Expanding the reporting out to the immediate family is probably do-able.
There also needs to be significant work done in making these reports more available and searchable to the general public.
(You can get them now but they are a huge pain in the ass.)
I think the blind trust solution is probably the acceptable compromise.
I don't love the idea of a single account all the politicians are forced to move their assets to.
This can be fine, sure, but again - given your Hunter Biden obsession, this does nothing to fix that.
The companies he was a board member for weren't getting government contracts.
A huge part of the corporate corruption we see doesn't involve government contracts.
Cutting this off is fine and has some specific merit because it is a direct line of an apparent conflict of interest, but it doesn't seem to address the thing you have been complaining about.
I've gone back and forth on the ban being lifetime.
I've seen it being pitched by people I respect and I've seen the counter of a cool off period with significant length being enough to blunt the immediate cut a deal aspect while still allowing people to work as they want.
That's a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" argument, so I wouldn't fight a lifetime ban if it became the consensus approach.
Fundamentally terrible idea that is actually pro-corruption.
Although given you've made the Senate one an 18-year limit, it might be salvageable. (Probably better if it was 4 terms.)
Make the House one 9 terms so they are equal if you are keeping 18.
About 60-70% of Congress turns over every 12 years, so if you put the term limits outside that normal bound, the damage probably won't be too bad.
Been arguing for this for years.
I've usually supported the cube-root rule as a way to figure out the numbers, but have over time begun to like bringing back the original first amendment (slightly tweaked and clarified) as the way to figure out the number of reps.
Which, coincidentally, would put the re-apportionment after the 2030 census at ~ 1/190,000 residents or ~1/200,000 depending on what the exact census number comes in as. (Probably, 1/200,000).
It would reduce that entry barrier but change nothing about the other structural issues working against 3rd parties.
I do think the general larger number of seats would allow for some regional third party blocs to form local 2-party duopolies.
Much bigger reforms are needed to get real third parties in the US system.
Back to pre-1968?
A hard sell in the US, given the popular sentiment has been that voters should be allowed to have input.
That said, the primary system is a fucking mess (like most of the voting system in the US).
If you overhauled the whole system, this would be part of it.
Of course, at this point we aren't talking about family corruption issues anymore.
They don't draw lines based on registration. (There is a LOT more that goes into it.)
I assume you are arguing for removing registration for when you register to vote, not stopping people from joining parties.
An Electoral commission such as the one in Canada would be better for districts, but I would also prefer it be national.
Take the "how you choose your delegates is up to your state" concept completely away. (Especially if they aren't going to all experiment with different systems.)
But this gets back to the whole "Overhaul the entire voting system" concept in general.
Dark money is called that because it
isn't reported. (Well, the donors aren't disclosed.)
You can't say "it isn't going away" if your whole proposal is to make it go away.
They should keep passing laws to push here, but until the Supreme Court changes, it's going to be rough sledding.
Banning SSFs entirely or banning all contributions by anyone on a board or in a senior position in a corporation?
I don't understand how you think this addresses that issue.
How does banning the ability of a Corporation to make a PAC address the family member corruption question?
"Break the system" doesn't mean anything without an idea of what system you want in place instead.
