I'm conservative, and that means voting in Republican primaries. So I'm a registered Republican. But I don't like the current Republican Party. They're not fiscally conservative, and by not standing up to the Left, they basically work for them.

Ron Paul is still around. He was my representative for a while. I believe he had a 100% record of voting in line with the Constitution. He's a pediatrician, but he had to vote against some medical legislation that would have benefited people, because the legislation violated the Constitution. Basically he thought (or used to) that the federal govt should deliver the mail, guard the borders, and support a military. All other concerns should be handled by the states.

That's the conservatism I support, but it's getting harder and harder to find.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/

DWill wrote:
If you'll listen to any advice from an old fart, "most politicians are corrupt" isn't the best base for anyone who wants to be a political analyst, even one with a partisan view. It may seem to have a nice non-partisan ring to it, but it's a non-supportable generalization. And who is a politician, so likely to be corrupt? Is it the mayor of my small town or the commissioner of the revenue? Is it whoever is appointed ambassador to Sweden? Just by virtue of being elected or appointed the person becomes overwhelmingly subject to corruption, in a manner that, say, a new CEO of a business would not be?

I'm currently writing a new book that revolves around this very subject. It takes a non-partisan angle and talks about the corruption behind Congress. Nearly every representative and senator has taken money from lobbyists and PACs. This, undoubtedly, subverts American democracy because the average American citizen is losing their voice to large corporations who use wealth to influence politics.

I should have been more clear regarding my previous statement about corrupt politicians. When I say that, I am referring to politicians on the national/federal level. Local politicians, such as mayors, are not as likely to receive backing from a large corporation. After all, larger corporations would rather spend their money on something that gets them a lot of influence (congressional representatives, for example).

I'm currently writing a new book that revolves around this very subject. It takes a non-partisan angle and talks about the corruption behind Congress. Nearly every representative and senator has taken money from lobbyists and PACs. This, undoubtedly, subverts American democracy because the average American citizen is losing their voice to large corporations who use wealth to influence politics.

This is true, and because of this campaign finance reform is the main thing I look for in potential candidates for the presidency. Until we reform how campaigns are financed, our system will always cater more to the rich than the masses.

Unfortunately, even good people can't help but take money from the wealthy. If they don't, they aren't in office much longer. And to take money from the wealthy, they necessarily must devote some part of their day listening to them, which biases even the saints.

Which side of the political aisle favors campaign finance reform more?

Interbane wrote: Unfortunately, even good people can't help but take money from the wealthy. If they don't, they aren't in office much longer. And to take money from the wealthy, they necessarily must devote some part of their day listening to them, which biases even the saints.

Which side of the political aisle favors campaign finance reform more?

This a very true and sad reality. Honestly, I do not believe that either side favors campaign finance reform as much as they should. The powerful help Republicans and Democrats alike get elected into office. In 2014, 5 senate seats were overturned from incumbent Democrats to Republicans. All 5 of these Republicans received sums of money from Koch Industries. Likewise, George Soros has funneled millions of dollars to various Democrats running for office. Nowadays, politicians on the campaign trail have come to rely on wealthy patrons. It is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed.