Changes needed to attract most qualified people to run for office
Tom Patterson
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
5 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Rich posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Jan 14, 2012.
Frankly, I don't want them to have enough power or money that their qualifications are important. They are currently overpaid, but then given their performance, free would be too much to pay. And yet we will re-elect some of them, the fault is not in our legislature but in ourselves.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:09 pm on Sat, Jan 14, 2012.
Everything was going great (I agreed with almost all of the Column) until he made a reference to the ..........UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE = Red Flags all over the place.
The reason the Utah State Legislature only meets for 45days is because it's decision-making is done by a ....HIGHER AUTHORITY.
Let's face facts here Folks, if a politician wants to get re-elected he/she had better follow the "straight and narrow" and that ends at Temple Square.
So let's just let the ...Arizona Legislature be the Arizona Legislature...warts and all. It's fun seeing the Democrats holding out their votes until the poor Speaker or Senate President has to ask for the 3rd time....."Has everybody voted"......LOL.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:23 am on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
OK,
As an "East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net), a retired physician and former state senator" I suppose we need to give Tom some credit here. He should know what he is talking about. "The reform that seems to hold the most promise for attracting more talent to the legislature is to hold more limited, structured sessions." Getting the semi-pros out and allowing the real pros in, those who earn their livelihoods the honest way, does make sense. So does imposing term limitations. That's the sort of small government [the legislature] that seems to make the most sense.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:11 pm on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
The problem with Clean Elections is that they didn't make it the EXCLUSIVE funding for all candidates.
Every candidate should get the same amount of money to campaign with and tv and radio stations should give each candidate an equal number of free spots as a public service for being allowed to use the airways to make money.
NO OTHER CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS ALLOWED.
No wealthy candidate can buy his own airtime.
No supporting group can put out commercials or ads or any type of tv or radio material that supports a candidate OR ISSUE.
The exception being for issues that are being voted on by the people. If they are voting about an issue it's different than voting for a politician who owes wealthy sponsors.
All candidates get an equal amount of money for signage and mailings.
That puts everyone on an even footing and eliminates owing wealthy sponsors anything whether they be wealthy individuals or corporations.
And then slap term limits on top of that.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:14 pm on Sun, Jan 15, 2012.
If tv and radio stations had to give politicians free campaign spots -- an equal number and time for each candiate, then the expense to the state for campaign mailers and signage wouldn't be that excessive.
Perhaps have an income tax deduction ( state ) for giving money to the fund and those funds be dedicated so they can't be stolen for some other purpose.