman is going to vote for a pay raise of a measly 400K when they stand to gain millions of dollars in frills from lobbyist and "donors"?

[thethinker]

5. Bad idea

The only thing that is going to work is to get all money out of politics.

They should only be able to campaign for a brief period of time on public funds. All TV time should be equal between candidates and free. The public owns the damn air waves.

This is the only thing that will work, and the only way the public will ever be represented by congress. As it is now, congress only represents corporations and the very rich who buy their time and votes.

And, no, they don' deserve a raise. Many of them belong in jail. Regular Americans aren't getting raises.

Minimum wage is what needs to be raised. The critters we have in congress don't need a raise.

[Child_Of_Isis]

6. $400,000

Nope! They get enough money already! Most than the average American. Why should they be any better?

[dsc]

8. because

they have to run two households, do a job that is at least as hard as being a CEO, have a wardrobe which allows him or her to be presentable while doing said job, and often have to pay for family travel if they want family with them.

[Child_Of_Isis]

10. Let's get back to the average American.....

Dump one of the households, have their family live with them instead of traveling, shop at department stores...like the rest of us. These people work for us. Who pays their employees more than themselves?

[yellowdogmi]

7. While I am a hugh fan of both these I guys

I still think the plan needs some work.

[democrat_patriot]

9. This favors millionaires a bit. They don't raise any money

use their own, the incumbent is unable to run an election campaign.