What influence would interest groups and corporations have over candidates who divest all their family wealth, and agree to live off a basic subsitance during office, and then up to 10 years after leaving office may not begin to make investments or receive benefits of any kind?
2007-06-04 13:46:16 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
yes, they make a disgusting amount of money, even when they are no longer in office they have the best retirement plan of anybody, even better than the soldiers fighting for our country. I believe the starting pay for a solider is around $17000. I don't know how much a politician makes but I am sure that it is more than 5 times that.
the thing that makes me sick is that our American soldiers are being killed EVERY day by those sick bastard Iraq's and there is an armored vechile that is made that could protect our soldiers better from roadside and suicide bombers but according to the people that need to pass the bill to purchase them, they say they are "too expensive". Who cares what the cost is if it saves Americans lives?????? I bet they buy them if they were shipped over to Iraq.
2007-06-04 14:13:28 · answer #1 · answered by LT 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course they should---the salary of the president was designed so that they would not get rich off the office. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who would agree to it, let alone all of them. Even if a few did take this vow, they would not be elected because they would not have the financial support to get elected in the first place. This is one of those ideas where it would be nice, but completely unrealistic.
2007-06-04 20:55:53 · answer #2 · answered by Carly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That won't happen, however the closest I've ever seen anyone do that is Ron Paul. Here's his record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
2007-06-04 21:01:15 · answer #3 · answered by Bloatedtoad 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't matter, the Clintons never owned a house until after his Presidency. Power means money and connections mean money after you finish serving. Good thought though.
2007-06-04 20:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, then we would really have an even bigger problem with corruption. They are being bought off now, can you imagine what you happen? I think we should make lobbying against the law.
2007-06-04 20:50:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋