I was overseas during the most intense stage of the 2008 US Presidential Election; thankfully. However, I was not completely spared from this ludicrous ‘politics the American way’ even outside the country- think CNN international, think Wall Street international edition … basically think the inability to escape it all thanks to the globalization of the news, more like Americanization of the global news. The around the clock coverage of elections a la USA was booming in the background, more like foreground, of every single international (Western) hotel and resort, tourist hangout cafes and bars, and airport lounges. And I heard many comments from ‘outsiders’ on the ridiculously long, expensive, and show-like phony distraction called Presidential Election USA. Of course, deservedly, many of those comments were ‘snarly.’ Some were plain witty and truthfully hilarious-muckraking a la Brits.

I almost never disagreed with the outsiders’ assessment of and take on our painfully long, money-driven and for-show-scripted presidential election season. However, I slightly differed in one characterization:

Many referred to our uber costly and glitzy presidential race as ‘A Dog & Pony Show.’ I certainly saw, and still see, the appropriateness of this characterization of our presidential race: A Dog & Pony Show. But I had, and still have, my own characterization that applies equally well, and actually goes even deeper: A One-Man-Owned Cock Fight.

A Cock Fight is a contest in which gamecocks usually fitted with metal spurs are pitted against each other. Here is a bit more expanded description:

A cockfight is a blood sport between two roosters (cocks), held in a ring called a cockpit. Cockfighting is now illegal throughout all states in the United States, Brazil, Australia and most of Europe.

The combatants, referred to as gamecocks, are specially bred birds, conditioned for increased stamina and strength. The comb and wattle are cut off in order to meet show standards of the American Gamefowl Society and the Old English Game Club and to prevent freezing in colder climates. Cocks possess congenital aggression toward all males of the same species. Cocks are given the best of care until near the age of two years old. They are conditioned, much like professional athletes prior to events or shows. Wagers are often made on the outcome of the match. While not all fights are to the death, the cocks may endure significant physical trauma. In many other areas around the world, cockfighting is still practiced as a mainstream event; in some countries it is government controlled.

…

There are variations and regionally based differentiations in cockfighting shows and betting-gambling, but the two main ones are based on one owner-two cocks or two-owners-two cocks.

I happen to view our presidential race as a one-owner-two cocks show. Of course, initially, during the primaries it all starts with several cocks-one owner, and after that it gets narrowed down until we have two cocks-still-standing and one-owner. To understand this a bit better you must look at the major backers of our presidential candidates; take the last round in 2008: Obama-Clinton-McCain. Take a look at the fund-ers, owners. What do you see? Military Industrial Complex mega players, Financial Industry mega players, Oil industry mega players …All spreading their bets between three cocks, and later on two. They train and groom their multiple cocks, write the show scripts for the PR-Marketers (mainstream media), let the cocks put on the show, and no matter which cock wins, they get to win.

So yes, we Americans love everything big: big cars, big houses, big food portions, and big-glitzy and ludicrously long presidential election races with way too many bells and whistles, which  can appropriately be called ‘A Dog & Pony Show.’ When examined closer a better analogy seems to be a One-Man-Owned Cockfight.

*** A few readers have suggested that we cover the 2012 presidential election here @ Boiling Frogs Post. I personally would rather stay away from all that nonsense glitz. After all, the entire MSM is covering it 24 X 7, and almost all popular blogs-forums have committed their entire sites to it. However, I would like to hear from more of you.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

According to our inside sources a new Bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Prozac will be launched before the end of the 112^th Congress. The primary purpose of the Prozac Caucus will be to raise awareness and advocate for this ‘miracle drug’ aka ‘happiness pill,’ on the grounds of combating homegrown terrorism and domestic violence, lowering the national divorce rate, and increasing the level of general job satisfaction among the restless American workforce. “Increasing the level of general satisfaction and happiness, while decreasing the effects of violence and despair inducing factors such as anxiety and depression, are the major keys to achieving long term national security, family unity, and work force stability. With Prozac we believe we can achieve all that and more,” said a congressional aide who wished to remain anonymous. The caucus will have an interactive website with easy-to-print promotional materials and a password protected section for physicians titled ‘Patriotic Physicians for a Secure America.’

Let’s start with what is a congressional caucus, or at least what it is supposed to be, in theory that is. A congressional caucus is a coalition of House and Senate members who meet to discuss specific legislative priorities and policy issues. Caucuses ‘supposedly’ allow members to discuss issues to determine their positions and make sure their votes are informed. They can also give ‘advocates’ a chance for a group of legislators to champion their cause on the Hill. You may go ahead and change ‘advocates’ to ‘lobby and you’ll be even more on target.

When we look at the long list of these caucuses, a list that initially had only a few but seems to lately  have taken off rapidly, we see some caucuses that seem rather ‘ordinary and expected;’ for example,  Children’s Environmental Health Caucus or Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus. We also see some ‘amusing’ ones, such as Congressional Bike Caucus, Congressional Soccer Caucus, and Congressional Boating Caucus.

You follow me so far? Okay, then there are more than a few caucuses that are ‘confusing:’ Democratic Israel Working Group, Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, Congressional Friends of Jordan Caucus, and other ones for Turkey, Jordan, etc.  Why do I say ‘confusing’? Well, in the above paragraph we outlined the caucus definition, which includes ‘giving advocates, aka lobbies, a chance to influence, aka lobby, their cause through the members of their caucus. In this case, the advocates, aka lobbies, are foreign, and this means ‘direct foreign influence,’ and that in turn would make the representatives in these caucuses who then influence and lobby the rest of the Congress ‘foreign agents.’ Think of it as two-tiered foreign lobbies: First, the registered foreign lobby influencing the target caucus, then, the caucus acting as a lobby for that foreign lobby to influence and lobby the rest of the Congress.

Finally, there are some ‘just plain eyebrow-raising’ caucuses that have been popping up and gaining momentum recently. Probably you haven’t heard of them. Please don’t kick yourself for not knowing. Save that kick, or cancellation of subscription, for the news media you’ve been following. Okay, back to ‘eyebrow-raising’ caucuses. Here is one example:  The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Caucus, which has recently changed its name to the Unmanned Systems Caucus. Thanks to Corey Pein’s WarisBusiness site I was made aware of this scandalous caucus:

The motivation for members to join the UAV Caucus (not to be confused with the A/V Club) may be national security or job creation, but the caucus is also where members of Congress directly show their allegiance to an industry that donated generously to their war chests.

How much? In the 2010 election cycle alone, UAV-related political-action committees donate more than $1.7 million to the Caucus’ 42 members.

In February 2009, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), at the time the ranking Republican on House Armed Services, co-founded the UAV Caucus. He began to hold meetings on the future of the military systems and by the end of the year he had launched a website–on House servers–for the caucus, which was ostensibly designed to provide news on UAVs and connect members of Congress with the industry.

…

…caucus has served as the Congressional booster for the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. The UAVSI “Advocacy” page gives am overview of all the ways its members can maximize that relationship;In addition to whatever legislation and appropriations, caucus support has manifested in the opportunity to give committee testimony, visits from Congressmen, keynote speeches, meetings with legislators on “AUVSI DAY,” roundtables, facility tours, but perhaps most notably, a tech fair sponsored by McKeon’s office at the Rayburn House…

…

We filtered the 200 AUVSI corporate members to only the “Diamond” and “Platinum” members, then further narrowed the list to only those with corporate PACs. A stark picture emerged: Altogether, these PACs accounted for $1,788,800 in contributions in the 2010 to the members of the caucus. This figure doesn’t include members who weren’t reelected, such as AUV Caucus co-founder Rep. Allan Mollahan (D-WV), who was defeated in last year’s Democratic primary. Two of the newest members of the caucus—Rick Berg (R-ND) and Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)—received nothing from these PACs, probably because their incumbent opponents were the defense industry’s favorites.

…

You can read the rest of Pein’s revelatory piece here, but I think you all get the point on ‘eyebrow-raising’ caucuses. I guess it wasn’t a really long leap from the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Caucus to the Bipartisan Caucus for Prozac!

The expected chairman of the upcoming caucus who would neither deny nor confirm the formation of the Caucus for Prozac had the following to say (of course on the condition of anonymity):

“Listen, I’ve always taken pride in being a constitutionalist, and the formation of this caucus is further proof…Somewhere in the Constitution it says people should pursue happiness and their government should help them go get it. See? This is exactly what this caucus is about: help and encourage people to get happiness!”

The congressman may have been a bit under the ‘happiness pill’ influence. He must have meant the Declaration of Independence; not the ‘Constitution,’ and, the passage he must have been thinking of was probably this:  ‘All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…’Oh well, at least they are taking the pill they are anxious to sell others.

The expected co-chairman from the opposite party also commented off the record:

“As a nation we are losing our edge, our competitiveness, in so many areas; manufacturing, R & D, services…even in the Global Happiness Index!! We are America. We must be number one. It is time to declare war on unhappiness! With this caucus we are doing just that: declaring war on unhappiness, and getting competitive on the happiness front. If unhappiness is the enemy, this pill is the weapon to kill it…to quash the damn thing. With this caucus we’ll get Americans to swallow this pill… swallow it big time, and in no time they will rank number one again…at least in the happiness department…”

The expected cochairman was talking about the annual World Happiness Index report on countries. Judging from his hawkish tone and aggressive language, he was either not taking the pill, or, exhibiting one of the known adverse reactions to it. The follow up call to check on this was not returned.

With the new trend taking hold in the formation of congressional caucuses, some refer to them as neo-caucuses, other members are frantically working to stake out new territories and mark their turf. There are many empty caucus spots to grab: The Caucus for McDonalds, The Caucus for the F-35, The Caucus for JP Morgan, The Caucus for Pepsi Cola …So many caucuses to form, so little time!

Click here for our previous satirical pieces under Boiling Frogs Beltway Buzz.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Political donation laundering-rechanneling (PDLR) is a business in its own right, whether it is for pre-election donations or post-election maintenance contributions.  In most cases, PDLR requires savvy strategists and planners, quick-witted implementers, friends and enablers in high-places, and a high degree of creativity, almost to the point of being artistic. However, once in a while, an extraordinary situation may present itself, where neither imaginative planning nor creative strategy is necessary, and where limitless dollars can be channeled to Candidate A or Public Servant B or Representative C in plain sight. Really! In the PDLR world they call this the Miraculous Human Funnel. For the last ten years Former President Bill Clinton has been PDLR’s continuous miraculous funnel, and what a funnel he’s been, indeed!

Since leaving the White House in 2000, the Hillary-Bill Clinton duo have expanded their wealth by more than 100 fold to over $110 million dollars. In 2000 the Clintons left the White House with an $11 million dollar debt and annual income of $358,000. But within eight years, through ‘speaking fees,’ books, and a maze of ‘mysteriously smart investments,’ the couple’s net-worth exceeded one hundred million dollars. When asked, when pressed a little (only ‘a little’ thanks to the extreme kindness of US mainstream media when it comes to the Clintons), they attribute their ‘great fortune’ to the demand for Bill Clinton as the ‘Orator Extraordinaire.’

You see, there’s always been a certain degree of demand for former US presidents’ speeches, at least for those in the last three decades, but never anything like the bewildering demand for Bill Clinton; not even close; both in terms of the dollars per speech and the quantity of invitations. But then again, there has never been a former president in a very special situation like this; one with a wife as a senator (serving on the Committee on Armed Services among others) and later as Secretary of State. With a wife in such positions, no wonder the great demand, whether it is China or Kuwait or Columbia; whether it is Goldman Sachs or Citigroup or Sakura! Who said ‘Talk is Cheap’! The top players in the PDLR business circuit call him the ‘miracle funnel boy. Here is one example:

Many of Bill Clinton’s six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton’s top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 — putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton’s top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004. Last year, it committed $5.5 million for Clinton’s Global Initiative to help encourage entrepreneurship and financial education among the poor.

…

Now interestingly, two-thirds of Bill Clinton’s speaking money came from foreign sources. Somehow, outside the United States clients are willing to pay even more to hear him speak! As for the timing ofthis foreign demand intensification:

In the last nine months of 2008, Bill Clinton made at least $150,000-a-pop speaking to groups in some of the very places where his wife now will now represent American diplomacy, from India to Kuwait to China to Malaysia. In fact, the latter three speaking stops came in the last month-and-a-half of the year, as the Clinton and Obama camps were hammering out the agreement under which President Obama ultimately offered Hillary Clinton the job as top diplomat.

The National Bank of Kuwait paid Bill Clinton $350,000 for a Nov. 16 speech, while Hong Kong’s Hybrid Kenetic Automotive Holdings shelled out $300,000 for a talk Dec. 4 and a Malaysian foundation paid $200,000 for Clinton to speak the very next day in Kuala Lumpur.

…

The former president in 2005 helped the U.S. arm of Israel’s treasury authority sell $101 million in investment bonds by speaking at a luncheon at the Pierre Hotel in New York that was jammed with real estate executives who wanted to hear his keynote address.

…

Of course, the Clinton couple has been the darling of the Military Industrial Complex. Whether throughout her senate candidacy, senate residency, or presidential candidacy, the Clintons have counted on and greatly benefited from the mega corporations of the military industrial complex. You’d think with all his history (veteran, great supporter of MIC) and hawkish stand, John McCain should have gotten the largest chunk of MIC contributions during the race, right? Not so:

Employees of the top five arms makers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.In an unexpected development, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, raised just $19,200…

So we have the financial mega corporations, MIC, and foreign lobby all covered in their funneling to Hillary Clinton the senator and later Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, via their miraculous funnel boy. But wait, there is more. Thanks to the US media, so far, we have been able to identify only two criminal corporations who have ‘funneled’ to Hillary Clinton via the Orator the Extraordinaire:

Clinton receives thousands of speaking requests a year and accepts a few hundred. Despite the extensive vetting, at least two companies that booked him were under federal investigation.

In February 2005, Clinton traveled to the Paradise Island resort in the Bahamas and collected $150,000 from Swiss biotechnology giant Serono International for a speech that touched on global AIDS. Serono’s U.S. arm was then embroiled in a well-publicized federal investigation into giveaways to doctors who unnecessarily prescribed its AIDS drug. A few months after the speech, the company pleaded guilty to two federal conspiracy charges and agreed to pay $704 million in fines.

Clinton also accepted $125,000 in December 2001 to address workers at International Profit Associates, an Illinois company that advises small businesses. At the time, IPA was the focus of a federal investigation — started during the Clinton administration — and a government lawsuit alleging widespread sexual harassment.

Like many who have paid the former president to give a speech, IPA executives have been helpful to his wife’s campaigns in New York. Her campaign and political action committee have collected nearly $150,000 in donations from the company’s officials, making IPA one of her largest single sources of campaign contributions since she ran for the Senate in 2000. The company also flew her aboard its corporate jet, according to a 2004 reimbursement item on her campaign finance report.

…

The other day I received an interesting comment and a valid question from the ‘other side’ of the world: “We truly appreciate your insightful and on-the-mark analyses of our Pharaoh Mubarak. Thank you for bringing Americans’ attention to issues absent in US popular media. Will you be writing about your own pharaohs and their practices, and illustrate the parallels?”

At first, I thought about it in terms of our general and ever-increasing police state practices and universally acknowledged corporate-government. However, a few days later, after a respectable friend of mine was brutalized by Hillary Clinton’s security police during her speech (right in front of her), and after spending some time researching Ms. Clinton’s government-position-induced wealth, over 100 million dollars, and that in a very short period of time, and of course her dark track record so far, it all clicked – the light bulb suddenly went on. I was actually looking at a great example of our own little pharaoh; a mini pharaoh in our very own backyard. I know that in the past we have discussed the issues of revolving doors and corruption, and we have certainly covered neocon practices and their never-ending influence, but with this we may be looking at a new era, you may call it the extension and expansion of the neocon era; I am going to call it: The US Neo-Pharaoh Era.

The similarities and parallels between Hillary Clinton and Hosni Mubarak are uncanny. I can write pages and pages with great detail, but to make this piece readable in one session I’ll contain myself with general supported bullet points:

Wealth: Just like Mubarak the Clintons came from a humble background. Hillary Clinton’s senate career marks the beginning of the family’s astounding wealth accumulation. She went from basically $0 to over $110,000,000 in only 8 years. For those of you short on caffeine today let me make a few points- it wasn’t business-finance suaveness, it wasn’t hitting the lottery, it wasn’t a sudden unexpected inheritance from an illegitimate uncle that did it. Mega companies (foreign and domestic) and foreign countries (dictators, communists, Islamists…you name it have been channeling their dollars under the new funneling label: speaking fees, and of course, a few mystery investments here and there. I know Hillary Clinton would argue inconsequential details such as: “Mubarak ended up with $60 billion dollars; in comparison mine are peanuts.” And I’d counter: “Ms. Clinton, no worries, so far you’ve had ten years while Mubarak had 30; you’ll get there.”

Criminal & Shameless Mind Set: Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives. This woman went as far as ordering people to steal these diplomats’ credit cards, DNA data, even frequent flier numbers. She is that kind of a woman, if you catch my drift. She exceeded Mubarak in that department.

Anti Transparency & Fearful of Information Freedom: Banning journalists, limiting internet access, and other means of tampering with information access are all trademarks of pharaoh-like dictators such as Mubarak. Ms. Clinton is not that far behind when it comes to her own turf. She’s been testing the water. How about limiting the website/internet access of people within her turf? No try, no gain; right?! If only Hilary Clinton was in charge of the entire nation versus only the meager State Department!

Dictatorial & Anti-Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s dictatorial tendencies are not limited to supporting dictators like Mubarak. No. She has no tolerance for freedom of speech, and she believes in quashing dissent, no matter how silent or peaceful, by using excessive force and terror. Even in this regard she surpasses Mubarak. While Mubarak let his police force and military do the dirty work (torture, arrest, imprisonment…) out of his sight, Clinton actually likes to watch the action (inflicting terror and brutalization upon peaceful protestors) and shows her pleasure (check out that smile). Please watch this short clip:
 

Do I need to say more?

Didn’t think so. So back to our friends from the ‘other side’ of the world. I hope this article answers your question. When pointing at our leaders’ hypocrisy-ridden foreign practices thus what you’ve been enduring, while providing loads of analyses on what’s been going wrong outside in your part of the world, when we criticize your dictators as dirty pharaohs, we won’t forget to look inward and take a note of our own mini pharaohs here in our own backyard. Rest assured.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Corey Pein recounts the creation of the recently launched groundbreaking site warisbusiness.com, a nonpartisan site covering military contracting, the global arms trade and the lobby, and how he began the project with two assumptions: The first- a lot of people are making money from war, while enjoying the comforts of anonymity (such people were once plainly called profiteers), and the second: Privatizing war inevitably prolongs it, creating what economists call a “perverse incentive.” Mr. Pein discusses the bought out generals and the militarization of the economy, and the latest on the ‘Rent-A-Generals’ exposé. He talks about scandals such as Mina Corp and the subsequent cover up, US Embassies as marketing arms of military corporations, the win-win outcome of elections for the Pentagon contractors and arms makers, Wikileaks, and more!

Corey Pein is an award-winning investigative reporter and long-form narrative journalist who writes about the military industrial complex, money, politics and violence from London, UK. Previously, he has lived in New Mexico, Oregon, Georgia and in Southeast Asia. His latest project is warisbusiness.com, a startup news site covering military contracting and the global arms trade. Mr. Pein has worked on staff at Columbia Journalism Review, Willamette Week, the Santa Fe Reporter and IHT ThaiDay, and contributed to Salon, Slate, The American Prospect, and CounterPunch, among others.

Here is our guest Corey Pein unplugged!

Note- Boiling Frogs selects warisbusiness.com as the best website of 2010!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

The Electoral College shall be abolished. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1; Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 shall be amended to provide for random computer  selection of all Federal Elective offices from Internal Revenue Service tax rolls of citizens within the appropriate Congressional District, State and Nation respectively according to existing Constitutional requirements. This amendment shall supersede the Fifteenth, Seventeenth and Nineteenth amendments.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

As I look back over my experiences as a voting citizen since 1972, I have viewed with increasing alarm the growing disconnect between the citizenry and the leaders and representatives we elect. I have watched the increased growth and power of a Political Class disconnected from the needs of the citizenry as well as the alarming increase and importance of money in our electoral system. This corruptive influence of money on elections has further isolated the aforementioned political class by allowing a defacto form of two-tier citizenship. One class of the wealthy and corporate citizens who have real influence on government, another, lower class of regular citizens like you and me who have little or no influence on the actions of our government. Over the course of those decades, I have seen the Congress repeatedly try and either fail to enact significant campaign finance reform or have it’s efforts frustrated by contrary legal decisions that enshrine that unequal influence on our elections. This view was most recently reinforced by the Supreme Court’s activist ruling in their recent decision on Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.

As a result of these actions, I have been forced to conclude that the pernicious influence of money on politics has become a clear and present danger to the functioning of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. I have further been forced to conclude that the elective system we have currently in place no longer provides for Real Representative Government responsive to the needs of the citizenry at large. I have, therefore, long pondered what changes can be made to restore citizen control of and real representation within that government. With the recent Supreme Court decision throwing out over 100 years of legal precedent, I do not see Public financing of elections as a credible path to reform. It is time to consider radical solutions to this problem. Since the acknowledged intent of the framers was to ensure that representatives to our government would accurately reflect the citizenry at large, what is needed is a mechanism to restore and reinforce that reflection.

My mechanism for reform would abolish all federal elections for legislative and executive offices and replace that mechanism with one based on random computer selection for all current federal elective offices from Internal Revenue tax rolls. All existing Constitutional requirements for office would remain in force. Using myself as an example, as a 56-year-old native-born citizen with no felony convictions from the 2^nd Congressional District in New Mexico, I could be selected as the 2^nd District Congressman, Senator from New Mexico, Vice President or President. Companion laws would be passed based on existing statutes governing National Guard Service and Jury Duty. The mechanism would work as follows.

As a citizen who files a tax return, my records, along with every other taxpaying citizen, are held by the Internal Revenue Service. Every two years in the case of the House of Representatives, four years in the case of Presidential and Vice-Presidential offices and every six years in the case of Senatorial offices, my name would be put in a pool of likely citizens within my Congressional District, the Nation or my state respectively. If I were chosen for office, I would be allowed a leave-of-absence from my job for my term of office. I would still be paid my regular wage while I served in office and all my expenses incurred doing the government’s business in office would be financed by the government. I would serve one two, four or six year term in office. At the end of my term, I would return to private life and my old job as another selectee would take my place. Since selectees would be chosen from IRS rolls, no political party affiliation would be noted or considered. Indeed, for the first decades of the Republic, political parties did not exist as organized entities. There would be no retirement pay or perks given as officeholders get today nor would there be a need for an actual salary for any of those positions as all officeholders would receive their regular wages while in office. Any employee of a corporation would be required to recuse himself from any legislative or executive action benefiting his employer while in office. A companion statute would be enacted allowing lobbying only by citizens within the selectee’s district or state to ensure the officeholder’s independence and impartiality.

This mechanism would, in one stroke, eliminate the corruptive influence of money on politics, restore real citizen representation in government, provide term limits since only one term in office would be allowed, and foster an increased participation in the political process. Officeholder selection would be taken from the hands of political party organizations and opened up to the citizenry at large. Indeed, mechanisms could be built into the selection process to provide a more accurate reflection of ethnic backgrounds so the Congress would actually contain the same ethnic representation as the citizenry itself. I also see this process as a mechanism to open up state and local offices as well. I use the federal offices as a model that could be transposed into state Constitutions with similar mechanisms and results. With a federal model already in place, that example could be amended into the 50 state constitutions. The actual selection process could be overseen by non-partisan organizations such as the League of Women Voters to prevent any attempted chicanery.

This, then, is the essence of my idea. I offer it to this board and the body politic for comment, question and expansion.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.