WHY THE RIDICULOUSLY SHORT 2 YEAR TERMS FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?

       (Everyone reading my blogs is entitled to place tongue in cheek should they choose.)
      Isn't that sounding ridiculous to you, when you consider they are campaigning from one election to the other non stop? Sure, it may have worked 4 decades ago or even more. Simply because they didn't so badly need the money as they need it now. But it was still a problem, even back then.
      Anymore, campaigning has become so darned expensive, that the representatives are paying so much attention to fundraisers, they aren't properly getting down to business in the Congress. Yet the money is necessary to be re-elected.
      It only stands to reason they would perform better in the jobs we elect them to do if that worry was more out of the way.
      I would like to suggest that members of the House of Representatives be restricted to the amount they can spend on their election campaigns, along with extending their terms to 4 years, just as the Presidential campaigns are. Term limits would apply.
      Also, to balance the scales so that campaigns cannot be controlled by Special Interest groups and individuals with unlimited amounts of money, which we know is a rampant problem, disallow Superfunds from not revealing where their money stems from. It's clearly out of control, and because the words, "Trust me" have become a signal of deception at best, limit the amounts any candidate is allowed to spend, period. Unions involving Gov't employees of any kind would not be allowed to use membership fees to support any one candidate without written authorization from each member permitting them to do so. In that letter of consent, they would designate which candidate gets their donation.
      Along with that, No company receiving Gov't funds of any kind may donate to any campaign regardless of the Political Party. Testament to that underhandedness would be AARP, for example. (They've gotten away with it for years. They receive the grant and then donate a portion of it back to the Democratic candidates.) Neat huh???
      Some thinking and proper regulating would need to be done without a doubt, but it can be done.
      Limits need to be placed on amounts any candidate can spend on one's own campaign, eliminating the advantage to one person simply because they're more well heeled. In other words, just because one person is richer, his vote is no more important than anyone else's.
      When our Founding Fathers referred to "One man, one vote" it was intended to place every registered voter on equal ground, and that is most certainly the way it should be.
      All changes, laws and new regulations concerning elections would require initiatives voted on by registered voters, not by "appointed" officials. Appointed officials would only see to it the regulations are carried out accordingly. Particularly "appointed" judges.
     Last, but not least, until the new regulations are put into effect, all politicians completing their present terms would be required to spend 2 years in jail before receiving their pensions because we all know darn well they've done something underhanded to line their pockets while in office! LOL.  Just sayin'.