I have not seen anything concerning this, but I think (IMHO) there should be term limits to get some of these aging politicians out of office. Of course Congress would not vote on removing themselves from office.
I'd say that instead of putting term limits on them, put requirements on them for things like, just for example, holding a town hall event at least once a year in your home district so your constituents have the opportunity to actually interact with you and you have to listen to them no matter how stupid you think they are. Scalise hasn't held a town hall since his first term in Congress. Do the same thing for Senators, but since their terms are 6 years, make it so they have to visit a different area of the state each year so they can't just go find an area that they're like 95% approved in and keep going back there to meet constituents.
That would be impossible but I totally get your point.How about requiring a public town hall for at least every fundraiser that is held by their campaign.
I agree with you. I have never really studied the 22nd amendment's passage, but it looked to me to be a check on the power of the electorate by the wealth elite of the time.There is at least one major group trying to get an Amendment passed.
I am opposed to it, just like I don't think we should have passed the 22nd Amendment.
You want to use taxpayer money to fund someone like david duke's campaign?Public financing and much more engagement by the officials would be far better than term limits. Term limits only means the congressmen will become lame ducks at some point with no accountability. Public financing would give them much more time to serve, rather fund raising, which is what makes them much more corruptible.
On the other hand judges, particularly Supreme court justices, should be term limited, because they really are not accountable to voters. I would set their limit to about 20 years. This would also discourage selecting ever younger judges to assure you get more time. Justices can go back to the appellate courts or get re-nominated, but only once.
I would favor raising the age minimums for federal elective office to 60 just to make sure they accomplished something other than running for Congress in their lives.
Yes, I would support taxpayer funding hateful candidates, if they meet some accepted threshold. We all pay hidden taxes via black money and politicians spending time begging for money, which also costs us with bad legislation. The threshold would have to have some allowance for the minor parties, such as the Libertarian, Green, and even an independent candidate. We already do something similar for presidents, but lately they haven't been taking it, since it puts limits on them. This would have to be a living standard as times change.You want to use taxpayer money to fund someone like david duke's campaign?