Democrats Set to Propose Constitutional Amendment Aimed at Stopping Koch Brothers From Buying Elections

koch-brothers-blimpFor a long time I thought it was universal from both sides of the political debate that money in politics is a huge problem.  To me, it doesn’t seem like a partisan issue to believe that people pumping millions into political campaigns were obviously trying to buy our government.

Or do people really believe that billionaires like the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts?  Of course not.  They’re trying to buy elections and handpick who gets elected so that any legislation that might get passed favors their interests.

But it’s not just the Koch brothers who do this.  There are big donors that give money to Democrats as well who have this same kind of agenda.  Though the Koch brothers have taken it to a whole other level by essentially being the pocketbook behind the entire tea party movement.

Well, recently Harry Reid called for a Constitutional Amendment that would help prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money from continuing to corrupt our political system.

“Amending our Constitution is not something any of us should take lightly, but the flood of special interest money in our American democracy is one of the glaring threats our system of government has ever faced,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Let’s keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy.”

“The Supreme Court has equated money with speech, so the more money you have the more speech you get, and the more influence in our democracy.  That is wrong.” he continued.  “Every American should have the same ability to influence our political system. One American, one vote. That’s what the Constitution guarantees.  The Constitution does not give corporations a vote, and the Constitution does not give dollar bills a vote.”

And he’s exactly right.

Anyone who argues that money equates to speech is clearly trying to buy something with that “speech.”  Speech is speech, not money.  You can’t say we’re all given the equal right to free speech then say that people with more money are essentially given a louder voice.

But of course Mitch McConnell quickly sided with the rich and bashed this proposal by Democrats.  He issued a statement saying:

“Proposing to take away this fundamental right from the American people and vest it in the federal government instead is the ultimate act of radicalism, and it should concern all Americans who care about their right to speak their minds and to participate freely in the political process. Washington Democrats have shown again and again how determined they are to shut down the voices of anyone who disagrees with them, whether it’s targeting groups through the IRS or looking over the shoulders of reporters at local newspapers and on news radio. But this latest proposal goes beyond everything they’ve attempted previously. No politician from either party is above the Constitution, and this crass attempt by Democrats to shut down any opposition to their plans should be rejected swiftly and decisively by everyone in this country who prizes the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

As I’ve said numerous times, anyone who’s advocating for more money in politics is clearly being bought off by someone.  It’s not a shock that almost all Republicans I’ve heard speak out on money in politics favor allowing unlimited amounts of it to flow into political campaigns.

Considering Republicans are essentially nothing more than shills for rich corporations, the wealthy and big oil, it’s no wonder they support rulings that continue to allow the richest among us more direct access in their attempts to buy our government.

Keeping money out of politics should be a non-partisan issue, yet sadly it’s not.  Republicans continue to prove time and time again that they want the richest among us to be able to directly buy our elections while opposing any kind of legislation that might prevent them from doing so under the guise of “protecting” the First Amendment.

But our Founding Fathers never meant for money to equate to speech.  Speech is speech.  It’s the right for every American’s voice to be heard regardless of how much money they have.  The only thing more money in politics will do is ensure that the voices of the rich continue to drown out the voices of everyone else.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    I support a fair redistribution of “speech”. Raising the minimum wage to give Wal-Mart employees a little more “speech”. Since Wal-Mart receives a lot of free “speech” from the Government, I think it’s only fair they redistribute some of that “speech” into their employee’s pockets. Fifteen “speeches” an hour.

  • sherry06053

    Ok. I agree. What can WE do about it? I don’t see anyone pointing us in a direction to a solution. After the last SCOTUS decision removing the limits of donations, wasn’t that the end of it? Passing a Constitutional amendment? You think that is possible in this political climate? Isn’t it hopeless, now?

  • Sandy Greer

    Just as Free Speech means I am forced to hear things said I don’t want to hear:

    Keeping money out of politics means that We the People, through our taxes, will fund campaigns. Keeping money out of politics means keeping ALL
    money out of politics (private, corporate, entities) and having government (taxes) fund campaigns.

    Anything short of that pays lip service to keeping money out of politics.

    Are we willing to have our taxes fund political campaigns? We’d be paying for the ‘other’ side, too. I’m willing; are you?

    Too, the blue link says this:

    >Democrats are unlikely to garner the support of a Senate supermajority, or two-thirds of senators, which is what they would need to pass such a measure. But repeated votes on the matter may make for suitable nessaging ahead of the November midterm elections.

    • Charles Vincent

      “Are we willing to have our taxes fund political campaigns? We’d be paying for the ‘other’ side, too. I’m willing – Are you?”

      Well that’s a good question.

      Yes provided there are certain requirements that had to be met.

      • Sandy Greer

        An inherent danger is that govt (Legislators) select candidates. But that could be minimized – Petition is one way: A candidate gathers enough verifiable signatures to be worthy of funding.

        I’d like to see funding commensurate with the office. A Presidential campaign requires more than a Guberatorial; a Senatorial more than a Mayoral.

        Limiting the funds available would severely decrease negative campaigns. Were funds limited, candidates would be forced to posit their own attributes. Rather than delineating their lack in the Opponent.

        What do you see?

      • Charles Vincent

        This will sound like a troll to most but I am not trolling.

        1) Each candidate gets 1-5 million to run adds on or about his platform only.
        2)Each party
        a)Republican
        b)Democrat
        c)Third party i.e. all third party groups must choose one candidate to run in the election.(making 3 candidates running in a political race.
        3)All three party candidates are on national TV for debates.
        4)They all travel via the same tour bus to each state where a televised debate will happen.
        a)The debate questions are taken from Email, write in etc. from the residents of the state of that particular debate not from some political think tank.
        5)All the candidates are filmed 24/7 for the duration of the travel during the campaign and televised like a reality show less the drama.
        6)Repeal of the 17th amendment.
        7)Pay and benefits for said politician cannot exceed the norm for those private citizens in the middle class.
        8)Term limits for all political offices.

        Addendum in large states possibly have 2-3 debates say like one in nor cal and one in so cal for example.

      • Sandy Greer

        You are no troll. You’re an Opponent (more, or less) and a formidable one – not to be underestimated, by
        any means. I don’t waste my time on trolls.

        2c) Third party i.e. all third party groups must choose one candidate to run in the election.(making 3 candidates running in a political race.

        Pros = Better chance third candidate gets elected
        Cons = Can all third parties agree on a candidate?

        4a) The debate questions are taken from Email, write in etc. from the residents of the state of that particular debate not from some political think tank.

        ^^^I like it! Would you debate in every state? All should be able to question.

        4) They all travel via the same tour bus to each state where a televised debate will happen.
        5) All the candidates are filmed 24/7 for the duration of the travel during the campaign and televised like a reality show less the drama.

        ^^^Interesting ideas I never would have thought of. I see only Pros here.

        6) Repeal of the 17th amendment.

        ^^^I’m intrigued. Why the repeal? My understanding is that each state is ‘equal’ to others, despite populations (Wyoming cannot be ignored, in favor of California) And that the House of Representatives allows for population densities. Would you have our Senators one from each state – or some other way? What are your thoughts here?

      • Charles Vincent

        “Cons = Can all third parties agree on a candidate?”

        No agreement means no candidate on the bus. And that should be the motivation to choose the best overall candidate, or maybe two since third party is so broad.

        “^^^I like it! Would you debate in every state? All should be able to question.”

        Yes 50 debates minimum maybe 2 in large states like California and Texas, and in each state the residence would write up the questions and those would be asked during the debate to each candidate.

        “^^^I’m intrigued. Why the repeal?”

        Its the major cause of corruption Via bought senators in congress. This doesn’t change representation only the method by which senators are selected to the US congress the house stays according to population as it always has been. And still two senators per state they would be selected by the state legislators as they were before the 17th amendment.

        Oh and the sitting president has to be on the bus as well unless there is some national emergency like a 9/11 or pearl harbor etcetera.

      • Sandy Greer

        Hm. WRT 17th Amendment, I understand your concerns – and don’t disagree.

        But I like having a direct vote. Me – not a Legislator, even one I elect. Voting is a rare enough privilege in this world – I would not willingly forego it – even at the threat of corruption. Seems a Means to an End argument, and one I do not favor.

        But I like your other ideas. Quite obviously, you’ve given far more thought to them, than I have. So, as always, my respects.

        Assume your last paragraph applies to an incumbent president, going for his second term. And not a ‘lame
        duck’ in support of his VP.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But I like having a direct vote. Me – not a Legislator, even one I elect. Voting is a rare enough privilege in this world – I would not willingly forego it – even at the threat of corruption. Seems a Means to an End argument, and one I do not favor.”

        You still directly elect the state legislature that chooses the senators from your state. The linchpin here is that in order for some corporation to buy enough senators to get favorable legislation on a national scale they would need to shell out a thousand fold more money in 60% of the states and they don’t have that much money. And even if they did how long you think a state senator would be in office?

        “Assume your last paragraph applies to an incumbent president, going for his second term. And not a ‘lameduck’ in support of his VP.”

        Yes the pres looking to be elected to 2nd term.

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand your objections to corruption WRT Senators. But you’re still asking me to give up my right to directly elect my Senator. Basically, you’re saying the end (no corruption) justifies the means (my losing my vote)

        I don’t willingly surrender my vote. Find another way.
        But I’m glad you came back. I’m giving thought to:

        7) Pay and benefits for said politician cannot exceed the norm for those private citizens in the middle class

        What IS the ‘norm’? Do you know? If it’s $20hr (or so) – I’m not sure I agree. We’re electing leaders, and I think their pay should be more than the ‘norm’.

        I understand you want ‘dedicated’ only. But it’s asking quite a bit – that they be paid no more than the norm to ‘lead’.

        I do think their benefits should be in line with ours.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Basically, you’re saying the end (no corruption) justifies the means (my losing my vote)
        I don’t willingly surrender my vote.”

        NO you still elect them just in an indirect manner. What I am saying is the genius of the people who wrote the Constitution was that they protected us from ourselves so to speak.

        Politics is a civil service not a career. We ask far more of our soldiers and they get paid a pittance, one that’s less than the low end of the middle class and then the politicians screw them over on their VA benefits.

        “What IS the ‘norm’? Do you know? If it’s $20hr (or so)”
        I would think the median Middle class income is 60-80k a year if I had to ball park it.

        Anyhow it’s time for me to get some sleep 1am comes to fast.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        Good Morning, Charles!

        I’d rather elect my Senator directly (via ballot) than indirectly (via Legislator) thankyouverymuch. Not swayed by arguments somebody wants to protect me from myself; I’ll make my own mistakes.

        I could make a deal with the devil, tho: You keep your guns, I keep my vote? LOL j/k (kinda, sorta)

        Agree about soldiers – pay & benefits. Men in my family serve. But we don’t screw over somebody because they’ve done it to others – Do we? Do unto others just exactly as they’ve done? Not me.

        I haven’t worked in many years, and accept your ‘ball park’ of $60-80k. I’d say pay our leaders $80-100, and call it square.

        /thanx!

      • Charles Vincent

        “I’d rather elect my Senator directly (via ballot) than indirectly (via Legislator) thankyouverymuch. Not swayed by arguments somebody wants to protect me from myself; I’ll make my own mistakes.”

        I get where you are coming from. To me its about putting the check back in the checks and balances that someone else removed because they didn’t or couldn’t see the hidden consequences of what they were doing(the corruption and crony capitalism we see now). Because right now we only have the illusion of choice and only a shadow of the power we had prior to the 17th amendment.

        The other thing I think would speed this along is to abolish the federal reserve, and return the duty of coining money back to congress.

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand checks/balances. A Senate elected by state Legislators gives the state a voice. The House is ‘populist’.

        So, in part, a States Rights issue.

        I understand how some stand ‘firm’ on States Rights. But I believe states should be subject (below, given less weight) to the feds – and that is what makes for
        ‘greatness’. Countries are not known for their states. Sounds trite – but I really do believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. Feds, first – for me.

        This, from Wikipedia (17th Amendment – under Issues)

        >two problems caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.

        The 17th Amendment was to rid us of ‘corruption’. Apparently, we’ve always had corruption; likely always will. It took almost 100 years from first inception, to groundswell, to passage. Amendments are not done willy-nilly – not ‘flippant’.

        >I don’t compromise on my rights haha.

        I understand, completely. They gave me the ‘right’ to vote for my Senator. 😉

        We agree on the Fed Reserve. But that’s a whole other issue.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I am curious about one thing. You say we have a “shadow of the power we had prior to the 17th amendment”. Before, my vote was indirect (via Legislator) now it’s direct (via ballot) How do I have less power?”

        the closer to local control government is the more power the people have over it. we must always remember that the government works at the behest of the people it purports to govern, hence the line Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. How easy is it for you to get face to face with your US representative or senator? I am guessing its isn’t easy. compare that with my districts state senator. I can be in his office chatting with him in less than an hour when he isn’t in session in the capitol same goes for the mayor or town council. The closer to local control government is the more power the people have over it. We are intended to be the boss of any government here, not the other way around which is what we have now.

        “We agree on the Fed Reserve. But that’s a whole other issue.”

        Killing the federal reserve diminishes the power of bankers. who are part an parcel of the corruption we have now in politics.

        “The 17th Amendment was to rid us of ‘corruption’. Apparently, we’ve always had corruption;”

        Did it rid our government of corruption or did it make it worse? I say no it didn’t do what it was intended to do and therefore should be done away with.

      • Sandy Greer

        Agree, local government is where we exert more control, and are more effective, if we wish to make changes to our daily lives. But 17th has no bearing on that – before, or after.

        >Did it rid our government of corruption or did it make it worse? I say no it didn’t do what it was intended to do and therefore should be done away with.

        ^^^Now, this is an argument! First – yes – we still have corruption. Don’t know that’s it’s worse, but it’s still here. I note corruption was not the only reason for passage of 17th. Again, Amendments are not passed ‘flippantly’ – but with deliberation, after much time, resistance, and difficulty.

        But you argue we throw a thing away for falling short of a goal. In principle, this just feels Wrong. Where people are concerned, we are never going to see perfect.

        Some would argue our Constitution has not accomplished the “more perfect Union”, with “Justice”, and hasn’t ensured the “domestic Tranquility” (etc) it was intended – as stated in the Preamble.

        Neither you, nor I, would throw that away. We don’t
        throw up our hands in despair, and call it quits when a thing has not accomplished an intention. We work to make what improvements we can.

        Even knowing we’ll fall short, sometimes.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But you argue we throw a thing away for falling short of a goal. In principle, this just feels Wrong. Where people are concerned, we are never going to see perfect.”

        Falling short is an understatement. When a law does not accomplish its intended purpose, it should be removed and replaced. The 17th amendment has made no noticeable improvement since it was ratified. And it could be argued that it has made the situation worse.

        “Some would argue our Constitution has not accomplished the “perfect Union”, with “Justice”, and hasn’t ensured the “domestic Tranquility” (etc) it was intended – as stated in the Preamble.”

        No it hasn’t, but what it has done is make positive progress unlike the aforementioned amendment.
        The 18th amendment(prohibition) didn’t work and we repealed it(21st amendment). The 17th is no different IMHO. That being said I realize people are not perfect and make mistakes, but when we know they are a mistake we need to correct them.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        One noticeable improvement was the 17th gave me the right to directly elect my Senator. Yes, Prohibition was repealed. But the 18th ‘prohibited’. Easier to grant a right, than deny it later. So Good Luck on your 17th. If it came down to my vote – I’d vote no.

        >people are not perfect and make mistakes, but when we know they are a mistake we need to correct them.

        Children aside, my preference is not to ‘correct’ unless it be asked for. I guess I’m never really sure I know what’s best for the other person.

        Mind if I ask – Are you stubborn? I am; it’s why I’d vote no to repeal the 17th. It’s not that I think I’m right and you’re wrong (IDK the right & wrong of it) I just don’t want to lose my vote.

        So are you stubborn? Or just sure you’re right?

      • Charles Vincent

        People rarely give up things even when they are wrong. I believe that us getting to vote on senators facilitated our predicament and as such is a negative not a positive that undid a check against the power of in this case moneyed interests helping to exacerbate the already existing corruption in government. Life is full of hard choices like this but we still need to make them.

        “Children aside, my preference is not to ‘correct’ unless it be asked for. I guess I’m never really sure I know what’s best for the other person.”

        The government is the child in in this case and so are the corporations donating money, its our job to tell the government to fix it.

        “Or just sure you’re right?”

        I am and this is one topic I don’t really like being right about as I feel the same as you, I just realize that it’s probably the right and best thing to do for us as a whole.

      • Sandy Greer

        Good enough. I respect that. And empathize here:

        1) Life is full of hard choices like this but we still need to make them.
        2) this is one topic I don’t really like being right about as I feel the same as you, I just realize that it’s probably the right and best thing to do for us as a whole.

        You need to get people on your side. Taking away rights is a tough sell. I like and respect you, so I’m predisposed to favor your arguments. But you need to get better at them, because if I were to vote yes – it would be from trust in your being right – rather than believing it myself.

        Which I could do, and a yes vote is still a yes vote – but belief is better than trust.

        Corruption should have more emphasis. It hasn’t been proven, to my satisfaction, that corruption is worse now than before – or would be gone or even less of – were 17th repealed.

        I am sympathetic to arguments ineffective laws should be done away with. On the whole, I’m more than halfway there. A feather in your cap – considering I’d never given 17th much thought, prior to our discussing it. 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        When I get home I want to link some information that I came across that shaped my idea and opinion on the 17th amendment. I came across it when I was researching the CU case by the Supreme Court.

      • Sandy Greer

        CU is difficult to swallow. Corps (et al) are not the We the People spoken to in the Constitution. I agree
        with Stevens dissent that corp spending (vast $$$) can smother the ‘little guy’ – whose Free Speech may go unheard for lack of sufficient funds. Not a level playing field.

        But fail to see correlation to 17th. How passage increased, or repeal will decrease – corruption.

        Interesting that both Cato Institute and ACLU were supportive of SCOTUS CU ruling, no? Too, some Senators and Reps (and states) have called for, or proposed, Constitutional Amendments to undo CU.

        I know how to make your links work, this time – and look forward to them. Just don’t overwhelm my poor brain with too many. 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        OK I want to put these in order and illustrate my line of logic with each link.

        Overview and explanation of the 17th amendment

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?
        v=5_CzhxLmXhE

        We can agree that money in politics is a problem. The 17th amendment made it easier for special interest groups to use money to enact legislation favorable to only a few and leaving the masses out in the cold.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=suVPWNo4rcM

        These interest groups retain their power by dumbing down the population.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=-tU918oK85o

        They use propaganda to distract or fool the public.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc

        Here is an example of propaganda and how the PR people used it to trick the uninformed populous.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=Zh7ps1KWl_M

        and the bait and switch trick.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=63HNuL2tfNc

        The gist here is that the 17th amendment centralized power and money can control centralized government much easier than it can decentralized government IMHO. The CU decision is the special interests doing more to consolidate their power by giving their dollars more clout so to speak further tilting the playing field in their favor and out of the peoples.

      • Sandy Greer

        I was never aware of any other option but to question
        everything. ~ Noam Chomsky

        Viewed all your links. Thanks for keeping them short. In particular, the first (17th overview) was very good. Basically, it reiterated what I’d read on Wikipedia. My preference is to read ‘heady’ (intellectual) stuff. But that’s just me.

        Yes, we agree, money in politics is a problem.

        I agree, we can be ‘dumbed down’. And that there is propaganda, and that we can be distracted by it.

        ^^^I don’t take either of those last two as givens, BTW Possibilities, yes. Givens, no.

        But here’s the problem, for me. You still have not shown correlation to the 17th. Not proven “The 17th
        amendment made it easier for special interest groups to use money to enact legislation favorable to only a few and leaving the masses out in the cold.”

        You said it. But saying, doesn’t make it so. You haven’t proven corruption is worse now than before passage – or would disappear, or have less influence – were 17th repealed.
        Why I started this post with a Noam Chomsky quote. 😉
        Info from one source (even a well-respected one) can be as problematic as propaganda.
        Not to say you’re wrong about the 17th. I could probably argue either way on it. But if I was to argue repeal – it would be on the grounds it took power from the states (Legislative representation) – and gave it to the people.
        I’ll say one thing. I have learned more about the 17th than I ever thought to know.

        As a research tool, the internet is invaluable. ~ Noam Chomsky

      • Charles Vincent

        “But here’s the problem, for me. You still have not shown correlation to the 17th. Not proven “The 17th
        amendment made it easier for special interest groups to use money to enact legislation favorable to only a few and leaving the masses out in the cold.””

        And

        “You said it. But saying, doesn’t make it so. You haven’t proven corruption is worse now than before passage – or would disappear, or have less influence – were 17th repealed.”

        Please note that the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. so look at the major cases of corruption before and after it was passed and make your own conclusion.

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

        “Info from one source (even a well-respected one) can be as problematic as propaganda.”

        I have other sources i was trying to keep it short per your request.

      • Sandy Greer

        That was interesting! I culled your list; excluded Executive/Judicial scandals. Within Legislative, I excluded House of Rep scandals. Left are the following Senatorial scandals (since 1913)

        1) Mike Crapo – pled guilty to DUI, 2012 (???)
        2) John Ensign – resigned b4 Senate Ethics examined fiscal violations w/his extramarital affair, 2011
        3) Ted Stevens – convicted; 7 counts, bribery & tax evasion, 2008
        4) Robt Torricelli – accused of taking illegal contributions frm Korean David Chang, 2002
        5) David Durenberger – denounced by Senate; unethical financial transactions & disbarred, 1990 AND pled guilty, misuse of public funds, 1995
        6) Jesse Helms – guilty of ‘voter caging’; 125,000 postcards sent to black neighborhoods; to challenge residency & right to vote, 1990
        7) Keating Five – Senate Ethics = 1 Reprimand, 2 acts Improper; 2 poor judgment, 1980
        8) Herman Talmadge – denounced by Senate; improper financial conduct, 1979
        9) Ted Kennedy – Chappaquiddick; Mary Jo Kopechne drowned; Kennedy pled guilty; left scene of an accident, 1969 (???)
        10) Thos Dodd – censured by Senate; financial misconduct, 1967
        11) Danl Brewster – pled no contest, accepting illegal gratuity, 1975 AND convicted; accepted $14,500
        frm/lobbyist, 1972
        12) Jos McCarthy – Senate Resolution of Condemnation; McCarthyism purges, 1954 (???)
        13) Hiram Bingham – Censured; hired lobbyist on staff, 1929

        ^^^13 Senate scandals, 101 years. Excluding Crapo, Kennedy, & McCarthy = 10 Senate (finance-corruption) scandals, 101 years (approx one/10 yrs) since passage of 17th. Prior to passage:

        1) Wm Lorimar – expelled frm Senate; accepted bribes, 1912
        2) Ben Tillman/John McLaurin – censured; fighting in Senate chamber (???)
        3) Ralph Cameron – attempted to control access, Grand Canyon; bought mining rights, adjacent lands, 1912
        4) John Mitchell – Oregon land fraud; indicted & convicted, 1905
        5) Jos Burton – convicted of bribery, 1904
        6) Stephen Dorsey – investigation of corruption, Star Route postal contracts, 1881
        7) Chas Sumner – caned by (Rep) Preston Brooks; 2 others held Senate at gun point, 1856 (???)
        8) Wm Blount – Expelled from Senate; tried to aid British takeover W Florida, 1797 (???)

        ^^^8 Senate scandals, 116 years. Excluding Tillman/McLaurin, Sumner, & Blount = 5 corruption scandals, 116 years. My math fails – but Wikipedia shows Senate corruption scandals doubled since 1913.

        Now, what to do?

        Don’t honestly know yet, if it came to my vote – how I’d go. I wish I could believe giving up my vote would end corruption. I feel better, knowing you understand & share (to some extent) my reluctance. And I wouldn’t argue against it; you’ve convinced me that much – and more.

        I have a newfound respect for you, Charles. Twice (?) now, I thought I had you, for sure. 😉 But each time, you came back with something more. Forced me to look at it, and learn something. It doesn’t get much better than that – for me – in debate.

        BTW, that Robt Potter (NC Congressman 1831-1835) seems like somebody you wouldn’t want to run afoul of – guns or no.

        You be sure to have a really good holiday weekend!

      • Charles Vincent

        It took awhile to dig up that list but its all I could find concerning corruption in the political arena.

        “Twice (?) now, I thought I had you, for sure. 😉 But each time, you came back with something more.”

        I’m slippery like that lol.

        You have a great memorial day weekend yourself get out and BBQ and enjoy.

        /Tips hat

  • Matthew Reece

    There would be no corporations and no need to worry about money in politics if there were no government.

  • Jim Bean

    How bout we have no limits on campaign contributions and all contributions pooled and divided equally among the parties? What? No liberals in favor that? Why not?

    • Jim Bean

      No takers. Guess I have to reply to my own comment. It would seem the Left only favors those types of campaign reforms that give them a significant advantage.