I agree with Senator Miller. Most would agree that our political system is corrupted to some extent by special interests and the big money they contribute to re-election campaigns. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Senate, where only 51 votes are needed to pass a bill, and committee members each have an inordinate amount of power.

Now imagine how the process might be changed if Senators voted their conscious, unencumbered by the need to raise campaign dollars. Furthermore, states-rights would once again become an issue, since Senators would be beholden to state governments rather than the often uninformed, uneducated, fickle public. The House of Representatives would remain elected, providing a check against the appointed Senators, who are often far too removed from those who elected them, since there are only 2 per state.

The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake, and should be repealed.

Yikes something else we agree on.

Yep.

I need to read up some more before I make a decision on this. However, since Bush was named in the story, Miller supports Bush, and I cannot make an unbiased decision on anything that involves Bush in any way, I MUST say I'm not for it! ;)

Really though. First impression is that I would support this movement. I agree HP, it would be great if Senators didn't have to worry about raising campaign dollars. I also think it would be great if they didn't have to worry about who gave them those and how they are going to give back to the big contributors. I'm not saying that every senator is corrupt or anything, but imagine a government less driven by corporate sponsors. What would be next on the horizon? Reform for health insurance, automobile insurance, the drug industry, and the FCC. I'm sure more goodness would come from this.

Do a web search on "repeal 17th amendment"; you'll see both elements of the left and right behind the idea. The political left feels it would reduce the influence of corporations and other such special interests on the federal government. The libertarian right (where I stand) sees this as a states rights issue that could tame a bloated, too powerful federal government.

I'm not saying that Senate Republicans would be likely to support repealing the 17th either, but since the Democratic party is currently being run by the "elitist left" who supports an all-powerful federal government, Democrats would likely offer the most resistance.

I didn't think Libertarians "stood" for issues. I though they just kinda slumped.

Love, Juan

Funny, I see them as almost the same thing: tame a bloated, too powerful federal government & influence of corporations and other such special interests on the federal government. I believe they go hand in hand. That may have been your point though. And thus why both sides would support this.

What's the negative to this? Thinking about it could the corporations still affect who gets in? Could the legislators somehow still support corporations (to keep jobs and $ in certain areas) and have this affect their decisions? Could they be influenced by stock options and not campaign donations? Hmmm

Why did they ratify the 17th amendment anyways?

After scanning a few articles on the web, it seems that there is some disagreement over why the 17th Amendment was repealed. There seem to have been 3 factors at work:

1. Deadlocked state legislatures. Since Senators had to be appointed by a majority vote (51% of all officials), a deadlocked vote meant that states went without the Constitutionally mandated 2 senators. This seems to be the "official" reason the 17th Amendment was repealed... but this could have been easily solved by the less radical change of requiring a pluralistic majority (51% of all votes cast). There were also charges of bribery and corruption.

2. The "progressive" movement that gained influence at the time pushed for direct election of Senators, referrendums, recalls, etc... a "power to the people" type thing. Note that their other priorities weren't passed though. The intent of making the Senate closer to and more responsible to the people had just the opposite effect.

3. Special interests found it easier to influence public opinion than the state legislatures.

The best article I found on the matter was by CNN: [link]

Of course special interests would still play a role, but it would be much more difficult to influence 51 state legistlatures than 51 Senators.

Libertarians favor the legalization of marijuana and prostituion... need I say more? :))

Vegas anyone?

How would eliminating the 17th Ammendment from the Constitution and handing the vote for senator over to a legislature, who most see as serving "special interests" reduce the influence of special interests?

Interest groups hold a great deal of power in legislative bodies throughout the US, arguably more than they hold over the people. If we want to free senators up from these groups, it would seem that keeping the vote in the hands of the people would be the best course of action.

Additionally, although I don't see the system as perfect, I don't see interest groups as being evil or bad for the process. Simply an outgrowth of a capitalistic society. I'm not saying that no reforms are needed, but they really are just a product of our system.

How would eliminating the 17th Ammendment from the Constitution and handing the vote for senator over to a legislature, who most see as serving "special interests" reduce the influence of special interests?rnrnWhile special interests may have influence in state legislatures as well (labor unions come to mind), it would be much more difficult for a special interest to influence the tens of thousands of elected officials that make up the state legislatures than the 100 that sit on the US Sentate. A special interest group that represents an issue that will benefit Texas isn't likely to have much pull with Wisconsin Senators... unless perhaps they make contributions to their 2 US Senators. If the 17th were repealed, they would now have to influence at least half of Wisconsin's 132 legistators- not so easy.rnrnInterest groups hold a great deal of power in legislative bodies throughout the US, arguably more than they hold over the people. If we want to free senators up from these groups, it would seem that keeping the vote in the hands of the people would be the best course of action.rnrnElections are won and lost on one thing more than any other: money. If you have it, you can afford TV ads, campaign workers, etc. That money has to come from somewhere- and an all too often it's predominately from special interests... and those contributions don't come without expectations attached. Were the 17th Amendment to be repealed, a special interest would have to have a nationwide influence to affect legistation that affected the entire nation.rnrnI'm not saying that special interests don't have a place in the political process- groups like the NRA are powerful because they have 4 million members, many politically active; those members pay dues and make contributions so their viewpoint will get across. The problem is when a special interest that benefits a small segment of society is able to influence our governement merely by bribing 49 people with campaign contributions.rnrn rnrnrnrn