Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
And I was stating a broader generalization.
|
Yep, just clarifying the disconnect between your statement and Homeslice's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
You mean that's currently what the job attracts. Wouldn't someone who is familiar with handling a large corporate entity be preferable to some Zagnut who sought out political power?
|
Plenty of people familiar with running large entities seek political office. Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mike Bloomberg, and the previously mentioned Dick Cheney are some I can think of off the top of my head. The people who are familiar with that are also the least in need of and least likely to be motivated by increasing the money the position pays. The salary isn't what is keeping Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Ted Turner from entering politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
I disagree. I believe that it would be more in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers, to help create a situation in which men of good conscience could seek office, rather than merely those who can afford to buy power.
|
That is fine, but the courts have decided that money = speech. Unless that changes the vision of the Founding Fathers is effectively irrelevant. Small restrictions are possible, but a $2,400 limit on individual donations for example hasn't proven to make elections less expensive.