Of course, you are correct, Chad, but unfortunately, it is highly debatable as to whether we live in a constitutionally-limited republic anymore.

A republic cannot be purchased by anyone. A republic protects the rights of the individual, a democracy grants privileges and money to individuals, groups or corporations. James Madison wanted a republic, most of the others wanted a democracy. The democracy has now evolved into a communist democracy where you can vote for the person who will enslave you.

RC, I felt like you did until it got to the point owning a business was just overcome with regulations and the control over my decisions and productivity became, well, not mine but the governments. When you are taking all the risk and having to give your earnings to ones who do nothing and every year, there are more inspections and tax increases and liberal persuasions that you are required to pay for, you say, to hell with it, they have gotten all they are going to get from me. No, I am not giving up on my own ambitions, the rewards have been stolen from me, but have changed course to produce only what I can consume..and no more for the looters and moochers to steal. Staying in contact with like minded people and planning is what we need to be doing now. The lights are going out, whether we like it or not and what emerges from that will be up to us. Remember, Dagny eventually ended up in the Gulch also..

Actually, in that regard at least, you're more optimistic than I am. I haven't donated to any party or campaign since GWB 1.

I would argue that we have that already. It's called "pork barrel spending".
Texas residents send $10B to the federal gov't and Texas congressmen do everything they can to try to bring $10B back to the state.
Kill the pork and the people keep more of their own money.
Kill the Hiway bill, and let the States manage their own roads (they might actually get fixed).
The problem with that is a state like Montana has more mile of roads then residents to pay for it. Yet we all indirectly benefit from those roads.
In a case like roads, an amendment that congress can not withhold such funds for failure to comply with unrelated legislation. the federal gov't does/can serve a purpose. But it should not have a stick.

To give you some hope for me, RimCountry, I did just donate to Florida's libertarian candidate for governor. Rick Scott is not well like in FL despite what Sean Hannity might portray things as. Things have improved in FL, despite Rick Scott, not because of him.

I like the idea, but that presumes that the Consumer Price Index is cheated on like it is now. By not including certain things (including energy and food inflation costs), the government has made inflation appear far less significant than it is.

LOL! I'll keep you posted! More to come...

LOL! I think you have to do it in a foreign country, and then you might have trouble getting back in... unless, of course, you did it in Mexico.

Exactly!

Colorado is going through some trying times right now, with the people rising up against a state government currently being controlled by a slim liberal majority. With TABOR and with the recent successful recall of two anti-2A legislators, including a member of the Democrat leadership, and a highly-publicized threat of secession by several rural counties, it's looking better than it did a year ago and the year before that.

Yes, the leadership will continue to fight against the will of the people, especially as long as they are in the majority... but you can't push the river forever.

I agree... I think it would spread it around, KH... I don't believe that the problem is just that there's money in politics... I think that maybe it's the "concentration" of money, and most of it at the federal level.

Like sulfuric acid, if the solution is diluted, you still know it's there, but it doesn't have quite the strength that it used to.

Well, there's no argument that that's what they've been doing... actually both parties... this is an effort to make a rule that breaks those rules.

But, as always, Jim, I can count on you to recommend caution, to predict that the sky is about to fall... kind of like an Early Warning System... so if you can come up with something we're missing, give me an example of a rule that they could pass that would circumvent or undercut the amendment I've described, then I'll certainly consider it.

as well, there should be a Regulatory Bill of Rights which includes means testing for determining cost/benefits to businesses and individuals. In Colorado, they passed something called TABOR.
(Taxpayer Bill of Rights). Here's what it is:

is a constitutional amendment
restricts revenue or expenditure growth to the sum of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus population change
requires tax revenues in excess of the amount set by the limitation formula to be returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax refund
requires voter approval to override the revenue or spending limits (in other words, another full-blown statewide ballot campaign)

to measure its effectiveness in the State, the state government has tried to vilify and jail its creator, you should see the NEA rant about it, it is brilliant and highly effective. However the state legislature tries to lessen its power every year.

where does the money go if 1. impose term limits 2.Require legislators spend more time in their districts 3.De-centralize (geographically the federal government)
watch the money go to other things

Your first paragraph, RimCountry, describes why I am not optimistic about your Article V ambitions. Dems will find (or create) rule after rule to find ways around existing rules.

A very difficult problem, indeed... for every rule designed to curb its influence, money (or enough of it) will always find a way around the rule, sometimes simply by influencing the creation of another rule!

Like you, I have not been able to come up with any arrangement that turns down the volume on all the political noise out there without running afoul of A1.

This may sound self-serving (because by now, everyone knows that I'm an Article V supporter), but I'm beginning to think that the way to get "money out of politics" is a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits on all elected officials, possibly at all levels, not just federal. It's relatively early here in my time zone, so I'm still a little bleary-eyed and haven't totally thought this through, particularly the unintended consequences side of things, but I think it might pass constitutional muster... if the Supreme Court in Thornton (1995) can prohibit states from imposing restrictions (e.g., term limits) on elected officials that are more strict than those imposed by the Constitution itself, then it seems to me that changing the Constitutional restrictions solves that problem.

And, once term limits are ubiquitous, it is my firm belief that one of the major drivers of the increasingly insane levels of competition for elected office will be immediately removed - the Culture of the Career Politician and the Political Elite.

And the best part is that, not only will this rescind much of the power of the Federal and restore a better balance between Washington, D.C. and the several states, not only will legislators know in advance that they will be returning at a time certain to from whence they came, to once again live among the constituents who sent them there, and to live under the very same laws that they foisted upon the rest of us, not only will we have returned the role of the lawmaker to that of "Citizen Legislator," but we will have done so with the blessing (and to the relief) of the Founders!

To clarify, I agree with what you said in opposition to free speech zones, virtual or otherwise.

Yes. I strongly disagree with free speech zone. You're saying restricting money is kind of like setting venues that happen to be free as free speech zones.

I also think any system to regulate money in politics is difficult because it's hard to stop people from giving to orgs that promote concepts like "liberty" that are known to support particular candidates without explicitly saying "vote for", "elect", etc.

Thanks for the response, CircuitGuy... I understand your quandary... you're not the first to suggest novel ways to solve this problem. I, for instance, agree with whoever it was who first suggested placing voter restrictions on immigrants, legal and otherwise, for, say 5 years after naturalization. That way there could be no concern that immigration policies were being used to benefit the current administration. Any other restriction, though, on the citizenry runs afoul of my sense of suffrage, equality, the right to petition (to "send a message" with your vote, even if it's a stupid message), and equal representation.

For me, your argument comparing web blogs to, say, a full-page ad in the New York Times breaks down when I ask myself if it would be right for government (at any level) to allow me to only voice my opinion by passing out flyers in a small, roped-off corner of the parking lot outside a town council meeting. Inside, the mayor would be telling the audience that any and all dissenting opinions may be found outside. Would that be right? And that's just to illustrate the principle of government restricting political speech by location, choosing one place over another, before we even bring money into it.

What if a city ordinance is passed such that everyone, no matter how rich or poor, can afford the same amount of political speech by limiting everyone to only one 3 inch x 5 inch political sign in their front yard 30 days prior to an election?

Absurd? Maybe, but it's what's just out of sight over the edge of that slippery slope.

One more... what if I'm from New York living in Arizona, and I have strong opinions about a certain candidate back there who I grew up with, opinions that feel need to be expressed to voters in his district, and maybe it's one of those sprawling Sun City-type retirement communities with a population nearing 40,000 people, where 90% of them don't even own a computer and they can only be reached by buying TV and radio time, or ads in the local paper?

Will the government dictate to me how much TV versus radio versus newspaper advertising I can buy, or will they dictate to those private businesses how much they are allowed to charge?

Where's that covered in the First Amendment?

The Founders lived through the reign of King George III, who also had many novel ideas about how to "fix" the disruptive results of all the annoying referenda those pesky American colonists kept having. There were more than a few reasons, most of which we can't even imagine in our wildest dreams, why they specifically chose "political" speech for constitutional protection.

This argument depends on the idea the speech = having speech published in expensive outlets. Anyone can starts a blog and speak as much as they want. Search engines in social networks help people find the speech.

If speech is the content rather than the expensive forum, then limiting spending isn't the same limiting speech. I don't have a good answer. I sometimes think we should require a test for voting because then the money wouldn't be as powerful; I think it's mostly used to sway people who aren't seeking out information and just hear an add or two. There are no good answers to money in politics, but I believe it's a real problem.

Congratulations... :-)

Thanks Kh.. for more than I can say on here :-)