Want to make the 2008 elections actually MEAN something?

Email Print posted by MedfordTim 08/06/2007 12:30:24 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I don't care if you are Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. What I am about to propose is important to ALL of us and can instantly make huge positive changes to the way the U.S. works.

Make them sign a pledge.

Force your local House of Representative and Senate (if up for re-election) candidate - incumbent or not - to sign a pledge with the following two provisions:

"I promise to work toward and support BANNING all monetary contributions from lobbyists. Any and all advocates for a particular interest are welcome to come to my office and present information regarding their issue in order to educate me on the issue at hand, but NONE of them will be allowed to contribute money to my campaign funds. It is a form of legal bribery that must end NOW so that the people of the United States' interests will be on an equal footing with corporations and special interest groups."

"I promise to work toward and support BANNING all 'earmarks' which do not directly involve legislation being considered."


Who's with me?

< The Soft Underbelly of the Democratic Party | Cramer >
 Display:
Want to make the 2008 elections actually MEAN something? | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
who needs lobbyist money.. (none / 0)
when our OVERLY paid legislatures can just continue to receive their AUTOMATIC pay increases.  Although they have clearly failed to live up to the expectations of their constituents! I guarantee you, if my most recent performance evaluation was as horrible as the 110th congress, I wouldn't be in any position to determinie IF I should still receive my merit increase.  Hell I'm sure I probably wouldn't even be eligible for unemployment benefits.  

(the following was posted on Mon, Jul. 30, 2007)

"After raising the minimum wage by 70 cents an hour last week, many members of Congress are ready to give themselves a pay increase of roughly $4,400 per year."

by prettyblkgyrl on 08/06/2007 02:28:28 PM EST

Earnmarks (none / 0)

I think earnmarks are fine so long as they disclose what earnmarks they ask for. The current system is they can ask for all sorts of earnmarks and no one will ever know what they are trying to get unless the bill passes, in which case then they trumpet those earnmarks.

 Also total earnmarks are about 20 billion a year out of a federal budget of over 2 trillion. That means it's about 1% of Federal spending.

 In terms of a 10 trillion dollar economy, we spend 0.2% of our national economy on earnmarks, pork.

 Compare this to 27 billion a month for Iraq, entitlements, or even farm subsidies, and it just doesn't add up to much.

by acroso on 08/06/2007 02:39:18 PM EST

She will get away with it too (none / 0)
When Hillary was asked if she recived lobbyist money. She answered yes, and if you dont like it go  stuff your self because mommy needs all the money she can get her hands on.  Or words to that effect. Oh she added on something about Nurses, it was a nice touch.

by Mr Pibb on 08/06/2007 07:44:12 PM EST

dear abby, why sign a contract... (none / 0)
when more than 2,200 former federal employees (since 1998) have become lobbyists??? ((which includes 270 (plus) former White House staffers and approximately 250 ex-members of congress and/or heads of government departments. ))

back when i was a youngn' (32 years young) the idea of holding a nationally elected office seemed to be a hell of an accomplishment.  but now becoming a member of congress doesn't seems as significant as it did in the oldn' days.  especially when nearly half of our former lawmakers have used their elected positions as steppingstones to their next career choice: LOBBYING.

i'm not opposed to the concept of all national (elected or appointed) officials signing contracts of accountability.. but how effective will said contract really be?? this type of contact may inspire craftier wheeling & dealing.  cutting to the chase & flat out selling their votes for the most lucrative lobbying positions post-DC. (which i'm sure already happens)

but my point is.. why give these asses in DC more incintive to betray our trust? especially when they have done 1/2 ass jobs thus far, yet they feel compelled to deliberate their auto raises..

GIVE ME A FREAKN' BREAK!!

outraged in chicago

by prettyblkgyrl on 08/11/2007 01:50:08 PM EST

Want to make the 2008 elections actually MEAN something? | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: