John Ross,Jekyll Island? Tell me more.

should have the right to do as they wish with their money.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that donations can have NO LIMITS! I do know a way around this that eliminates corruption. You can donate all you want in maximum amounts of $100. mrpresident2016.com

Exactly correct.
However, my impression is that we were discussing hypothetically. I answered that in the way of a reasonably uncorrupted government. Otherwise, there is no point to asking the question.

It should not be necessary to restrict this. Our Constitution was intended to protect us against against the government. The problem is they pay no attention to the Constitution anymore.

We should be able to hide if we want to. Not being able to hide is the best way to become targeted by government agencies like... any of them. It has happened plenty in my state.

First: Government employees do NOT vote themselves money. House of Representatives is the only body that can vote money; Senate must "agree," President must sign. Where in this does the "government employee" reside?
Second: The teachers do not belong to the government. If teachers cannot, or better yet WILL NOT, stand up to their union, then that has absolutely nothing to do with government employees and how government employees will or will not vote. The "proof" that was presented in the article is bogus.
Third: I know individuals who are teachers. In fact, my son is a teacher. I agree that pressure is placed on teachers to "vote" a specific way. So what. No officer of the teacher's union goes into the voting booth with the teacher when they vote. Again it boils down to: is the individual a "herd member" or a "non-herd member" or to put it a different way is the person someone who is willing to stand up for themselves or succumb to the will of someone else. And once again, that has nothing to do with a "government employee" and everything to do with all human beings.

Then the solution is that government employees not be required to pay taxes on their salaries, but they give up the right to say what their salaries should be, i.e. no vote in whatever jurisdiction that pays their salaries. If given the choice of pay taxes or vote, 99% would probably give up the vote.

So be it...no employees...problem solved...how about NO money in campaigns...media makes money no matter who they interview...equal time to each, make your own way around the country, town hall to town hall...nothing lavish...just You unplugged...

I would support an amendment that says that the number of federal government employees maxes out at 1 in 1,000. At our current population of 319 million, that still leaves 319,000 employees. I would exclude the Armed Services or place a separate figure on them. Current figures place Federal government employment at 2.7 million. See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/t.... Of course if they can only employ 1/10th of what they have now, it would mean they would have to gut programs like SS, etc. ;)

The proof I presented was in the article. And it is no small measure to ask any teacher if they get pressured by their unions to vote for Democratic candidates more than more conservative ones. That's why union dues are such a big deal. Any kind of public sector work union is going to exhibit the same problems (which is why I think they should be illegal).

Now, that isn't because I have discounted your concerns about where the infringement ends. I asked for more opinions because I shared your concern. What I'm trying to do is solve the problem identified by several Founding Fathers including Benjamin Franklin when he said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." Effectively, that is what we have in the public/government workers unions and it is destroying fiscal constraint in government.

Here again, however, is a case of the fox guarding the chickens. Who is responsible for law enforcement? The very same people involved in committing the original infractions. The only way effective enforcement is possible is impartiality.

So, the "you" have some Constitutional Right to ban government (sic Federal Government) employees from voting because the "you" have determined there exists an "inherent bias to vote for more government as a product of self-interest." I would ask you to provide your scientific proof of that statement but will not since I already know you do not have any. If a person, be that person a someone who works for private industry or government (local, state, federal) can be either one of two types: A member of a herd; or, an individual who does not follow the herd. A herd member is a person who is one who will follow the will of the herd even if the individual does not desire or believe in what the herd wants to do. A non-herd member is an individual who will do their own bidding regardless of any pressure from any herd they are associated with. So... once someone begins to restrict "one group" of people from voting, and restricting "one group" of people from "donating" ... then who's next on the chopping block and where does it end? And, who are the people who decide who cannot vote? And, it is OK to restrict people from their Constitutional rights... as long as it is not you... correct?

Thanks very much for your input, as this is one of the things I was trying to weigh in my conclusion. The crux of your argument seems to be that if one pays taxes, one should get to vote to participate in how those taxes are distributed. It hearkens back to the rallying cry at the Boston Tea Party: no taxation without representation! And I have to agree, which is why this question presents conflicts to me.

To go along with your idea that food stamp and other welfare recipients have their votes rescinded as the price for living off the rest of us (which I wholeheartedly agree with btw), maybe we reduce government salaries and exempt them from taxation and in exchange, they don't get to vote in general elections. If they aren't getting taxed, they can't claim a loss of representation as being unfair. Government contractors are a whole other story, but might fit in this category as well. (And who knows: if we can get enough businesses classed as exempt maybe we can just kill the whole personal income tax scheme =D).

With regards to the property votes, originally, this was supposed to be who the Senate primarily represented. I am of the strong opinion that the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed/overturned, returning election of Senators to State Legislatures. I also support the Electoral College (appointed by Governors) as being the proper selectors of the President rather than popular vote.

One more idea to piggy-back on yours... For quite some time, I have floated within my own mind the notion of restricting donations to candidates directly represented by one's precinct. ie I can't donate money to a governor's race in Indiana if I live in Illinois. It would completely gut PAC's and the DNC/RNC apparachiks, and I believe that it would restore accountability to the candidates themselves. I would also place the onus on the candidates themselves, rendering their entire eligibility upon the vetting of their donors and donor amounts (of course it would also be illegal for someone to funnel money through a legal resident).

It is pretty obvious that there was coercion involved. However, It would be unconstitutional to prohibit donations to your favorite candidate or party. Instead, with a bit more effort, track down the party who is doing the coercion and penalize them.

I'm a government employee...not Federal, but state.

Saying that, yes, taxpayers pay my salary. However, I am ALSO a taxpayer and have just as much say as any other citizen on how those tax dollars should be spent.

While we're on the subject, if government employees were barred from voting, shouldn't civilian contractors (with government contracts) also be banned? We might as well ban welfare and food stamp recipients (actually, I might agree with that).

Personally, and I expect to receive some criticism on this, I would like to see only property owners be allowed to vote, but that's just my opinion...

Thank you for your service!

Oh, and I agree. I'm just trying to not be too one-sided in my approach and making sure that my ducks are all aligned, as it were.

A lot of people tend to consider their tax rate as being equal to their income tax rate. It is actually much higher. So not only do your dollars go to federal programs and candidates you don't actually want, your property tax go to schools that indoctrinate kids to vote Democrat, your sales tax goes to roads you don't care to use. A 50 percent tax is not out of the question.

The GDP is 53,041.98 USD (2013). Debt is about 154,611 USD (2015). So at least 35 months of slave labor is required from each American to pay down the debt.

It would be interesting to see who the police, military, and judges vote for versus who work for the EPA the EPA, social programs, schools, and DMV vote for. My guess is the first group votes conservatively (with the exception of certain judges), while the second group votes liberally. I could be wrong.

I appreciate you sharing your point of view ;^)

YES and their should be a limit on the number of government employees TOO!

Not only do I agree, but I'd extend it to anyone who takes any net government money than they pay in for taxes.

"If there isn't you are acting fraudulently"

I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that the argument (correctly rejected IMO) was that the offender claimed an unlimited right of free speech in that case. If the right is unlimited, it doesn't matter whether or not fraud or deceit were involved. Do you now see why the notion of an "unlimited" right is in and of itself a false argument? What you are really saying is that there is context appropriate to the expression of a right and that context matters. And I agree with you in that. What I am pointing out is that that very context is in and of itself a limitation on that particular right.

Another example? Let's look at the right to vote. If the right to vote were unlimited, one would have the right to vote in every county in your state, in every state in the nation, and even in other nations. That's prima facie absurd. Why? Because context matters. Voting is restricted to one's own precinct within one's own nation. Unless you're a Democrat of course. ;)

Yes, strict scrutiny is a legal term. But it very much also represents a philosophy: the philosophy of limited government. It qualifies from a very philosophical standpoint when the government may get involved in regulation because the underlying principles are 1) that rights do not emanate from government, 2) that government is a caretaker only (of rights), and 3) that government interference should start from the most restricted standpoint. This differs greatly from the current Progressive judicial philosophy of "the ends justify the means", of which the underlying philosophy is that 1) rights stem from government and 2) what the government giveth, the government is wholly justified in retracting. ALL law is ultimately philosophy in some way.

You can't vote if you are under 18, a convicted felon isn't supposed to vote, people here illegally aren't supposed to vote. I do understand your point but my thinking is that we do restrict voting now so I like the idea of restricting it further.