Much the same page, @1TubeGuru. That was my goal as well.
Excellent answer, @zenvelo. I would have included it in the details if I’d remembered it. I heard that mentioned on NPR within the last 2–3 weeks.
A great leader knows how to delegate, @BeenThereSaidThat, leaving time for vacations. Who is going to define “first family”, and why would the electorate dictate how they spend their vacations? If a member of the first family was ill, the whole family would have to stay home?
Term limits? John Danforth is a helluva guy.
Read down to “Her speeches denounced Ronald Reagan’s policies so vigorously that she ran on the nickname, “Give ‘em Hell, Harriett” (a play on the famous Truman phrase). Danforth won 51% to 49%. Woods’ pro-choice stance was said to be the reason for her defeat Woods and Danforth stayed on good terms following her defeat. Try that today!
I totally understand your point, @zenvelo, yet disagree with it at the same time. I don’t want Congress giving my district unnecessary pork. Especially at the expense of needed spending.
No more realistic or unrealistic than my dream, @Kropotkin. Bronzed turd award.
I do not see how removing money from elections decreases the information, @Jaxk. So you think voter information is purchased?
“If you remove the money from elections, you almost assure the incumbent will win. I would rather see more information than less.”
So, your local voter information pamphlet is a paid advertisement? Or partisan propaganda?
Why so high a cap on spending, @Hypocrisy_Central?
Agreed on soft money.
“Party” is the problem at the moment. Candidate, not party ads.
Available funds are candidate chosen.
“Cap” cap, yeah.
I think the elected official should govern or not. No ‘runner up’.