English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Corruption in the govt. is in place becauuse all the congress people want money for the re-election. If we fund it from public funds the special interest and big corperations and big industries go away and put the govt. back in the hands of the People.

2007-01-17 15:44:54 · 8 answers · asked by Sam 1 in Politics & Government Government

8 answers

If it where that simple, I would not complain. But you might also have to get rid of lobbying, and make elections totally democratic, or use approval voting.

Another question is: if we are handing out public funds for election campaigns, who qualifies as a candidate? would we have to vote twice, once for who gets the money, and once for who actually gets elected? Or would we leave the dolling out of dollars to some closed door committee? In any case whatever moneys might be provided for election campaigns, it would have a hard time competing with hard economics. If it where possible to give equal exposure to all candidates, would it then go back to the age old question of "who do you know"?

Sorry, I think it's a good idea in theory, but it's just too problematic. A better system might be,like I said, approval voting, we vote every year, and if a public officials approval drops too low, they get replaced. But this of course might encourage 24/7/365 smear campaigns, so than might not be such a good idea either.

2007-01-17 16:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by WOMBAT, Manliness Expert 7 · 0 0

I doubt that the fed workers are taking bribes however the revolving door that exist for many extreme point workers of the administrative branch and Congress additionally exists on the fed. those skill some determination are made with an eye fixed on destiny employment opportunities and previous institutions. Bernanke got here from a school no longer wall highway and could in all risk return to a minimum of one with a nobel prize in economic on the tip of his term, although Paulson became a Goldman Sachs guy and so became Clinton Secretary of the treasury Robert Rubin, who talked Clinton to signing costs lowering economic corporation regulations and there are numerous Goldman human beings on the fed. A fed audit could be embarrassing to everybody who had any ability in the process the accumulation and aftermath of the disaster simply by fact a lot of blunders have been made and no person whats their blunders exposes, so it particularly is not info of corruption in the event that they are sitting interior the invoice. i haven't been following the story, so i don't understand yet I doubt if any Republican leaders have signed on the two. edit: I suggested Republican Leaders no longer Republicans here contributors have been chosen by using dwelling house Republicans to serve interior the management in the process the 111th Congress: Minority chief John Boehner (Ohio) Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) convention Chair Mike Pence (Ind.) coverage Committee Chairman Thad McCotter (Mich.) convention Vice-chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) convention Secretary John Carter (Texas) Chairman of NRCC Pete instructions (Texas)

2016-12-12 14:05:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

What you are proposing is to eliminate people's right to free speech. Joe Sixpack couldn't get form a special interest group (such as labor unions, pro-life groups, etc.) to contend with the Warren Buffets and George Soros. Additionally, why shouldn't corporations or industries have groups to advocate for their causes and interests?

Additionally, do we need even more people dependent on government?

2007-01-17 15:50:49 · answer #3 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0 1

50 cents/ month may reduce special interest contributions in the election process , but it would not institute virtue or moral character in a leader. That trait comes from a moral & ethical base. Now, from where do morals arise?

2007-01-17 16:00:34 · answer #4 · answered by nobody 5 · 0 0

Corruption happens any where people are put in a position of power so keep your 0.50. It would just be a different type of coruption its human nature.

2007-01-17 15:58:22 · answer #5 · answered by emmandal 4 · 0 0

Depends on the proposal. Corruption, of course, is almost guaranteed to become imminent within that program's treasury.

2007-01-17 15:51:30 · answer #6 · answered by The Firebrand Transit 2 · 0 0

I am willing to pay double that amount to get rid of corruption anywhere in the world.

2007-01-17 15:59:34 · answer #7 · answered by clueless 2 · 1 0

"Power Corrupts" -Lord Acton ....Keep your .50 everyone
Corruption is inherint when you give someone power

2007-01-17 16:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by TBird 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers