Rep Blum point was correct that he only represents the people of his (probably gerrymandered) district. But the reporter was spot-on in his point that if that is the case, he should only legally be able to take donations from his district.
Then again, that would put poor districts at a distinct disadvantage. So why allow private political donations to candidates at all? At a minimum, it needs to be severely restricted in the manner of every non-corrupt "democracy" in the world does.
The interpretation of "money as speech" (is that typically USAn or what?) has go to go.
But then at the "town hall" (god, I hate that term - they are absolutely nothing like New-England town hall meetings) fully of duly vetted residents of his district, he got screamed at. How many of these attendees voted for him? What did they expect when they voted for him?
I'm guessing that many of these Reps are banking on Americans' short attention span, waiting for the day when this all blows over. Lots can and will happen between now and the 2018 elections. Heck if it gets too hot, Trump could even start a war... say, late in August or in September 2018. That would time things about right for the creeps.
It's pretty hard to have something blow over that's hanging over your head every minute of every day and that's what healthcare or lack of it means to anyone who gets sick or knows and cares about someone who does. Especially if you had coverage and now you don't. So, unlike some other issues, this one may very well not blow over.
Since these representatives sit on committees that affect all americans they should be responsive to all americans. Of course, they are responsive to lobbyists for corporations no matter where they live. I agree that only those living in a district should be able to contribute to campaigns in that district. These town halls should probably also be for the people who live and vote there - but I notice most of these representatives ignore you if you have an issue that is related to a committee that they sit on or maybe even chair. They figure out ways to ignore as many as they can - unless you are a lobbyist for a major corporation.
What if all of our elected reps were required BY LAW to hold Town Meetings?
Well then we have to do our part to prove them dead wrong
It's splitting hairs to say he only represents the people of his district, since he is a federal employee and we all pay his taxes and are affected by his decisions. And he needs to complete his sentence when he says the new bill is better than Obamacare, with the explanation "...for the wealthy and insurance companies."
New GOP Health Care Plans site already up and running!
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy.
I have to wonder who allowed this bastard to use those black kids as props for his abortive dog doo and pony poop show.
Money talks and the holders of those wallets work behind the scenes in dark alleys or in the hallowed halls of the House and/or Senate. And Blum along with Labrador, his fellow "freedom caucus" slimeball certainly would never refuse their "contributions." And these funders do not need to go to "town hall" meetings to have their wants and needs met....
This congressman isn't listening to me, and I didn't attend this debacle in Dubuque. Friends who attended said it was roughly 80% anti-Blum/ AHCA. I didn't vote for him in 2014 or 2016, and I don't plan to vote for him in 2018. I'd love to see Medicare for All replace both ACA and AHCA.
By coincidence, it was in May, 1968 --49 years ago-- that Iowa Governor Harold Hughes and Senator Robert Kennedy addressed an overflow crowd of over 5.000 in this old fieldhouse at Senior High School, Nora Gymnasium, at a campaign rally. RFK's motorcade was slowed in Marion and Dubuque by throngs at street side, and people in the gym waited over 3 hours for the speakers.
Both Hughes and Kennedy were magnificent public speakers, and both were full of compassion and caring for all, to seek political solutions to move the country forward.
The country hasn't recovered from RFK's assassination, just a month later.
The solution is for some Democratic representative to hold an open house in Blum's district. It looks like it may happen in NY so there is no reason that it shouldn't happen in Iowa, too. It will give Blum a couple of black eyes when the events at the open house hit the news.
What's up with the kids???????????
Here we go:
"One woman ... also claimed Blum's staff told her the congressman had not read the bill ... Blum responded. 'It was rushed. There should have been hearings", But, despite this, Blum knows, "The bill is better than what we have [under the Affordable Care Act]. It's heading in the right direction'".
Hmm, Blum "had not read the bill", but still knows "The bill is better than what we have [under the Affordable Care Act]". Well, sorry Common Dreamers, I believe Rod Blum should remain in Congress. Hell, he should become ruler of the world! Why, you ask? Because he has amazing ESP, knowing the content of a piece of legislation without having ever read it!
You raise several interesting points, Yunzer.
Iowa's districts seem to be less susceptible to gerrymandering than many states'; though this data may be outmoded, and it certainly doesn't mean there's not other stuff going on--voter suppression, etc.
Iowa 1 has gone to Democrats (the last one was) and went for Gore, Kerry, Obama x 2, and Der Gropenführer by 4 points.
Should we legally restrict donations to the constituency of elected officials? (Corporations don't vote so wouldn't be allowed to contribute, ditto for non-US citizens and other entities. Of course it would be better to have no contributions, and allocate public air time and debate space equally (with more debates than we're used to) for every candidate polling over, say, 1%.
In general, a wide range of viewpoints is better; the exclusion of the left from US politics because it doesn't have the money to own a press (aka TV and radio stations) has led to the current mess,. We've seen that blocking small groups doesn't keep out the crazy; we should try the opposite approach and see if a wide range of views in the press, on the air and in the debates reveals how crazy the crazy are. Better education would be nice, too, and a viable number of choices for public radio and TV.
Representatives from poor districts only compete against representatives from the same district so limiting donations to locals would actually increase fairness in poor districts--those really representing their constituents couldn't be overwhelmed by outside money. The change would generally favor progressives, I think.
The absurd money-as-speech thing certainly is unfailingly undemocratic and has to go. Money is money, speech is speech, and if one has to buy speech... well, if, as A.J. Liebling said "Freedom of the press is only guaranteed to those who own one" neither democracy nor wise decisions by society are likely.
But much more important is the fairness of representation--small states' advantage in the Senate and electoral college must be eliminated. (The smallest states with a combined population equal to California's have 42 Senators; California of course, still has 2. Most of those states are red.)
I'm CALLING OUT 213 CHICKENSHIT GOP CONGRESS FOLKS!! LOSERS!! FUCK OFFS! THIEVES! ASSHOLES! BELLIGERENT MF'S!