Congress people must spend too much time raising money to keep jobs...

[kentuck]

I've heard that excuse many, many times. They covet their "job" so much that they must sacrifice their duty and responsibility to the people they represent just so they can raise enough money to keep their "job". Why do they so covet their job if they cannot do their job, which is to represent the people in their districts? I have an idea for them.

Get the hell out! Let someone else do the "job" who is not so covetous of the position of power. I don't buy this load of crap!

[bryant69]

1. Then again,

Many people who want public office are unscrupulous weasels. And many people who aren't unscrupulous weasels don't want public office.

I think we need public financing of campaigns, personally.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[unblock]

4. it's amazing how the politics of campaign/office finance are screwed up

i think it's plain that the government should spend a TON of money financing campaigns and giving officeholders very generous salaries. i think congresscritters in particular are vastly underpaid. they may not "deserve" a dramatic raise or free cash for campaigning, but if they were given it, **WE** would own them more and special interests and corporations and lobbyists would own them less.

unfortunately, so many people are pissed off at the corruption and think they should get LESS money, which makes the corruption all the more tempting. in the case of campaigning, it's IMPOSSIBLE to become a congresscritter without chasing money, unless you're already FILTHY rich and can finance it all yourself. you need to be a millionaire many times over for this.

[kentuck]

6. Something is just not right...

when Congress can vote themselves raises each year as the poorest people struggle to get by on a minimum wage. Aren't they supposed to represent the people. If the people have to pinch pennies, then so should they. What do they do when they return to their districts each week? Sometimes they have meetings. Most of the time they vacation. I think by paying them more, we are creating a more "permanent" government, rather than one that turns over as the Founders envisioned.

[bryant69]

7. Well yeah, but people are probably going to continue to act like people

In other words, the sort of people who become congress people, ambitious driven people, aren't, for the most part, going to altruistically say "some of my constituents are broke, so I should be broke too." That might be nice if they did; but odds are they won't.

So we structure the system in such a way as to harness that ambition and greed for good ends, to as great an extent as possible.

Bryant

[kentuck]

9. So why do they want to keep their jobs?

Maybe there should be some disincentives, rather than more "incentives"?

[bryant69]

10. I don't know

I don't think that would go very well. What sort of people do you want seeking public office?

[kentuck]

11. I don't think there is a a lot difference in yourself and the majority...

that are now serving up there. They are not "special". Many of them are greedy. Maybe you would be an improvement? :)

[bryant69]

12. Well the one thing you don't know

Is that I'm exceptionally lazy - I would probably let my easily bribable clerks do most of the work while I played World of Warcraft and watched old movies.

Oh and attended fundraisers. I can't get enough of meat on a stick.

Bryant

[unblock]

2. imagine 1 simple change: no consecutive terms

incumbents might spend time fundraising for others during an election year, particularly if parties get into a 'tag-team' mode in safe districts. or, they might go from one office to another and back and forth. states might even create two-year offices for this purpose.

however, it would certainly change things as no congresscritter would HAVE to campaign while in office.

of course, while there would still be congresscritters with experience and seniority, there would be zero overlap from one congress to the next, which probably is the tragic flaw of this concept.

but an interesting fantasy nonetheless....

[kentuck]

3. I think the "experience and seniority" is vastly over-rated...

..and may be a detriment to the people in those districts. It would be an interesting study to see how well the people in the districts of those that have been in Congress the longest are doing?

[unblock]

5. i think it IS very useful as far as bringing home the pork is concerned

although the main reason for this is the congress rewards seniority with chairmanships and leadership positions, which gives them more clout to get the pork. given restrictions like term limits and/or non-consecutive terms, seniority becomes less relevant and congress might have to find other ways to effectively unionize (the seniority structure is basically an incumbent-protection plan, which makes them look like a union, no matter how much they rail against unions).

[TahitiNut]

8. Let's just make it illegal for elected or appointed federal officials ...

... to engage in any kind of fund-raising activity or other employment (e.g. honoraria for speeches) while holding office.

It seems to me that We the People should insist on an exclusive personal service contract. (If it's good enough for corporations, it's good enough for us, right?)

Funny thing about that ... it'd only apply to incumbants engaging directly in campaign fund-raising. Challengers not already holding office would be free to raise funds themselves. I think of it as both term limits and campaign finance reform. Of course, people who truly like their Congresscritter (e.g. Conyers) would be free to reelect them as long as they want.