Search This Blog

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Elections For Sale, Time For Election By The People & Not The PAC's

     The Presidential election process appears to be for sale.  The  PAC's are financed by groups who want to influence elections to their benefit.  That is not necessarily to the benefit of America in general.  Individuals still do the voting in America, but they are influenced by groups that are determined to spin elections to their benefit.  That means people and groups with money have undo influence.  Corporations, businesses and interest groups do not vote however they try swing the vote the way "they" want it to go.
     A law needs to be passed that only people who can vote can donate to the election process.  Groups who have no vote should not be able to spend any money on the elections.  Those who can vote should be allowed to spend however much of their money they desire.  The catch is they should be required to show the source of their funds above a certain level, say $100 or even $1000 dollars. They should have to show their voter registration card to donate.
    PAC's and interest groups do not donate because they are being benevolent to the election process.   They spend their money with the intent to influence the outcome they see as beneficial to their interests.  They do not care about the candidate, the party or the country.  Their only concern is influencing the outcome to their benefit. This is sad because America gets a bunch of candidates running that do not represent the people.  Many of the candidates running have no convictions.  They flip flop back and forth strictly based on which way the current wind is blowing.  Especially any wind that might send a few dollars their way.  Morals and values will be twisted and bent to fit what ever situation they find themselves in.
     Candidates with commitment and integrity find themselves swept aside.  Especially if what they believe conflicts with the interests that PAC's and special interests are promoting.  The Supreme Court was wrong and while I do not buy the Tea Party Bull they could be useful in fixing the problems with the election system. They need to push through legislation banning pacts.  At the same time they need to reduce the Supreme Court back to the seven justices it used to be.  It is not anymore efficient with nine justices that is for sure.  That would send a message to the Supreme Court that they are not in charge.  It should be done by attrition which no justices would be appointed for probably ten to fifteen years.  Hopefully America will be better off by then.  Especially if the court quits meddling and trying to make laws. Lifetime appointments should end at age 80.  If they survive beyond that force them to retire and replace them.  I do not know if it is true that if the government makes an across the board pay cut that the Supreme Court is exempt.  If it is true that rule needs to be over hauled.  Also as I understand it if a justice becomes unable to perform his job he stays on the court regardless.  That needs to be amended and after ninety days they need to be placed in a retired status.  If they have been replaced they may come back to active duty the next time the court needs a judge to make the designated seven members.  However they must retire again at 80.  They would still hold the title of judge,but they would not be allowed to rule on cases after they turn 80.  This would not go good with the justices I am sure, but it would be better for America I am sure.
    The goal of these changes it to return the government to the people.  If the Tea Party wants to start cutting the budget they need to start with the body that is undermining the values of America with their rulings.  Especially the ones like the court in California just passed to reinstate same sex marriages.  The first thing the court needs to do is reread the Constitution.  Especially Justice Ginsburg who can find no value in it.  I think she should be impeached for undermining the system she swore an oath to uphold.  That is my opinion, just as hers was hers.  The difference is I did not swear and oath to uphold it like she did.  If your wondering what I am babbling about follow the link...   Make up your own mind on the matter.  That is one less that would be no loss to the court.

No comments:

Post a Comment