Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government interests

Re:Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government i... by protomyth on Friday April 22, 2016 @10:18AM (#11549367)

I still wish we had a Constitutional amendment that restricted federal employees and appointed / elected officials for a period of 5 years from working from any firm they had contact(1) with in their duties. It should also govern donations to charities run by said people. That and getting rid of every corporate deduction in the tax code would clear quite a bit of corruption out of the system.

I doubt we'll ever get either. A simple tax system means one of the chief ways politicians reward donors goes away, and the speech / job thing is just plain too lucrative.

1) the exact wording is more for lawyers than me

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government i... by maxerickson on Friday April 22, 2016 @11:33AM (#11549926)

So if we pass enough rules the will of the voters should eventually take precedence?

I wonder what incremental changes we could make to get people to go vote their interest and to more carefully examine how elected officials make use of the vast power handed to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government i... by protomyth on Friday April 22, 2016 @02:25PM (#11551367)

> So if we pass enough rules the will of the voters should eventually take precedence?

Its a bit more about removing some of the incentives for "bad" behavior. These two are the most problematic to being fair and honest in government.

[ Parent | on HN ]