As I understand the pecking order of the current system, those congress people with the most seniority get the choicest and most powerful committee assignments AND those with the majority party are the ones selected to chair the committees. Committees decide which legislation gets to the floor of congress and which does not with the chair person more or less having veto power over the committee's recommendations.<quoted text>
I understand your reticence here, but how else do we stop the purchasing of our political system and government but by eliminating the ability of those entities to purchase?
With that system in place, it behooves a lobbyist to find a congress person sympathetic to the lobbyist's cause and then the lobbyist does everything he can to increase the congress persons seniority AND do eveything he can to make the congress person's party the majority party. Thus, the money flows pretty freely.
My theory is that while the lobbyist will still support those candidates most sympathetic to the lobbyist's cause, the lobbyist's incentive to pump large amounts of money into a "one and done" (one term limit) election as well as to keep pumping money into a candidate's coffers after the election, is considerably diminished because, with a "one and done" amendment, there is no re-election. I suspect that the money supply will dry up on its own and at the same time perserve the candidate's right to free speech, which every candidate deserves.