Quote Originally Posted by jfrazierjr View Post
Karro, as a follow up to your post 17, I have always been in favor of the 17th Amendment being kicked to the curb. Being more of a states rights person myself, I would have no problem with a system whereby the Senators were appointed to protect the rights of each individual state rather than by the people's popular vote. This method worked fine for 130+ years. Ah well.. I can keep dreaming...
Hmm. Honestly, I'm not sure what the implications of this would be. Whether we vote for our own Senators or the State Legislature which we voted for appoints our Senators... I don't know quite what difference it would make. Either way, they still think they're above their constituents.

Quote Originally Posted by CC_JAR View Post
another thing would be to have equal amounts of money for all candidates running, no fundraising, and limits set for how much they are allowed to spend campaigning.
(ie: no more than 1mil on paper ads, 2.5 mil on transportation, 3mil on tv ads) <thats an example, I have no clue what actual values would be, but just so you understand what I mean..
Yeah, I think I'm with you--that would seem most fair--but the Supreme Court apparently disagrees... they think it would be a violation of Free Speech if one party were not allowed to spend more money than the other party, or if we limited what sources the party could use for funding. (i.e. the SC swatted like so many gadflies the few reforms of McCain-Feingold that would have done something even approaching this).