Natural Gas exhonerates Speculators! 1

Ok, I have conversed with many via twitter that think speculators are the devil.  While I agree, as a speculator, that they are a part of the problem, I disagree that they drive price.  Instead, speculators only carry the momentum that is already pushed upon it by outside factors.  I am excited to point out the latest example of speculators being neutral when it comes to price.  Natural Gas is a commodity that is played just like oil.  There are a hundred different ways to play this commodity, but the most important point is that it is at multi-year lows.  Has demand gone down? No, but supply has gone up.  Due to fracking (no comment on the legitimacy of this process here) they are finding it under every rock in the U.S.  I exaggerate this on purpose.  Because the notion that it is everywhere is speculation.  Speculators are getting out of the trade because of an assumed over-supply.  They are correct!  This lowers the price to unheard of levels.  It is almost a 1/3 the price is was in 2010.  Where are the Senators now?  Why aren’t they out congratulating us?..  Hypocrites!

The major difference between Natural Gas and Gas at the pumps is that there are more factors for gas at the pump.  When it comes to gas, we are far more subject to feuding countries that supply it, and profit lines of major refiners here in the U.S.  Remember that it is Oil that is speculated, not the price of gas at the pump.  Big oil companies are profiting huge on the difference between the price of oil per barrel and what they can get at the pump.  Here is what I mean: Last April price of light sweet crude was $125 per barrel and oil companies were still able to make a good profit at $3.25 per gallon.  Now that oil is only $103 per barrel, they are able to charge over $4.10 at the pumps.  This isn’t speculation, but profit.

The GOP Conspiracy 1

Before I begin, I must be very clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist kind of guy nor an anti-Republican!  Therefore, it is an internal struggle to put this out there, but after several months of introspection I feel it is time.  The Republican Party seems to have conspired to keep Buddy Roemer out of the race for president.  He would never come out and say it because it opens him up for an all out attack from the party.  He would then have an even smaller chance to win an election.

What are the facts?

Buddy Roemer has all the experience you would want for a commander-in-chief.  At Harvard, he earned a BS in Economics and later an MBA in Finance.  From 1981 to 1988 he served as a Congressman.  From 1988 to 1992 he served as Louisiana’s Governor.  While there he cut the unemployment rate in half, reformed their campaign finance laws, and balanced the state’s budget.  I don’t mention this to get readers to vote for him, but to show how qualified he is to have been a candidate.  The problem isn’t what he has done, it is what he hasn’t: He has never accepted Super PAC, or special interest money.  Matter of fact, this has been his platform to get elected.  The fact that he doesn’t accept this money makes him an enemy of the state, if you will.

Imagine running Buddy out there when his platform of campaign finance reform and getting SuperPAC’s out of politics could make your party look bad, as a whole.  Fox News network, a GOP slanted news network, hasn’t even hinted that Buddy Roemer exists.  He was left out of all debates.  Why you might ask?  At first they told him he wouldn’t be allowed in the debates until he officially signed on as a candidate.  That makes perfect sense until you realize that several others hadn’t that they allowed in debates.  So, Buddy officially announces his running.  Then they told him that he had to have at least 2% of the votes of a given state to qualify.  Again, you might think that this is a fair request.  We cannot have everybody and their brother in a debate, but you have to know that when they required this from Buddy, John Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry didn’t have 2% yet they were invited into these debates.  Despite the hypocrisy of the situation, Buddy attained the 2%.  Then they said he had to have 5% of the votes.  At this time only Perry and Bachmann didn’t have the 4% but they were allowed in the debates.  Matter of fact, Buddy was ahead of both of them in the polls.  You still saw no mention of his existence on Fox News and he wasn’t allowed into the debates.  Buddy Roemer was working hard to get the 4%, and then they dropped the bomb.  They told him that he had to have a minimum amount of money raised for his campaign to get in the debates that was far beyond what he had raised to that point.  This, they knew, went directly against his platform.  He will not accept more than $100 per campaign donation.

As a result, Buddy Roemer has dropped out of the GOP race and decided to run as an Independent via the American’s Elect process.  Although I’m voting for Governor Roemer and love his platform of Campaign Finance Reform, this is not my point.  I hate the fact that politics has come to this.  Republicans snubbed one of their own because he was a threat to their pocket-book.  Democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.  It is a bi-partisan problem.  They will do anything they can to “keep the money in.”  This is why we, as a Republic, have to fight our own apathy and do something about it.  We have to support someone like Buddy.  Even if you don’t plan on voting for him, you should want a man like him in upcoming presidential debates.  His take on money in government shouldn’t be silenced or big corporations will continue to own our democracy.  We have to get the money out, and supporting people like Buddy is a way of going about it.

 

 

 

Newt’s Super PAC “uncoordinated” Reply

There are several different kinds of PAC’s (political action committee).  You have your connected PAC, un-connected PAC, Super PAC, and Leadership PAC’s.  They all boil down to one thing: raising and then throwing money at a particular issue or political campaign.  For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the campaign type of PAC.  In theory they are an avenue for people of like mind to support their favorite runner in a campaign.  The thought behind this is that it is a form of free speech.  “By donating my money to this Super PAC that supports (insert potential candidate here) I am voicing my support for him or her.”  Leadership PAC’s are very similar but they allow for spending on “non campaign costs” and the party or elected official can start this up themselves.  They can spend said money on traveling, paying administration staff, and setting up the party for which they fundraise.  So, a presidential runner might have a leadership pack to pay for everything not directly related to campaigning and a Super PAC that pays for all advertising.  The major difference is that they are not supposed to coordinate with their Super PAC.

Lets examine the idea of “coordination.” The Webster’s dictionary defines “coordination” as 1. the act of coordinating, 2. the harmonious functioning of parts for effective results.  So to put it in political terms.  A politician is not allowed to speak with his Super PAC to achieve a common goal of ultimately winning an election.  Let’s take that a step further.  Would showing up to a Super PAC fundraiser be coordination?  As the law is defined, it is.  Also, have you ever heard the end of a political commercial where they say something along the lines of, “PAID FOR BY WINNING OUR FUTURE, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. WWW.WINNINGOURFUTURE.COM.” This is at the end of a commercial attacking Mitt Romney for his Bain Capitol involvement.  The committee is supporting Newt Gingrich by attacking Romney.  It is their “free speech.”  It is run by Becky Burkett and Ricky Tyler. Tyler is his former Press Secretary and Becky Burkett was his Chief Development officer for his 527 called American Solutions for Winning our Future. 527’s aren’t allowed to expressly campaign for one candidate or against another.  Weird how their names are virtually identical.  In the above picture you will see Newt with his staff.  Two feet behind him is Ricky Tyler, but they are NOT coordinating.  That would be absolutely wrong, not to say illegal.  I would never imply that Newt’s staff includes a manager of his Super PAC.  I could be held liable for slander so I will not imply that he would do such a thing.  I’m sure that Tyler just happened to walk into Newt’s staff office accidentally.  While there, he didn’t speak to Newt about where his campaign was going or what messages he was trying to get across.  They certainly didn’t discuss that they should put out more commercials attacking Mitt Romney about Bain Capitol.  Again, that would be illegal and unethical.

What am I getting at here?  Super PAC’s are simply an avenue to dump unlimited amounts of money on a campaign.  There is no way of proving coordination unless we tap their phones.  Is Newt any worse than the other candidates?  No, he is playing the game in front of him.  It’s time to change the game.  The only free speech is that coming from the candidates.  The only difference is that they can get untapped donations to voice their political agenda.  You might say, so what… It’s free speech.  Is it really?  Understand that campaign donors are being rewarded for their donations.  As these donations get bigger, so do the favors they expect in return.  Just look at what donations of $2500 to $5000 are getting donors: http://thelobbyisteffect.com/2012/02/28/earmarks-are-a-microcosm-of-how-government-works/   Casino owner Sheldon Adelson has donated untold millions towards Gingrich’s election bid.  Does anyone really think he wants nothing in return? It goes the same for all the Presidential candidates.  Our government is for sale and the price is only getting bigger.  Money is NOT speech.

What if OWS had a single goal? Reply

Protests used to mean something.  We would protest Vietnam, equal rights, and equal liberties. I think that OWS peeps are onto something.  Just as our forefathering protestors before us, we have real issues at the heart of this movement.  Because these issues are not as overt as a sign outside a restroom door saying, “whites only” it doesn’t mean they aren’t extremely important.  The difference is that our government no longer has our best interests at heart.  They are far more concerned about justifying the huge donation they got from Corporation X.  They are in debt to their campaign donors.  It is dividing our country.

When Occupy Wall Street first began, I immediately thought of them as misguided.  Why? Because they are protesting the rich in general.  What good is that?  I’m not mad at my neighbor because he has more money than I do!  Just the same, I’m not mad at the stock broker on Wall Street if he is successful enough to drive a Lamborghini.  Who we should be mad at is our elected officials for allowing our country to be bought off.  Heck, they didn’t just allow it, they encouraged it.  They paved the way for eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act, increased the potency of Super PAC’s, forced lenders to lend to unworthy candidates, etc. etc.   In the never ending quest for campaign funding, they have sold our Republic’s soul.

I understand the frustrations of Occupiers, I just wish they focused their attention on the “fix.”  If OWS decided they wanted real change, they can force it.  If every occupy movement started communicating with each other, they could come up with common goals.  They all agree that money has corrupted our system, so why not take up campaign finance reform.  If they were to put together a piece of legislation and bring it to a Congressman/Senator that agrees with them, they could use their vast voting leverage to push it through congress.  They could call on media to help spread a single message and reach every single state.  The power of Twitter and Facebook is at their finger tips to help get this message across.

My message to you Occupiers: Stop talking about what is wrong, focus on a goal, coordinate your voting leverage, and try to get legislation into effect that “fixes” the issues.

The Republican Democrat Chasm spawned from Greed. Reply

A couple of years ago it was reported that Brett Favre’s presence in the Vikings locker room had created a Chasm.  There were teammates loyal to the quarterbacks who had already been there a few years, and doubted whether Brett could still lead a team.  In the end, he won over the locker room and got them to the NFC championship.  I always thought it was a strange way to use the turn chasm, but it couldn’t have been a more profound way of looking at the situation.  Two sides were divided by a belief and loyalties.

Today we are facing a grave situation.   Our political structure has become divided by political beliefs and loyalties, but there is no Brett Favre that can unite the team.  One would think that a president could pull together opposing sides and bridge that gap, but it is being reinforced.  Worse yet, the two chasms are actually being paid to be different. At least in Brett Favre’s situation, their team was paid to come together.  In our government, you have the Republicans being politically backed by large corporations that want limited government and a weak tax structure.  On the Democrat side, you have Unions and other interests that donate to enlarge government regulations and directly conflict with donors that back Republican issues.  This may seem obvious, but it is creating such a stalemate that nothing can get done.  The frustration is boiling over to a disgusting display of word twisting.  Both sides are culpable and both sides are ruining our country.

Because our media is no longer attempting to be unbiased, they are feeding the flames.  Instead of reporting facts, they are using only the facts that favors their side.  For example, Obama bashing is now become a sport on Fox News, a Republican slanted news channel.  In an attempt to create a mental link for the audience, you will often hear Obama referred to by his entire name: Barack Hussein Obama.  This is trashy news commentary trying to connect him to the decease dictator of Iraq.  It is the same on MSNBC News.  They often paint with a broad brush stroke trying to paint the entire Republican base with ignorant and racist strokes.  For example, instead of focusing on the fact that religious affiliated churches don’t want to sell birth control because it directly conflicts with their faith, they say that all Republicans want to get rid of birth-control.  It is a obsurdity, and unfair to force a Catholic Hospital to sell something that is against their faith.  What you will get is Catholic Hospitals closing up shop rather than knowingly commit a sin.  Who would that benefit?  Republicans, as a whole, have no problem with people going elsewhere for birth control.  You see where I’m going with this.

Both sides are intentionally creating a chasm.  They are trying to draw clearer and clearer lines in the sand intended to draw support from opposition and create more of a need for donations.  Obviously, companies that carry birth control are going to feel the need to support a democrat in elections if they are being convinced that Santorum will shut down or even affect their margins.  The same is happening on the other side.  A company like Haliburton or Lockheed Martin is reading that Democrats want to tax them into oblivion and reduce government spending on defense contracts.  The truth might be far from the truth, but they are hedging their bets by backing Republican candidates.  For the purposes of this article, I won’t even go into the tax loopholes, earmarks, and subsidies that they are trying to garner from both sides by donating.  Government officials are becoming very successful.  Donations to campaigns are at all time highs.  For example, the Presidential campaign is already 460% above its mark at this point in the last election.  Super PAC’s are pouring money into campaigns.  If you simply look at current GOP candidates, it is not uncommon to see an average of $460 spent per vote in close districts.

The result of this hemorrhage of money is that campaigns and media are devoid of all decency and unbiased truths.  Making comments like, “Romney wants to send little old ladies back to Mexico,” or “Obama shouldn’t apologize to Muslims for burning the Koran” are playing on stereotypes, fears, and racist beliefs.  Our country is being taught racism.  Political figureheads are playing on the fact that fear is creating a racist divide between Muslim and Christian beliefs.  Millions of Muslims are peaceful, but if we say it enough we can get a voter in South Carolina to believe that Obama is bowing to a murderous culture.

Our country still is the greatest country in the world.  Our freedoms that have been paid for in blood are something to be treasured, but greed in our government is driving rhetoric that will destroy our country and our freedoms.  American culture is becoming two different cultures and the before mentioned rhetoric is deepening and widening the great chasm.  Now more than ever, we have to get the money agenda out of Washington and clean up our Media or there will be no Republic to repair.

Earmarks are a Microcosm of how Government Works 7

Corporations have bought off our government.  Below is a list of some of the earmarks for 2010 that went to campaign donors.  You have to see a list like this to see the gravity of the situation, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  I cannot show you every single earmark that went to campaign donors.  I would to make a point, but it is simply too much raw data.  I know no one will read this line item by line item, but the extent will grab attention.  This is just to illustrate how bad it really is.  Also, I understand that earmarks are just a small percentage of the National Budget, but you have to remember they are a microcosm of how government works.  Tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs, anti-competition laws, etc. etc. are all written in this same manner.  They just aren’t as clearly stated that they were written for Company X that might have donated to Congressman Y’s campaign via straight donation or Super PAC.  Enjoy:

Tim Bishop Rep. (D-NY) got $13.5k in donations from STIDD Systems and gave them a $3.6mil earmark.

David Dreier (R) Rep of Cal. received donations from Chang Ind. and rewarded them w/ a $3.2mil earmark.

  • Aerovironment Inc: Donation to Dreier equals $1mil earmark.

Rich Shelby (R) Senator of Alabama gave 23 earmarks for $90mil to campaign donors or companies that lobbied him.

Sam Johnson (R) of Texas: L-3 Comm. donated to his campaign, and he gave them a $3.04mil earmark.

  • SVTronics Inc also has a cozy relationship w/ Johnson that took the next step to a $2.72mil earmark (3rd base)
  • Rockwell Collins Inc, gets a $2.4mil earmark for their efforts in lobbying and donating to his campaign.
  • Raytheon Co. donated heavily to his camp and was rewarded w/ $1.6mil earmark.
  • Mustang Tech., Sam Johnson campaign donor, got a $800k earmark.

Tim Murphy (R) of PA received campaign $ from Curtiss-Wright Corp via PAC’s and rewarded them w/ $2.88mil in earmarks.

  • Converteam Inc., a campaign donor of Murphy’s, also got an earmark.  This one only $1.6mil.
  • PPG Ind. donated directly, through PAC, and lobbied him to get their earmark of $1.6mil.
  • Eaton Corp., another Murphy donor, got a $600k earmark sponsored by Murphy.
  • National Center for Defense Mfg & Machinery donated to his campaign and was rewarded w/ a $1.6mil earmark.

One of Ed Pastor’s, (D) of AZ, biggest campaign donors is Honeywell Int.  He sponsored 2 earmarks of $4mil and $3.2mil.

  • United tech. lobbied/donated to campaign and got a $4mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Pastor.
  • Robertson Aviation dropped 100k on lobbying, much of which on Mr. Pastor.  They got a $2.4mil earmark via Pastor.
  • BAE systems, a Pastor donor, also got a $2.4mil earmark.
  • Goodrich Corp.  donated through PAC’s and received a $2mil earmark.

(R) Robert Aderholt AL congressman gave a $6mil earmark to Victory Solutions.  You guessed it, they’re donors to his camp.

  • QinetiQ North America spent a ton of $ lobbying Aderholt and was rewarded w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
  • Miltec Corp supported his campaign, and he supported their bottom line w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
  • Peopletec Inc.  Same deal.  Donated/lobbied and got an 3.2mil earmark.  Goes around comes around, I guess.
  • J2 Technologies donated to his campaign and got a mere $3mil in earmarks.  Wonder were their .2mil went.
  • SUMMA Technology spent 30k on lobbying Mr. Aderholt, and was the recipient of a $2.4mil earmark.
  • Intergraph Corp. donated to his campaign and magically got a $2.32mil earmark.
  • Raytheon Co: 1 of Edward J Markey’s (D. Representative of MA) 10 biggest donors got a $4mil earmark.
  • Foster-Miller spent 32k lobbying Markey and got a $3.2mil earmark.

Cerus Corp. dropped over 160k lobbying Edward J. Markey D. of Mass. and was rewarded w/ 2 seperate earmarks of $2.4mil.

  • ‎123 Systems: Edward Markey of MA, a $2mil earmark. Oh, ya they donated to his campaign too.
  • QD Vision lobbys Edward Markey for a Nanocrystal Source Display: They get an earmark.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D) of Conn. biggest campaign contributor was General Dynamics… Yes they got a $4.8Mil earmark from him.

  • Honeywell was a big contributor & Lobbied him, they got a $4mil earmark sponsored by Courtney.
  • United Tech., his 4th largest donor, got a $4mil earmark that he sponsored.
  • Alion Science & Tech., donated and lobbied Courtney,  weird how they got a $3.6mil earmark via Courtney.

IN (R)Dick Lugar got camp. $ from Altair,Flagship Ent, AmeriQual, and Allison Trans. Each got their own earmarks of $3mil or more

Steve Buyer (R) of IN received donations from Society of Indep Gas Marketers, BP, Bridgestone, Marathon Oil, and XCel Energy Pac.  No wonder  he twice co-sponsored: Disapproving a rule submitted by the EPA relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Mark Souder (R) of IN sponsored $3.6mil in earmarks for Raytheon Co.  and yes they were one of his biggest donors.

Andre Carson (D) of IN sponsored $9.8mil in earmarks.  1/2 of that money went to campaign donors or peeps that lobbied him.

David Loebsack (D) of IA earmarked $9.6mil for Rockwell Collins Inc. after they donated to his campaign.  $9.6mil.

R of Kan Representative Todd Tiahrt’s biggest campaign donor was Boeing.  He got a $6mil dollar earmark just for them.

  • Hawker Beechcraft, a Tiahrt donor/lobbyer got a $7mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Tiahrt’s sponsorship.
  • Kaman Corp. Lobbys him and donates to his campaign to get a modest $3mil earmark.
  • Curtis-Wright Corp is a big donor and receives a measley $1.6mil earmark.

Steven Rothman D of NJ set aside $5.6mil in earmarks for Stevens Inst. of Tech. You guessed it, they were campaign donors.

  • Dynamic Animation Systems: Yup donated to his campaign and hired lobbyists to get in Rothman’s ears and they get a $3.5mil earmark.
  • Covanta is yet another down the line where they donate and get an earmark.  This time, $2.5mil.
  • Absecon Mills donor gets $2mil in earmarks
  • Phacil Inc lobby’d Mr. Rothman and gave to his campaign, they were rewarded w/ a $2mil earmark.
  • General Dynamics too donates to his campaign and lobbys his office and is rewarded yet another $1.68mil earmark.

Bill Young earmarked $4mil for Alliant Techsystems after they contributed to his campaign and hired lobbyists to pull his ear.

  • Alakai Consulting and Engineering donated to Billy and only got $1.6mil in earmarks.
  • Contributor Honeywell got $1.6.
  • SAIC donated to the campaign and got 2.4mil in earmarks from him.
  • Bill Young R of FL co-sponsored 64 earmarks totalling $128million.
  • Raytheon Co. a $4mil benificiary contributed to his campaign.

John B. Larson D. of CT received $87k in contributions from United Tech. and rewarded them w/ $4mil in earmarks.

  • Honeywell contributed to his campaign and got another $5.6mil in earmarks.

Jim Moran has been a naughty boy.  If you look at ITT Corp, one of his donors, he granted them a $1.6mil earmark for their support.

  • Argon ST got 2.4 million and donated to his campaign.
  • Dynamis Inc. same story.  Donated to campaign; got $2mil in earmark money.
  • ObjectVideo Inc. same story: Donated and got $2mil in earmark money.
  • Innovative Defense Tech. Same-Same.. Donated to get $2.0mil in earmark money.
  • Dynamic Animation Systems then next in a long line of earmarks for this guy.  Donated and got a $2mil earmark in return.
  • Progeny Systems donated to him and only got $1.6mil in earmark money.
  • ITT Corp. got 1.6mil for their campaign contributions.
  • EM Solutions, another $1.6 million dollars in earmarks.
  • DDL OMNI Engineering.  $1.6 million and a donor.
  • MobilVox Inc. 1.6mil
  • SyTech Corp got $1.6 mil for radio inter-operability system from earmark money after donating to his campaign.
  • SAIC Inc dontated and got 1.6mill too.
  • Curtiss-Wright Corp secured 1.6 mil in earmarks through their contributions to Jim Moran.
  • Jim Moran (D) of VA also gave ManTech Int. a $2mil earmark; they too a big donor to his campaign.
  • BriarTek Inc. was Jim Moran (D) of VA 5th biggest financial campaign supporter and was rewarded w/ a $2.4mil earmark.
  • IR-Vascular Facial Fingerprinting is what they are getting the earmark for.  via the defense spending.

(R) Doc Hastings sponsored two seperate earmarks of $2.4mil that went to Honneywell and Infinia, both were top donors to his campaign…

(D) Adam Smith co-sponsored $3.5m in earmarks for Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed is one of his top five campaign contributors…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to restore our Republic Reply

I understand the concept of limited government, and in many cases agree.  There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Since, Citizens United (PAC) v. FEC in ’10 allowing Corp.’s the same rights as individuals in donating, election spending is up 460%.  This was considered a “win” for freedom of Speech and limited government conservative republicans.  Unfortunately, there are unintended consequences for this freedom.  We can now voice our free speech by spending unlimited amounts of money on behalf of the government officials of our liking.  Great thing huh?  Constitutionalists feel that this is adhering closely to our forefathers intentions, but this is absolutely not the case.

Our forefathers saw this coming and tried to write into the constitution checks and balances to combat this.  In early United States history they saw it could be a problem for foreign ambassadors accepting gifts from foreign countries:  “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”  Bottom line, they were worried that these men would become corrupted.  They couldn’t foresee the possibility of Super PAC’s being established, or that contributions from campaign donors would someday purchase legislation.  I guarantee that they would never consider money as free speech.

8 of 10 congressman & senators have given earmarks directly to campaign donors.  That’s just earmarks.  Think of all the legislation that is put into law that is tailored specifically for a donor, or the tax loopholes that are insisted upon on behalf of a campaign donor.  Lobbyists are not allowed to take congressmen to dinner, unless they bring donor checks and call it a campaign fundraising.  Why would we make it law that they cannot take them out to dinner if we didn’t realize there is a corrupting influence there.  Because money is involved, we allow them to get around the rule.  Thinking rationally, it become obvious who makes the laws.  It is almost as if they are stating, “you can’t take me to dinner… unless you bring me a whole bunch of money.  Otherwise it would be unethical.”

Proposal to fix the before mentioned problems:

  1. Limit campaign contributions to $250 annually.
  2. Eliminate all middle man donations.  (A lobbyist can’t show up w/ a stack of donor checks)
  3. Eliminate SuperPAC’s as they are already borderline illegal.
  4. Cap fundraising to 500k per election.  (this can be tailored to the office)
  5. Government match all donations up to the previously mentioned cap.

These five things would eliminate Quid Pro Quo because no person in their right mind is going to write legislation for a $250 donation.  It would cut down on the time lawmakers spend fundraising.  Currently they spend 30-60% of their time just fundraising.  The elimination of bundled donations would ensure that lobbyists don’t have undue leverage on their lawmaker.  It would really limit them to educators on issues which is all they should be.  There is a term that Buddy Roemer uses: Free to Lead.  If no one entity had donated to a congressman/senator more than $250 they would be “Free” to govern with their voters in mind instead of the Corporation that put the most into their campaign.