Term limits

@PHX

You still can't answer what a soft dollar contribution is. Why? Because you have NO CLUE what it is.

It's NOT measurable for the congressman.

Here, let me try and put this in a manner you can understand.

You want XYZ Candidate to win.
Company A hires Lobbyist Z to get their agenda listened to.
Lobbyist Z talks to XYZ. Z promotes A's agenda. It may also be Company B's and C's agenda as well.
XYZ says donate to my campaign and I will listen.
A donates the max that they can by law to the campaign for XYZ.
Lobbyist Z talks to A, B and C company and says, you guys all want the same thing, let's create a PAC. You guys can fund the fuck out of it to the tune of unlimited. We will use that PAC to promote XYZ.
Then A,B and C donate to The ABC Pac.
The ABC Pac buys ads and promotes XYZ.
XYZ can NOT direct or talk to the ABC Pac.
Now how can Congressman XYZ know the dollars that went into the PAC? What happens if the PAC also supports Congressman MNO? It goes on and on.

Regardless, term limits sound good when you don't like the person. They sound terrible if you like the person. That's why it ain't gonna happen.

Change how elections are done, change gerrymandering, get into the details, not the top level and you will see where the issues lie. Then lobbying becomes less of a pay to play and more of a service for the message.

@Erotic - Now sure where I lost you....or you lost yourself. Let's review

PHXFUNX2 = Call your elected representative and ask them for the names of the most influential lobbyists to their Congressional Delegation. On the outside chance you actually get a name, then ask for the details around their soft dollar contributions.

EROTIC = You do know that the information you are asking for is available online . . . don't you?

PHXFUNX2 = Erotic, no I was not aware that all soft dollar contributions were available. Where can I find it?

Is, as you asserted, the information I was asking about online or not? You clearly above said it was. I asked where? It's not complicated.

@PHX

Without using a search engine, please . . . tell me the difference between soft and hard dollar contributions. I think you are just saying shit that you have no idea wtf it means.

Erotic, no I was not aware that all soft dollar contributions were available. Where can I find it?

PHX

You do know that the information you are asking for is available online . . . don't you?

"Ginsburg misses third consecutive day at Supreme Court". Is it time for Ginsburg resigns? YES! Cancer is coming back.

If Lobbyists are the voice (be it partial or whole) to our elected Representatives, shouldn't they publish their names and phone numbers? What to have a little fun today? Call your elected representative and ask them for the names of the most influential lobbyists to their Congressional Delegation. On the outside chance you actually get a name, then ask for the details around their soft dollar contributions. What is it the Shirts and Skins always say? Yep, it's all about transparency.

Term Limits? Put me down as a yes.

Most of your soft money and corruption can be be traced to lobbyist there is really no way to police them . So nope

Just using this topic to add on to a point that was brought up.

People complain that congressmen are bought by lobbyists. You known, when I was 20 I thought that was terrible. Now I realize it is a necessary evil. There are two reasons why.

1. Just like you, there are some lobbies I am completely for. We may not be for the same lobbies though :) So if my beliefs can be expressed to that congressman through the lobby I like, why would I not want that?

1. You have to have lobbyists. It is that simple. Why? Because, imagine my poor senators here in CA. We have nearly 40mm people. Do you think they have time to hear from the 20mm that like them and the 20mm that hate them? They would not be able to do anything because they would be listening all the time. With lobbyists, we get a central voice for a group of people.

I think this is a big ole boogeyman argument. Let's see . . . if you worked for GM . . . say in 2006 timeframe, would you be OK with a lobbyist working to get GM funding to stay in business? Let's say you are pro choice, would you be OK with the $1mm that Planned Parenthood used to lobby? Let's say you are pro guns, would you be ok with the nearly $5mm that the NRA spent?

Lobbying, imo, is not the issue. It is the cost to get elected that is the issue. If we didn't have costs to be elected, then the lobbyists would not have to 'donate' to the politicians. That, imo, is the system that is fucked up. It should not cost BILLIONS to run for president. It should not cost MILLIONS to run for Governor.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies...hope over the next few days we get some more thoughts.

You are tying two things that are independent. That doesn't work.

You want campaign finance reform. I get it. I want change there as well.

Let's keep the system we have with no term limits and then do finance reform. Do you think that is going to change who 'owns' who? If I am a large company, it just means I invest in someone new every 4 or 8 years. It doesn't change ownership concepts :)

Now to play devil's advocate. Imagine you had a congressman who was NOT bought by lobbyists. Now you want to kick that person out after X years? And replace them with someone who potentially could be 'bought?'

Erotica I strongly disagree I think at this stage its plain to see that politician who are continuous reelected are bought and paid for by lobbyist. With term limits there needs to be wholesale campaign finance reform tort reform. Change how these slugs leach off the system for ever hold them accountable .. Our system is broke just read the forums and listen to both side argue their sides talking points. Purely foolish., while theses political proffessors on fox cnn distract us from real problems it's a hamster wheel that only benefits them

No.

When I was younger, I thought it was a good idea to have term limits. My thought was that a forced refresh would bring new ideas constantly. Then I realized we have a mechanism for that already. It's called an election. Now you can argue that there is gerrymandering and well, that got the first person elected over an incumbent anyways. You can argue that people are apathetic and go with the known over the unknown. I would agree with that and say that the message has to be compelling enough to get people to want that new person there. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think people look at term limits as a mechanism to remove someone they do not like. I don't think they think about how it could remove someone that they do like.

Change for change's sake is wrong.

Citizens united is the worst decision SCOTUS has ever made...needs to be repealed..

We have term limits. We know them as elections.

Mandatory term limits are a bad idea. Being a legislator is an acquired skill, just like carpentry or medicine.

When you keep turning over legislators, they don't know how the system works. So they turn to the people who have been there the longest. The lobbyists.

Do you really want lobbyists making decisions on your future?

No, Politicians will move around from one office to another. Like moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. It means and will accomplish nothing. Don't vote them in and if they get in, vote them out. That is the best term limits. Sometimes we get a good Politician. That one we want to keep in office.

Yes, with career politicians comes corruption.

I don't know whether this subject has been brought up as a topic forum before, but I was interested in people's thoughts about whether term limits should be an official restriction on Congress, as it is for the Presidency. Kind of get a Y or N and thoughts for why it would be a good idea and why it wouldn't. Thanks