On the subject of campaign contributions, here’s a good essay on the futility of campaign financing reform. Another thing that’s grimly amusing is people thinking that term limits would help fight the over-spending and over-regulation. Pah! That wouldn’t improve things a bit; it would probably worsen the situation.
Why? Look at what the tapeworms do when they’re voted out of office. They turn lobbyist. Lobby lobby lobby. When they lose their public salary for meddling in everyone’s business…they start taking private money to meddle in everyone’s business.
Term limits would produce more ex-Congressmen, politically connected people who are still addicted to using the law to benefit themselves.
Now, if we require that anyone leaving Congress, for any reason, be thrown into a volcano…I could get behind that policy.
No, if you want to kill a weed, do you pluck one of its leaves then sit back to see what happens? Or do you yank it out by its roots?
The problem with these reform attempts is that they confuse cause and effect. Vast campaign contributions, ubiquituous lobbying, and Senators-for-life aren’t the problem, they are results of the problem.
The problem is that the federal government doesn’t respect or obey the Constitution. It’s never had any right to set minimum wages, redistribute wealth, or punish specific businesses or even industries while rewarding others. Yet four generations of Americans accepting these intrusions means whenever I point it out I get, “Ha ha ha, you’re crazy, man. Social Security is unconstitutional? Since when?”
The Fed is only supposed to do specifically enumerated things. If it did those and only those, there’d be no problem with the cash and the lobbying and the Senators-for-life.
Does anyone think D.C. taking over health care is going to reduce lobbying? Then there you have it. If you honestly want to reduce federal influence peddling, there’s only one way to do it.
Reduce federal influence.