Constitutional Amendment to Restore Local Influence in Elections

[Midtowner]

BOREN PROPOSES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE LOCAL INFLUENCE IN ELECTIONS

May 27, 2011

WASHINGTON D.C. – In an attempt to restore the influence average citizens have on their Congressional elections, U.S. Congressman Dan Boren introduced a joint resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives this week that proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would prohibit Congressional candidates from accepting contributions from individuals who do not reside in the State or Congressional district in which the candidate is seeking office.

“It has become all too clear, the influence that outside groups and individuals have had on American politics. I want to restore the power back to the people so they determine who represents them. After traveling throughout my district this year hosting town halls in all 25 counties, many Oklahomans that I’ve visited with are alarmed by the influence that outside sources have on the political process in their communities – and that a candidate should only receive donations from the voters he or she represents. This legislation would begin the process of re-establishing the importance of local influence in our federal elections,” said Boren.

Specifically, if H. J. Res. 65 was passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of passage, the proposed amendment to the Constitution would bar a candidate for the office of U.S. Senator from accepting contributions, funds and in-kind equivalents, from individuals who do not reside in the state the candidate seeks to represent. For candidates seeking the office of Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives, the amendment would prohibit those same contributions from individuals who do not reside in the Congressional district the candidate seeks to represent.

[The Profit]

Good law.

[SoonerHoops]

Good law, but I would think it would be very easy to get around.


Does this apply to individuals only?

[Midtowner]

A corporation is an individual/person under the law.

[MsProudSooner]

I received an email about this. It would get my total support:

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.
It is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

[NormanPride]

Nice, but no way it happens.

[SoonerHoops]

A corporation is an individual/person under the law.

Right you are. I learned that once upon a time...

[tcrb]

Nice, but no way it happens.

You're right. The dems and their union supportors will not let this happen.

[Midtowner]

I received an email about this. It would get my total support:

That's a different deal. And frankly, there are significant downsides to term limits. HUGE. Consider that after everyone has term limited out, the only institutional knowledge in the Congress lays with the lobbyists. And if Congress behaved anything like the Okie legislature, the lobbyists would be calling a lot more of the shots after than before, even having way more influence than they should over things like leadership and committee assignments.

[NormanPride]

You're right. The dems and their union supportors will not let this happen.

And the republicans and their corporate sponsors either. Unions are usually in the locales that they contribute to. All politicians have their honeypots, and anything taking those away will be swiftly dealt with.

[delhalew]

One thing to consider is, as an example, who instate has the money to fight the local liquor lobby? There may be a consumer group outside of the area to help reform our liquor laws, but would be unable. Just spit balling.

In general I like the idea.

[jkjsooner]

That's a different deal. And frankly, there are significant downsides to term limits. HUGE. Consider that after everyone has term limited out, the only institutional knowledge in the Congress lays with the lobbyists. And if Congress behaved anything like the Okie legislature, the lobbyists would be calling a lot more of the shots after than before, even having way more influence than they should over things like leadership and committee assignments.

The term limits wold not expire simultaneously. In the case of Senators it would be impossible since their election cycles differ.

In the short run this could be a problem (especially for the house) since I guess the term limits would initially expire in sync (unless the limits were retroactive) but in time with people not reaching their full term limit they would become spread out.

[tcrb]

And the republicans and their corporate sponsors either. Unions are usually in the locales that they contribute to. All politicians have their honeypots, and anything taking those away will be swiftly dealt with.

I do agree with your statement that the corporations will oppose this as well. However, the corporations are not just in the pockets of the pubs. They contribute plenty to the dems as well to cover all their bases. And the unions only contribute to the dems, and at all levels, not just local.

But the primary point is that just about every politician out there will have some level of opposition to this type of legislation and it will never get off the ground. It was probably just a publicity stunt to begin with.

[yermom]

You're right. Career politicians and their supportors will not let this happen.

FTFY

who is going to vote in this bill?

[soonerscuba]

Good idea, is it be possible that since this is an amendment it wouldn't be subject to the Roberts court?

[GKeeper316]

it sounds like a good idea in theory.

but because of the way voting districts are arranged, would just limit the funds available to candidates from "poor" districts.

[TheLadiesMike]

Dumb idea. Contributing to a candidate is an extension of free speech. Furthermore, why should a candidate be forbidden to take money from an out of state relative?

[MsProudSooner]

That's a different deal. And frankly, there are significant downsides to term limits. HUGE. Consider that after everyone has term limited out, the only institutional knowledge in the Congress lays with the lobbyists. And if Congress behaved anything like the Okie legislature, the lobbyists would be calling a lot more of the shots after than before, even having way more influence than they should over things like leadership and committee assignments.

I'm not as fond of the term limits portion as much as I am in favor of them living in the same world the rest of us live in. No pension, the same type of health insurance. I want their coverage and provider to change every year, etc.

[The]

Good lord.

You buy "Issue Ads", you don't give money to candidates.

That's how modern bribery works. This will do nothing.

[Midtowner]

I'm not as fond of the term limits portion as much as I am in favor of them living in the same world the rest of us live in. No pension, the same type of health insurance. I want their coverage and provider to change every year, etc.

I'm not sure I'm thrilled about the prospect of punishing people who obtain public office. If you're worried about the quality of folks going to Washington, this doesn't seem like a viable way to improve the field.