Printable View
Thats because Mitt Romney's speech writers made it up last week. I personally would prefer the free market distribute the wealth as it would likely be more efficient. Unfortunately, and this has been clearly evidenced over the last 30 years, the free market is not cooperating with the trickle down theory, so the government needs to step in and puppeteer Adam Smith invisible hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
I can think of four things off the top of my head I would change.
First is to have runoff elections. The winner must receive 50%+ to win.
Second, truth in advertisement. Slander and lies are to be dealt with. No more "Swift Boating."
Third... Remove the 435 cap on representatives. Give each state an allotted number of representatives based one one for every unit of population. Have this to be less than for every 100,000 people so that we have at least 3,000 representatives. They can use modern communications to vote. Require them to stay in their home districts and listen to the people. Not lobbyists.
Fourth. Return the senate as originally in the constitution. Have the state legislatures pick them rather than the populous.
1) eliminate ALL corporate contributions.
2) personal contributions capped at $1,000
If thats the case, instead of half-assing it, why not just socialize political campaigns entirely, removing all private money from the process?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckD
Fixed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckD
That's actually a really good one I agree whole heartedly with, but I'd rather phrase it as something along the lines of "Only allow individual contributions which must all be made public information." However I would not put a cap because the cost of running things like TV ads and travel costs etc is enormously expensive thanks to the private sector.
"eliminate ALL corporate contributions."
but!
"corporations are people, my friend" -- Gecko
And JINO SCOTUS says Corporate-American people's "money is speech" protected by the Constitution.