Lower Politician Wages

Over the past few days, while surfing a popular social network site, I have come across this post:

Salary of the US President. ..$400,000.
Salary of retired US Presidents ...$180,000.
Salary of House/Senate...$174, 000.
Salary of Speaker of the House...$223,500...
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400...
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ $38,000...
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree, repost

Well, I of course started looking things up and thinking- Why do we pay our politicians so much? Some people tell me it's to keep corruption out of government, others say it's to attract the brightest minds.

I believe politicians should make no more than double the federal minimum wage. ($7.25/hr) Why? Well, because I think our politicians are way out of touch with the average American. Corruption exists already in our government, why not try something different?

If we mandated our politicians to make no more than $14.50/hr, I believe that would attract truly passionate people who are bright, understanding and have genuine sincerity about improving this country and bettering the overall population instead of a select few. It's a shame that people go into politics for the lucrativeness of it. By limiting the salary, I believe the number of career politicians would drastically decrease.

Limiting salary isn't the only thing we should do. Eliminating lobbyists should be a top priority. Overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should also be a priority. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Citizens United case, here's a brief summary.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

It's time to take the corporations out of our politicians beds. Remember- for the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE!!! Not for the corporations by the corporations!

up
5413 users have voted.