That's my point of attack. Most particularly, I want to focus on the concept of conflict of interest. Only worth trying because you can go onward with a bad idea, whereas you can't go anywhere with no idea. We define conflict of interest more broadly, recognizing in the most obvious commonsense way, that the sources of anyone's income always and inevitably carry disproportionate influence with the recipient. We further realize that disproportionate influence violates the essential principal of our nation, which says all humans are created equal.
Disproportionate influence is a crime against democracy.
Conflict of interest is a crime against the ancient spirit of democracy, and we have every right to declare it so under law and to bar the guilty from taking office. I believe this approach is simple and direct, in contrast to the awkward, baroque, and thus far unavailing attempts we've made to govern contributors. Apparently it requires some public funding of campaigns, which the public frankly distrusts. To get from where we currently stand, somewhere in the midst of Thomas Jefferson's major nightmare, to where we want to be, calls for some transitional period, which I've tried to build into the manuscript language. I hope you'll find it readable and suggestive, and I look forward to your comments on the effort, both the concept and the draft text.