park temporarily

can't delegate your vote, can't delegate your volunteer work, can't delegate where your contribution money goes. (this could be part of state rep in '16). This is consistent with the theme of compromise by giving (some) of everything to each side: you can't have PACs bundle money (see some rationale/benefits following) but in return, all contribution limits come off, you simply have to do so in public.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.


stump speech start: Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.

Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.

To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.

Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.

(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)

I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.

I also need to work towards the point expressed here.

(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)

It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.