Thirty-Thousand.org

In addition to changing the size of congressional districts please consider another solution that I believe would lead to more accountable and responsive representation.

Our Constitution provides for a periodic census for apportionment of representation and tax purposes. This apportionment is necessary to fulfill the promise of equal representation. What seems to be interfering with our "equality" more than anything else is the allowance of foreign money - any money from outside a given constituency - to enter political campaigns. Yes, political contributions are protected under our freedom of speech. But, money entering an election process from foreign sources (outside constituencies) violates those citizen's right to equal representation. Such contributions are rightfully considered unconstitutional. They, in effect, take representation away from one citizen to give to another. Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.

A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency. In respect of every citizen's freedom of speech, no limit should be set. However, all contributions should be transparent. Unspent campaign contributions, except for the personal funds of the politician, should be returned to the voters or to the general fund of the district.

Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office . When you really think about it; within the framework of a constitutional republic that respects and embraces the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the states there really shouldn't be a lot left for the federal government to do after 250+ years.

FiddlerBob wrote:...money entering an election process from foreign sources (outside constituencies) violates those citizen's right to equal representation. Such contributions are rightfully considered unconstitutional. They, in effect, take representation away from one citizen to give to another.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Also, I think this suggestion is a backwards insult to the American voter as it suggests they don't know why they're making the choices they make. Besides, with smaller Congressional districts, campaign financing will not be a major issue as it won't cost much to reach all the voting constituents. In small Congressional districts, the most valuable asset is not money but clear arguments and persuasive power.

FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.

Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

FiddlerBob wrote:A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency.

Really? So if I run for office and all my friends and family happen to live outside my gerrymandered district, none of them can support my dream so that I can simply let voters know I exist? Get real. This would be awful. The solution to authoritarian problems is rarely the creation of more authoritarian law. Anyone from anywhere should be allowed to donate and help publicize campaigns. Donations should be transparent, but we should not put additional limits on charity and freedom.

FiddlerBob wrote:Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office.

This detail is a minor financial one that does not need to be in the Constitution. People like their Constitution clean and simple, not muddied with minutia. Eliminating "Golden Parachutes" is as simple as electing Representatives via small Congressional districts and forcing them to change the law. If they don't vote as they were elected to do, the small district's constituents will easily and quickly not re-elect them; and with such short terms in the House and the Representative's desire for re-election, the "Golden Parachute" law would be changed relatively quickly for all future Representatives.

Pseudolus wrote:

FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.

Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

That pretty much sums up my view as well. Though smaller districts will not make money completely irrelevant, its corrupting influence will be significantly reduced. For those who are skeptical, read this comparison between California and New Hampshire: "Freedom and Legislative District Size". How much would it cost (or even be worth) to campaign in NH to become a state legislator? (The answer is determined by the size of the electoral district, not the size of the state.)

And for those who want to drastically reduce the corrupting influence of money on the Senate, the most effective solution is to repeal the 17th amendment.

I agree that the federal Representatives' pension plan is extravagant, especially relative to the short amount of time they must serve to be eligible for it. This may provide the most conspicuous example of how this country-club oligarchy takes advantage of the American people. However, I believe this problem can be solved after we, the people, take back the House. After we take back the House, many of these issues will be, in time, properly resolved by our citizen legislators.