What Constitutional changes should result from the trumpo "presidency"?

[Gospel]

Well, the first thing that needs to happen is to have publically funded elections and make it a crime for any elected politician to take any money whatsoever or participate in any fundraising activities. If you don't pass that first, then all the rest is irrelevant because the people who would need to pass those laws are bought and paid for special interest groups who will either block them or water them down into irrelevancy.

I thought the thread wouldn't go any further after this comment so I went on my marry way after seeing it. Regrettably it's now at 40 comments. I think if all government officials receive only public funding a great majority of our problems go away. I would also like to add that campaigns and debates be public funded and run. As such every name on the ballot should have equal air time on a purely publicly funded television network of which its sole purpose is for elections. Doubtlessly many details will need to be panned out, but the "how we will fund it?" part is easy; federally legalize marijuana and tax it. Any state that decides not to uphold federally legalized marijuana would have to pay their share (from public funds) on their own.

Obviously the press will have free access to the debates however said publicly funded television network would also have open platforms on all major social networks (maybe even create a publicly funded one) so that both the press; at the venue and the general public not at the debate have access to submit questions.

But that's a crazy idea right?

Edit: Changed pages to comments

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, the first thing that needs to happen is to have publically funded elections and make it a crime for any elected politician to take any money whatsoever or participate in any fundraising activities. If you don't pass that first, then all the rest is irrelevant because the people who would need to pass those laws are bought and paid for special interest groups who will either block them or water them down into irrelevancy.

I thought the thread wouldn't go any further after this comment so I went on my marry way after seeing it. Regrettably it's now at 40 comments. I think if all government officials receive only public funding a great majority of our problems go away. I would also like to add that campaigns and debates be public funded and run. As such every name on the ballot should have equal air time on a purely publicly funded television network of which its sole purpose is for elections. Doubtlessly many details will need to be panned out, but the "how we will fund it?" part is easy; federally legalize marijuana and tax it. Any state that decides not to uphold federally legalized marijuana would have to pay their share (from public funds) on their own.

Obviously the press will have free access to the debates however said publicly funded television network would also have open platforms on all major social networks (maybe even create a publicly funded one) so that both the press; at the venue and the general public not at the debate have access to submit questions.

But that's a crazy idea right?

Edit: Changed pages to comments

I've argued multiple times on these boards that politicians should have their income limited to a stipend from the public fund for the rest of their lives, with the severity of such limitation being a function of the importance of the office or position, and regular mandatory financial audits for a number of years again as a function of importance of the office.

Holding a position of power in public office should be to wear a heavy mantle.

Historically I've been shouted down for espousing these views, but I guess I just held them too early...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know about limiting their income to a stipend. You want competent and able people to be running for office and competent and able people tend to be competent and able, so they'll want to continue doing things. Just limiting their ability to lobby and the like should be enough.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know about limiting their income to a stipend. You want competent and able people to be running for office and competent and able people tend to be competent and able, so they'll want to continue doing things. Just limiting their ability to lobby and the like should be enough.

The problem comes down to the ability to offer a job, even if not a lobbying position, as a golden parachute for votes bought. in fact I think it might need to be even MORE than just limiting them to a stipend, as nepotistic offerings still may remain on the table, but I'm at a loss right now how to close that loophole. If someone wants to continue in life after being so limited, let them do their work for charity or pro-bono; it's not like they would need the money given a properly shaped stipend program.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I don't know about limiting their income to a stipend. You want competent and able people to be running for office and competent and able people tend to be competent and able, so they'll want to continue doing things. Just limiting their ability to lobby and the like should be enough.

The problem comes down to the ability to offer a job, even if not a lobbying position, as a golden parachute for votes bought. in fact I think it might need to be even MORE than just limiting them to a stipend, as nepotistic offerings still may remain on the table, but I'm at a loss right now how to close that loophole. If someone wants to continue in life after being so limited, let them do their work for charity or pro-bono; it's not like they would need the money given a properly shaped stipend program.

I actually rather like this idea. I think the ONLY president who has actually done something close to this is Jimmy Carter. (although there's still a lot of money there)