You know, if you would come out in the beginning and explain yourself we wouldn`t have these long drawn out discussions, but you have to play word games and say you have given answers when you haven`t, or answered questions I have not asked. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

O.K. you are done. It is still my opinion that campaign finance reform, public financing ,IS the only thing that that will lessen the influence peddling. Even running only twice or three times opens the door for a politician to be influenced by big money donors.

“you made a statement saying my statement was false about the influence that campaign finance reform could have.”
-
Incorrect. I made a statement to your comment of "some form of public financing is the ONLY thing that will lessen the influence peddling”. This statement is false, as I said.

There is influence peddling going on that have nothing to do with private provided campaign dollars…this proved your statement false. If you had said a change in campaign financing laws could also change influence peddling I would have agreed, though I don’t care how private citizens spend their own money. It is theirs to spend not mine. As I am tired of your continuous habit to rehash items already discussed, I am done.

You don`t care about election financing but you made a statement saying my statement was false about the influence that campaign finance reform could have. Then went on to describe the Landrieu moment that has nothing to do with campaign finance. Your definition of wasteful spending is different from the next guys, who decides in the long run? The voters do, and the guy with the biggest war chest only loses once in a great while. I have no feelings one way or the other about term limits being enacted because they will only change the names, not the spending, and if somebody knows they are only going to be in office for so long, they will have a tendency to grab what they can while they can.It`s a fantasy to believe term limits are a panacea for the problems of government. Yes, you can get a conscientious politician under a term limits scenario, the same as you can under the system now. It`s up to us to know who we are voting for. At least with public financing, you level the playing field, can shorten the electioneering, and stop the direct buying of influence by big money.

" If you mean am I going to comment, and ask for explanations, yes, that is what these posts are for."
-
I meant are you really going to ask, over and over, in each thread about things already answered; ref: influence. It is a pattern of yours.

" has absolutely nothing to do with whether public financing of elections would help or not. "
-
Again, I don't care about election financing, that was your tidbit. I am concerned with how they spend peoples money on a constant and wasteful basis.

"Your" money is going to be spent whether there are term limits or not, by Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Democrats, whoever is elected. They just will spend it on different things. By not changing campaign financing we are helping to insure that only two parties can get elected, unless a person is rich enough to pay his/her own way. What happened with Landrieu happens everyday in Congress, this was just a very egregious example, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether public financing of elections would help or not. If you mean am I going to comment, and ask for explanations, yes, that is what these posts are for.

"where does the left over money go when there are no more elections, back to the donors? I don`t think so!"
-
Correct, unless given illegally it is theirs to keep. But again, I don't care what other people donate, it is their money to give. I am concerned with how my money, including public funds, are spent.

" When you have term limits they wouldn`t have to listen at all in their last term, thereby letting them vote with no consequences. That could be good, also bad for the country."
-
That is no different than now when a sitting congressman or senator say they will not seek re-election...if it doesn't happen now what makes you think it will happen then?

"You say, "This is false," about public financing but offer no explanation."
-
I Just did showing politicians buying votes for influence. Are you really going to do this on every thread you post on?

She`e not up for re-election until 2014,not exactly a first year, but first of this term, the electorate has short memories, and this $300 million won`t be as important as a vote on whatever health bill is pushed forward. You say, "This is false," about public financing but offer no explanation. If a politician is worried about what his/her constituents think about their votes, that is a good thing. When you have term limits they wouldn`t have to listen at all in their last term, thereby letting them vote with no consequences. That could be good, also bad for the country. There is always "leverage", money, a new job, a Congressman in California got a new boat, I believe. They get to use campaign contributions for other things besides electioneering, fighting corruption charges for example. And, where does the left over money go when there are no more elections, back to the donors? I don`t think so! In any case, in order to have term limits, or stop direct donations, we will probably need a Constitutional amendment passed, and at my age I`m not likely to be around if it happens.

Not that you will agree but I will explain my position(s) again.

"the point was term limits, and the $300 million has nothing to do with that." I disagree. The very reason she was bribed 300 million dollars was to protect her seat, bring something home, and get her vote. If she was not up for re-election this term this 300 million dollars of our money would not have been spent.

'10 years in office, or 1, the "bribe" would have taken place for the vote." This is conjecture/assumption for something I have not seen. If you have an instance of a 300 million dollar bribe, like this one, going to a first year senator with 5 years remaining in office I would like to see/read it.

"As for spending one`s own money for elections, do you really believe your $2 will get you more influence with a politician than a corporation spending a $1,000,000 of their stockholders money to get someone elected?" The reasons I want term limits do not have to do with influence peddling from constituents. I believe more money, public tax dollars, is wasted from influence peddling from career politicians than lobbyists.

"Some form of public financing is the only thing that will lessen the influence peddling." This is completely false.

"explain to me how term limits would have made a difference in getting Landrieu`s vote." She would not have been in a position to be bribed, she has been in office for two terms, now fighting for a third. My idea of term limits is 3 (would rather see 2) terms for house members and 2 terms for senators.

"term limits would not change the fact they needed the vote, and purchased it. That is what started the discussion, not the $300 million." Yes they wanted the vote, need is arguable. The very fact she is up for re-election is the reason she was bribed, as stated. If there were term limits (my idea of them) there would be no reason to bribe---no leverage.

Believe it. Or, explain to me how term limits would have made a difference in getting Landrieu`s vote. We can be mad as Hell, but term limits would not change the fact they needed the vote, and purchased it. That is what started the discussion, not the $300 million. Change the financing, set limits on elections, and give the newcomers a better chance to win, otherwise it still comes down to the money influencing elections, and ultimately representatives.

Unbelievable...

The point was term limits, and the $300 million has nothing to do with that. I don`t like what they do with some of my tax money either, but we`re talking about two different things. Again, 10 years in office, or 1, the "bribe" would have taken place for the vote. As for spending one`s own money for elections, do you really believe your $2 will get you more influence with a politician than a corporation spending a $1,000,000 of their stockholders money to get someone elected? If you and the corporation both put in a call to Senator Blitz at the same time, whose call gets answered? Some form of public financing is the only thing that will lessen the influence peddling.

I got your point, and I addressed it. If someone wants to spend their own money I don't care, I do care when they spend my tax money---the two do not go hand in hand.

The point I`m making, and you are missing, is that term limits will not change this "buying" of votes. In fact, term limits could make it easier for these types of things to happen if our representatives are in their last term, and don`t have to worry about ticking off their constituents.

Part of the job???? How is buying a vote for 300 million part of the job? If you, as a taxpayer are not outraged over acts like this you are part of the problem and not the solution.

No matter who is in they still will spend the money, that is part of the job. Whether Landrieu had been there for 13 years, or two, they still needed her vote. As for only two parties, that is the electorates fault, ours! It will only change if enough people want it to, not because a Senator would only be able to serve two terms, or whatever is decided.

Don't you see the distinction between letting people spend their own money to support a candidate vs. having politicians spend OUR money to buy votes and influence elections that protect their seats?

Tossing career politicians to the curb alone will not solve government ills’. It will surely reduce wasted spending now, as just happened with 300 million dollars. If we are lucky this could also expand the dreadful two party system (Dems vs. Reps only) we have in place now that force the exclusion of competing parties through procedural rules used to protect their power…not help the people.

I am not against term limits per se, but by itself it won`t solve the influence problem.

Just because I think money is wasted(Iraq), or you do(health bill) doesn`t mean it is so. It`s a matter of opinion, and term limits would not change the "buying" of votes that you mentioned, just the recipient of the money.

Donations to lawmakers doesn`t have to happen if we change the way elections are funded. Joe Blow, or Fred Bleat, they both are looking for the bucks to influence their votes, whether they have been in office twenty years or two. Public financing would take away some of that influence, and also by setting limits on election funding we could shorten the process and cost of elections.

Pharm, term limits do more than change who gets the money. The most important thing, it changes the people who SPEND OUR MONEY.

Donations to lawmakers will always happen. One of the most egregious problems now with career politicians is how they spend our money to keep their position and buy votes; think of the latest 300 million dollar purchase of a single vote just tonight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...).

If people want to spend their own money to donate at least it is theirs to spend. When elected officials spend OUR money to protect their position and buy votes it wastes money collected from you, me, and our neighbors.

The big O promised to keep the less-fortunate in their homes if he got elected .....funny how he doesn't even talk about it anymore. Must've slipped his mind.

Bob Keith has the right idea. There's a good website at http://www.repofinder.com that is like a shopping mall for property your neighbors used to own.

Those avid readers and listeners out there should have noticed in various media, the recent “perpetual optimism” articles and talk show guests lauding the benefits of the “new normal” we all live in now.

We are suppose to be glad burglaries are down because we are all at home now - jobless - and protecting what little we have left. As well, poor, unemployed people can't buy stolen junk. We should also be glad we are reconnecting with our extended families as we now all must live in the same house with relatives, grand parents, and cousins.

And finally, we should embrace all the cheap foreclosed houses on the market and all the cheap repossessed cars now available. This is nowadays apparently cause for celebration. Grab up a deal man...your neighbors' destroyed lives are a marketing boon.

Bob Keith
- humble and obedient citizen -

Our two-party political system is screwing everything up! We need to get decent people to run as independents for every elected position and resolve to only vote for candidates who are not Democrats or Republicans. We should try to entice really good incumbents like Russ Feingold to run as independents.

Battler: Maybe the people should ask to be a part of the same health group as our national legislators. No new plan, just give me the same benefits at the same cost as the legislators calling for reform and I will be happy.

All term limits do is change who gets the money. A change is needed in election financing.

Billy I disagree. Expecting a common sense and educated voting electorate is a utopia that will never happen.

For much of the same reasons term limits for the executive office developed, it is now needed (IMO) for both houses of congress. It has become an organization run by professional politicians, more interested in chairmanship positions, donations, and ensuring their rein continues then doing the job needed for the electors who hired them.

I agree people do need to be more educated on there representative but unfortanatly that will not happen so term limits are needed. Also no pension and lifetime health benefits. Most people don't get them why should we be paying for theirs. I wonder if they will have to pay tax on their cadilac insurance policies.

Term limits are not needed. A better educated public that votes out individuals who do not do an adequate job of representing them. Term limits allow the public to abdicate their responsability to actually pay attention and become an active participant in their government. Why does anyone believe that the same people who continue to reelect those who are making the right choices would somehow choose more wisely if the incumbant was not running.

I agree. A polititian's job when they get elected is to get reelected. They may start out with good intentions but they eventualy will make that you scratch my back I'll scratch yours and then we will kick the people in the groin deal. That is when they loose sight. Term limits are needed.