In previous posts, I have railed against the money corruption practiced by our elected officials. Taking money for your campaign is tantamount to a bribe.

However, in this case, Congress has made sure those bribes are legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld these bribes as a First Amendment right.

Here’s how I’ve countered it.

First, I cite my years as a journalist. If I accepted money for a story while I was a TV news reporter, I would have been fired for violating my personal services contract and the 1934 FCC rules.

Second, most judges cannot even preside over a case if there is any conflict of interest – let alone taking money from a participant in a case. (Now in Nevada, our judges are elected. So there are plenty of our judges who take campaign contributions from the lawyers who argue before them. It’s revolting to me, but that’s another column.)

So, I always argue, why are most judges and all journalists held to a higher standard than the people who make our laws?

Some of my solutions range from telling folks to not vote for any candidate who takes campaign contributions and to put all members of Congress into a boot camp where they can’t come out until they’ve done all their reading. In other words, they have to learn the issues and they cannot meet with lobbyists in private.

(Some of you will say lobbyists are different from fundraisers. Wrong, they’re the same folks most of the time. Who do you think does most of the bundling of those millions of dollars? It’s done by folks who are also lobbyists.)

Granted, my ideas seem silly. However, I found another solution that’s just as serious, but makes a whole lot of sense.

It was in a Washington Times opinion piece by Stuart Butler, called “Donor Logos For Congress?” (Link HERE)

Butler gives credit to his colleague, Brian Riedl, at the Heritage Foundation, who came up with the idea. Here’s how Butler wrote about it.

When House Minority Leader John A. Boehner enters the well to denounce gun control legislation, his blazer could sport a large decal from the National Rifle Association. When Sen. Christopher J. Dodd votes on financial legislation, we would see big, bright stickers on his coat from sponsors like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Sen. Charles E. Schumer could show off his Citigroup patch for the cameras, and compare the size of his with Mr. Dodd’s.

Any suggestions from any of you folks out there witnessing the money-grubbing in DC?