How can **we** work toward getting the sponsorship names off the backs ...

[Stinky The Clown]

.... of elected officials of both parties.

We all know they're there. Who's funded by tobacco or BigPharm or insurance or oil or securities traders or credit card companies or timber or construction or ..... or ..... or ......?

This is an affliction that knows no party boundaries.

Clearly the best way is to go to 100% no shit, no cheating/go to jail if you do, public campaign financing. How can, the little guys, do something about this?

If you stop and think about it, perhaps NO other single issue is greater. That is not to say it is the ONLY issue, but its right there at the top of the list.

So how do little guys work toward getting that on the agenda come next January? Should it be on the agenda? Should it be on the first agenda or the second (longer term issues) agenda?

[Kutjara]

1. Or maybe...

...we could try to get legislation passed that requires politicians to wear the names of their sponsors on their clothes at all public appearances. Then we'd know for sure who bought and paid for these schmucks. It would certainly make it easier to uncover hidden agendas. For example, imagine how it would undermine some anti global warming windbag's message if, while he was making his boneheaded pronouncements, he had to stand there in a suit with "Shell" "Chevron" "BP" and "ExxonMobil" on it.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Yeah, kind of like a sports team

or at least a sports arena. I think that a Dennis Hastert, sponsored by brand X bratwurst would be ok. Or maybe Bill Frist, sponsored by Humana health care. Charles Grassley, sponsored by LawnBoy or something like that.

[spag68]

3. If you throw in

term limits you will get my vote.

[TygrBright]

4. Unfortunately, the only really effective "fix" will be...

...campaigns that are 100% publicly financed, with mandated media coverage for "town hall" presentations and candidate debates. I don't much care for this solution, myself, but I don't see anything else working. The Big Money is just too powerful and unscrupulous. Whatever lesser regulations were proposed/passed, they'd just buy sufficient creative talent to figure out a do-around.

I hate the idea, because it makes running for office much less accessible to anyone without Party support, but I don't know that it's any worse than the situation we have now, where running for office is pretty much inaccessible to anyone without scads of dough.

regretfully,
Bright

[MadHound]

5. Actually publicly funded election campaigns are the perfect solution

And rather than limiting peoples' ability to run for office, it will make it much more accessible. Look at the examples of Maine and Arizona, who have publicly funded elections already. They've gotten a much wider demographic of people into office due to publicly funded elections. In fact there used to be a DUer around who was in the Statehouse in Maine due to publicly funded elections.

I think that this step is critical in taking back our country, taking the money out of the equation. Give each candidate X amount of money to run their campaign, give them X amount of free air time and print space, and limit them to X amount of time within which to conduct their campaign. I'm sick of these campaigns that start years ahead of the actual election. Oh, and to fund all of this, we can tax the lobbyists.