US Senate candidates still manually file their campaigns' finance reports

There is an unmet abuse of our campaign finance system.  It has gone on since the capitol has started electronic filing to the Federal Election Commission.

It is common practice for senate candidates to manually file their campaigns' forms to the FEC, instead of filing electronically.  The idea behind this management practice is to delay their finances' openness.

Hey, US senators, Washington watchdogs have known about this FEC abuse for years.  And there are no excuses for not filing electronically from your offices' computers.

Giving money to a bill's legislators is wrong

An established method of gaining influence in legislation is to give money to its legislators.

If there is a bill being debated on, even early in the process, special interests affected by it donate money to campaign coffers in favor of a particular outcome.

This is a blatant form of corruption that has no place in the working of the legislative process.  The peoples' representatives should deny access or influence in the form of money, as the money is of no benefit to the deliberation of the legislation at hand.

Reform our campaign finance system for all elective offices

The amount of money spent on campaigns for most levels of government has increased greatly recently.  However, the first concern should be the transparency issues of the donors.

There are campaign rules from the Federal Election Commission and from the individual states, depending on what level of government a contested office is in.  The federal (national) offices' campaign regulations are now compromised due to a dis-functional FEC.

A better electoral system for all government office openings is public financing.  By freeing all candidates from campaign fundraising, they can focus on the voting public in their respective races.

Open up the monied speeches of politicians

A common income from present and former political officeholders and leaders is giving speeches to groups in the private sector.  The amount for each speech varies by the politico; each one can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars; fundraiser speeches by office candidates can run into the millions.

Is it ethical to "cash in" political value he may hold?  Should he be more egalitarian, and contract only minimal fees for his speeches?  How important to the general public-- those not attending the event-- are these speeches?

Times change, and so do the speeches.  There should be more transparency to these events; the public needs to know what these important people have to say.

Judges and conflicts of interest

Right now, across the nation, private political donations are going to judicial candidates.  One can look at their campaigns' periodic financial reports; even so, some donor groups don't have to open up their donation information.

This unleashes corruption when court cases try judges' campaign donors.

When the plaintiff and the defense go to court on a case, they should determine whether its judges hold a conflict of interest in it.  They may open a reality that is too obvious to ignore.

Money in politics? or communication?

Money in politics is nothing new.  It's not right, however.  Just because a politician claims that "money is the mother's milk of politics" doesn't make it right.

Take lobbyists, for instance.  The ones who ask for the most compensation are the ones most sought after by special interests.

If you have a concern you would like your representative to know about, go to them in their office or during their days in their districts.  Money never solves problems; it only gets in the way of communication.

Voters must demand issues, not the race

All too often, the political season of elections analyzes campaigns as either winners or losers.

The catch is that the consideration is done during the political season, not on election day.

Yes, a candidate's personal background is important.  But issues are what separates the statesman from the sinner.

When industry scientists are politicians

Politics is the only arena I know, where company scientists are lobbyists.

Take producers of crude oil.  They employ full-time only scientists that are willing to cut standard practices in order to put their employers in a good light.

Ah, the power of money to get exactly what you want, whether it's ethical practices or it isn't.

We can't vote if we don't know who donates (and why they donate)

Right now, corporations can donate anonymously and unlimited to political campaigns.

Also, right now people can give $25 directly to their candidate's campaign.

As a voter, which of the two donors should be honored?  Which donor can also be a voter?

* Of course, the Federal Election Commission would answer what is legal and what is not, if they weren't politically corrupt like they are now.

Legislators, don't waste work time meeting with campaign donors

When are we constituents going to get full representation from our elected officials?  They spend half of their time asking donors for money to support their next campaign for office.

In the private world, they would be fired for taking so much time off.

Our representatives already have a hectic work schedule; they should worry more about legislating than making money.

All too often, money replaces merit in politics

All too often, money fuels politics in place of merit.

All too often, money factors the strength of candidates for government office.

All too often, money raised wins powerful positions in political parties.

All too often, money raised determines leadership in house committees.

All too often, money is spent for negative campaigning by candidates.