Thanks for Commenting
it occurs to me that at some point richardson is going to be asked about all of the corruption on his watch.
the only answer that will save his candidacy is, yes but I passed meaningful ethics reform.
perhaps we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. if we can end up with a special session with nothing else on the table but ethics reform, including measures that will expose corruption and incompetence, maybe we will actually end up with some reform after all.
Should we impeach George Bush because he was the absentee governor of Texas in 1999-2000? Probably not, although a strong case can be made for other reasons.
Public financing of campaigns, similar to the system in Arizona, would really help. Incumbency wouldn't be the fundraising advantage it is now. It would also put average citizens with modest means in the position of having a real opportunity to be elected to office. I believe the current system will always be what it is, because BOTH parties incumbents have a vested interest in their own personal political power. I would not be surprised if half the legislature turned over after a publicly financed election. What could be better than that?
Rep federal operatives and loyalists have been abusing the Patriot Act by conducting wire-tapping without oversight. They have been turning over ALL records and files on Democratic office holders nation wide.
We are in for a Democratic purge. The recent indictments and past treasurer's incompetence being uncovered are a result of that purge.
We can conclude that the Dems that remain standing can be considered uncorrupted.
We do not have a similar conclusion for the Rep office holders.
Yes, limit campaign contributions anyway. And yes, campaign contributions are a separate issue from the type of corruption recently uncovered. However, having our office holders beholden to only moneyed interests does not serve the citizens.
Commenting by HaloScan
