Buzzkill.
This analysis is a couple centuries out of date. That’s how things were under the Articles of Confederation but under the Constitution the central government works directly on (and is responsible to) citizens. It’s not a pure federal system but rather has a mixture of federal and republican features.
It’s not either of these things. The Constitution was ratified by people. Both state and federal government are responsible to the citizens. I suggest reviewing Federalist #39.
Not really. There is no national election in our system. All representation comes through states. That system is intact.
There is an informal republican ideal, but not a formal one.
Again, no. It was ratified by the state legislatures.
Sure, but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that we still have a federal system, not a unitary national government.
While there are notable exceptions, most legislators are actually hard-working and do at least what they believe is there best to represent their constituants. The real problem is that the amount of knowledge and analysis required, especially on technical issues, is overwhelming, and of course they have to spend a considerable amount of attention to campaigning (every two years for Representitives, every six years for Senators) which often consists of engaging in mudslinging or diversionary election tactics that have little to do with the actual issues of governance. And the number of congressional committees–participation on which directly affects influence and stature–is staggering, to the point that most legislators spend more time in or addressing committees than doing independent evaluation or drafting bills. The result goes back to lobbying organizations and PACs providing the text of bills and analysis of issues that, of course, favor their interests.
Stranger
Just for the sake of argument, what if the House was altered so that members served for a term of three years, with the overall body divided up into classes, as the Senate? Each year, a third of the House (and every other year, a third of the Senate) would be up for grabs. Could this help mitigate (albeit slightly) the required pace of fundraising?
There’s no need to phrase it as a hypothetical; that is what happens here in California.
Have you ever tried? They are written to be as confusing as possible. full of legalese and double negatives to make it as unclear as possible what they actual mean, probably just in case people do try to read them. Which come to think of it is another reason to oppose initiatives; they encourage laws to be poorly written.
Although fundraising and the ethical compromises surrounding it are the focus of campaign finance reform, I don’t think that this is actually the fundamental problem. The real problem is that candiates are supported by organizations that are legally treated as citizens but are actually fronts (often blatantly) for corporate or doctrinal interest, which completely subverts any efforts to control spending or provide balance in the presentation of candidates and their stances. These entities are often relatively free of the constraints that prevent the candidates from slinging mud; witness the Swiftboaters who consistently and openly lied to undermine John Kerry’s run for the Presidency in 2004. And while candidates are limited by libel and slander protections regarding statements made about their competitors, they can freely lie about their own platforms and plans with near impunity.
527 organizations and other tax-exempt groups–including churches, labor unions and other protected groups–should not be allowed to act as pass-throughs for a candidate’s campaign or to attack an opposing candidate, even indirectly or obliquely. Candidates should be required to present specific plans when they address an issue such as changes in tax laws, and should be held to an honest discussion rather than making vague, grandiose statements with no basis in the reality of their plans. And the campaign cycle should be reduced to a minimum required to communicate the candidates’ positions and past performance. Of course, to do this, political speech would have to be identified as a seperate class of speech in which candidates and the people who represent them are held accountable for the truth and factual validity (versus opinion or suggestion) of the statements, and this would likely require an Constitutional amendment in light of Supreme Court interpretations of political speech and protections afforded to “corporate persons” in regard to political speech. None of this is likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
Stranger
And then we’re back to, I got shit to do.
I read it as “violation” in the sense of “the act of violating” – grammatically uncountable.
Yep. Just like before.
Free speech sucks doesn’t it?
Pass through? When you find a candidate paying a 527 to attack another candidate, let us know.
Well, sure, but you can’t exactly enforce that in law.
So you’re saying you want the government to be in charge of deciding what political speech is true, and to have the power to ban that which it deems not true.
And you don’t see a problem with that?
The First Amendment was adopted to protect us from exactly this kind of massively ridiculous thinking.
There have been no such protections. Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate personhood.
Yes. thank God.
How about you just stay out of other people’s speech?