(Apologies to W. Shakespeare)
Both parties can legally accept massive donations after their candidate is elected. Future campaigns or inaugural expenses are the explanations, but it sure sounds like bribery to me.
Therein lies a major problem for our political system: it costs so much to run for office that major donors can and do dIctate our laws and policies. If money is speech, then the microphone is only on for serious money. Business as usual should not be the norm in my opinion. Donations only to those candidates you can legally vote for.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
But, but, if we take money out of politics what are those rich people supposed to do? Just vote? Don’t be ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is why I think that increasing House members to provide representation to smaller groups. 750,000 is so out of the realm of being able to connect with constituents. A good pol can probably, with help from staff, know 5-10,000 constituents at least in passing. Make that 5, 10or even 20% of his district and he will at least have a stronger community connection. Right now he is lucky to know 1%.
Of course that means going back to the Constitution. But practically, it can be done in the modern era of communication and travel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That would at the least make Gerrymandering more difficult.
While you’re at it. increase the number of Senators per state to three, so that at least one of them comes up for reelection every 2 years.
LikeLike
Sure.
LikeLike
Virginia governors cannot run for consecutive terms, but they can run again after sitting out at least one, as McAuliffe just did, but then he’s been raising money continuously for at least 20 years.
Both of our party line hack Senators raised money for their Senate runs while they were governor.
And governors raise money to support their party in General Assembly runs.
There is nothing unusual here.
I disagree with your idea of restricting donations to voters in the district being run for. Third party candidates cannot run a realistic campaign unless party members in districts where they don’t have a candidate can help.
LikeLike
We need more viable parties anyway. Our “big tent” theory is shot full of holes. Many, if not most, centrists have to pick the party they disagree with the least or compromise principles.
Parliamentary systems have multiple minor parties that the major ones have to work with to get a majority. Compromise is crucial instead of a dirty word.
For example, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal. They have no party, effectively.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”there are plenty of fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal”
Isn’t that the definition of a Libertarian? 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a close approximation, but it misses the point.
We aren’t conservative on some things and liberal on others.
We are self-ownership and non-aggression on everything.
LikeLike
RE: “There is nothing unusual here.”
Nope. There certainly is no reason to make any profound changes.
The impulse to fundamentally transform America appears to be perpetual, but it should be resisted.
LikeLike
It’s not even that, It’s just whose ox is being gored.
They had no problem with Warner, Kaine or even McAuliffe raising money while governor.
LikeLike
Did you overlook this from Len’s lede: “Both parties can legally accept massive donations after their candidate is elected.”
Your criticism is miplaced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ The impulse to fundamentally transform America appears to be perpetual, but it should be resisted.”
Having additional parties is already the norm, no fundamental change needed.
Trying to keep with the Constitutionally mandated proportion of the representatives to constituents is hardly a fundamental change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Third party candidates cannot run a realistic campaign unless party members in districts where they don’t have a candidate can help.”
Uh, why should the leadership policies of my district be controlled by some deep pockets individual or corporation from another state? That makes no sense as something that SHOULD be. If that third party cannot attract support where they are running, they need to think about why that is and adjust.
For someone who is CONSTANTLY crying “corruption” you seem not to understand that money is at the root of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since you would be quite happy with only one party, it is no surprise you seek to squelch 3rd parties.
LikeLike
Squelch 3rd parties.
Your silly insult is not an answer to the point raised. Not even close. Maybe you cannot give a good reason why money from other places has a legitimate role in local matters.
“They had no problem with Warner, Kaine or even McAuliffe raising money while governor.”
Uh, yes, we did, but we are not ready for unilateral disarmament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you believed it to be wrong then, but remained silent because it was working to your advantage.
About as expected
LikeLike
“About as expected”
You got nothing but insults today?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that not what you wrote?
LikeLike