After many years of observing our elected officials at local, state and national levels at "work", I have a modest proposal. It is based on the existing law mandating that judges recuse themselves from cases that they or family members have a financial interest extant. <BR>I propose that elected officials at any level be required to recuse themselves from proposing or voting on any issue that they have received a contribution, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly ,at or in excess of $100.00 from any party (corporate or individual) subject to the legislation. <BR>Suggestions on how to avoid massive contributions to Prosecuting Attorneys (District Attorneys) who avow to violate criminal statutes are welcome.Should elected officials be prohibited from proposing and/or voting on laws whereby they have received contributions in the amount or excess of $100.00?Politicians cannot vote in case of contributionsPoliticians can vote in cases of contributionsIt doesn't matter - all politicians are scrupulously honest

Seems to me this would be pretty painful for those pro-2A candidates who always seem to be pitifully short of money (based on the frequency of their entreaties to me).

Since I am running for a school board position, I have been following what is going on in all of the districts around us.

One district started construction an an $80 something million dollar high school (which is obscene in itself), but after construction was started doubled in price to $160 something million.

Their board had to vote on whether to stop construction or continue. Uniramous vote to continue.

After looking up their financial disclosures, what did I see as far as donors (to several members, not all)? Bricklayers Union. Electricians Union. Carpenters Union. Sheet metal Union. Etc. Weird groups to be supporting school board candidates, no?

Absolutely Criminal.

Interesting chicken and egg idea. The less regulated an industry, the less it donates.

However, it’s also the only way the wealthy/companies have to fight back against the communists.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Since I am running for a school board position, I have been following what is going on in all of the districts around us.

One district started construction an an $80 something million dollar high school (which is obscene in itself), but after construction was started doubled in price to $160 something million.

Their board had to vote on whether to stop construction or continue. Uniramous vote to continue.

After looking up their financial disclosures, what did I see as far as donors (to several members, not all)? Bricklayers Union. Electricians Union. Carpenters Union. Sheet metal Union. Etc. Weird groups to be supporting school board candidates, no?

And that's just what's on the record that you can easily follow.

Three issues:

they’d set-up alliances to get around it

there are instances where the involved and informed couldn’t vote but the uninvolved and uninformed could vote. Oil & gas would have 3 examples of this. (1) Very few states have refineries, but it would prohibit reps and senators from states with refineries from being able to vote and represent the interest of their constituents. (2)Very few states have oil and/or gas production so states without it would hold all of the cards. (3)Some of the reps and senators have worked in oil & gas so they have first hand knowledge (ie less likely to fall for nonsense) but they would not be able to vote if oil & gas friends supported their election.

you could donate money to the opposition so they can’t vote on the issues you disagree with. Another instance of not being able to represent constituents.