Three Steps to End Congressional Corruption

Recently, Glenn Beck, one of the true Patriots in journalism today, spoke of the disease coming out of Washington. He likened it to the spread of the swine flu, only this flu is the corruption spreading around the country as Congress spreads federal funds to all their supporters.

He spoke of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and how he wants to find just 56 men and women, Democrats and Republicans, in Congress, who will agree to quarantine this disease called corruption by refusing to sign any new bills until the corruption is fumigated.

I think there are three things that can be done that are specific that will drastically reduce corruption.

 1. Term Limits.   The majority of corruption is  industry lobbyists bribing our servants in return for a bill and/or amendment promising to take it easy on their particular industry. 

The best way to fumigate the Capitol is to usher in term limits.  One term for House members and one term for Senate members. The reason is very simple: once elected, the lobbyist has no controlling authority over the above mentioned servant since that servant doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected. He or she will be more likely to listen to the people.  It will be less important to the Congressman/Congresswoman to feel the need to help the lobbyist since he or she will no longer need the lobby money to get reelected.

This would not end all corruption. However, it would reduce the amount of money being handed over.  Why give money to a scum bag in Washington when there is no guarantee they will vote the way you want them to vote?  I sure wouldn’t.

 2. Cut the Federal Budget 50%.  Cut regulatory laws 50%.  The reason corruption is so rampant is because government is intimately involved in so many areas of our lives. Seriously, how much corruption is there in the Burger King/Wendy’s Wars for our burger dollars? How much corruption is there in the Microsoft/Mac wars?  Zilch.  When the federal government is involved in Housing, you better believe lobbyists from ACORN, banks, builders, mortgage lenders, and real estate brokers will be in town swaying opinion.  When government is involved in healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, HMO’s, mandates on states), you know the lobbyists from all sides of the political spectrum will be flocking to your favorite Senator’s office to “share information” with him/her.

Cutting 50% of the money the federal government spends, and the regulatory laws they design, will necessarily mean fewer areas to be able to lobby in, as government will not be involved in them.  It would be really hard to lobby Congress on healthcare if the government were not involved in it to begin with.

 3. Campaign Finance Reform.  I am an economic libertarian and a social conservative, and I don’t understand why my friends on the right don’t see this the way I do.

The law should be that only citizens living in the district in which a candidate is running for office can donate money to that campaign.  I hear about the “freedom of speech” in the 1st Amendment being torn down when I suggest this.  That is crazy.

First, the first ten Amendments-the Bill of Rights-are rights we inherently have as human beings-not as rights we have as corporate lobbyists.  It was put there for individuals–not NOW, ACORN, Trial Lawyers, AARP, NEA, and others.  For example, public school education stinks because too many Democrats and some Republicans receive NEA money and will vote to make the union better, not the education of our children.  Since the founding fathers didn’t believe government should be involved in corporations to begin with, how can anyone in their right mind think that freedom of speech means that a PAC based out of Washington, DC,  should be able to help elect a person running for office in Georgia?

Second, ask yourself this question: If only people living in the contested district can donate money to those people running against one another, name me ONE person whose freedom of speech has been denied?  You can’t.  My law would still allow every single citizen in America to give as much money to any candidate as they see fit-in their district or state.  

Third, this would make elections cheaper to run.  They would be more localized. The elected leader would be funded by the very people who work in the industry the leader represents, creating fewer opportunities for that leader to go against his constituents because of money from Trial Lawyers or the Insurance Lobby or the AMA.


I look forward to your opinions!!


Shannon 1776

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: