I don't agree that they are obvious. I do think they are populist and they sound good but I don't see a good practical way to implement many of them.
a.) the family of any person running for any office is off limits from personal attacks. If they have done anything illegal then that can be reported if it applies to the job of the person running. DUIs etc do not count.
You get a lot of sympathy from me on this one, especially with the children, but we need to know if there are skeletons in the closet. We need to know if there is something that could lead to blackmail. We need to know of possible hidden agendas. But the thing that makes this impractical is, who is going to decide if something a relative has done applies to the job? Who gets to decide what information is fit for public knowledge?
b.) The campaign can only run for three months period. Done and over
I hate the constant campaigning. I really do. But we need to know that the candidate can handle the pressures of the job. We need to know if the candidate has any depth or if their popularity is just a flash in the pan. We need a chance to get to know them. With our current primary system, I think there is a big benefit in having the primaries spread out so you can see how people respond to being the front-runner or how they handle being behind. I think we often make mistakes with the system we have now, but I think we would make a lot more mistakes if we had less chance to get to know the candidates.
c.) the people running get a set amount of money to spend; everyone gets the same amount depending on office being sought. Anyone discovered spending any MORE than that amount on things related to campaigning is disqualified from running and must pay back what was given to them.
Totally impractical in so many ways it is a little hard to respond. If it were only the candidate controlling it, maybe something could be done. But there are so many opportunities for others not controlled by the campaign to send out mailings, put up billboards, buy TV time, whatever, that you cannot limit it. There are attempts at certain limits, such as if you accept federal money you cannot go above a certain limit, but if a campaign figures they can raise more money without the federal money they will go that route. If you want to put out an add for your candidate without their knowledge, should you be restricted from doing that or does that interfere with your freedom of speech? If somebody goes above the limit because of money spent by organizations the candidate does not control, does that disqualify the candidate? If so, I wait until you are close to the limit, then put out a commercial for you that puts you over the limit. I do believe there are rich individuals and organizations that would do that. If they may have to pay it back, why do want to restrict running for office to only rich people? I would like to see candidates less dependent on raising money but advertising gets votes. The more money you can spend, the more advertising you can buy, and the more successful your candidacy will probably be. I do think there are some freedom of speech issues in this. Our constitutional freedom of speech rights don't mean much if they don't protect unpopular speech. I do think there should be penalties for lies and libel, whether they are under oath when spoken or not.
d.) Lobbyists should be illegal. But, they cannot be so there needs to be serious limits. No one who served ANY government official can become a lobbyist for a minimum of five years after leaving that position. NO lobbyist can run for any office for five years after leaving a lobbying group. No former lobbyists for any one corporation may go to work in the regulatory body that oversees that industry.No lobbying group can accept more than 50% of their funding from any one corporation.
You get some sympathy from me on this one too. I'm not exactly sure how you define lobbyist. I think instead of lobbyist you more mean someone working in the industry, not necessarily just as a lobbyist. I mean, would you want a vice president of BP's American subsidiery becoming secretary of energy? He/she is not a lobbyist, although many higher ups in large private industry corporations are in effect politicians. They are certainly not technicians. I don't have a lot of problem writing certain restrictions in some people's contracts, especially if they are going from government to industry. Five years is kinda severe, but that is only a detail. We are talking principle. I don't have a lot of problem with someone running for an elective office, whether they have been a lobbyist or working in private industry or not. But do you really want to restrict anyone working in a certain industry from working in a government position related to that industry? I don't think I'm saying it well. Do you want to restrict the government from hiring or appointing people that have worked in the industry to a position where they regulate that industry or do want the regulators to be people that don't know the industry. I worked in the oil industry. I think I would be better able to know what is important to look at concerning the oil industry that someone who had worked in a totally unrelated field. I could look at an offshore oil production platform and see some serious defects that others would not see, especially if someone that supposedly knows what they are doing is doing a snow job whike conducting a tour. Where I see the problem is that we have to depend on the integrity of people that we elect. Occasionally we do get good people in office. Occasionally.
