On Jun 26, 9:59*am, "
wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , George
wrote:

Thats why both term limits and a restriction on running for other office
would be a good thing. You have a career/business etc and run for office
and your term is over you return back to doing whatever you were doing.
The folks who purchase politicians would need to work a lot harder that way.

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't
have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted
itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she
decides not to run, usually the last *year of their term

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. *Like
any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced.
By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd
be out.

I also don't see it doing much to stop those with
campaign money, etc from influencing them. *They
still have to run for the first election, don't they?
They still need a job afterward, don't they?

strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per
company. no PACs etc......

make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as
part of their license renewal



2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money
out........

let people who want to help the country run for congress.

it cant be worse than the current arrangement