Resolving the Incumbency Advantage

Except for the public's own bias towards the familiar,

this amendment will eventually resolve incumbency advantage altogether.

Section 2 requires fair contest in elections. 

In addition,

Amendment XXVIII, (proposed), Section 1:

"[...]In public view Congress,

but neither candidates nor sponsors of bills,

will first allocate [...]"

  • Section 1 prohibits candidate or sponsor involvement in funding.

          No matter how well administered, government control of funding risks abuse by incumbents.

  • Sole public campaign funding reduces incumbency advantage

          by enforcing public control. 

  • Section 5 forbids party in public electoral functions.
  • Section 2 also increases Congress' overall accountability

          by increasing the vote and adding an abstention option. 

  • Sole public funding of signature drives corrects a disadvantage for challengers:    

         seldom as well known as incumbents, they may be at a disadvantage in media coverage.

  • Section 3 reduces related abuses like unfair districting.  

  • And under Section 5 incumbents have more to lose by fraud than challengers. Any officer can lose a current job by expulsion or impeachment, and a prospective one by prosecution (although not for speech or debate on the floor), while a challenger can only forfeit a prospective job by prosecution. It should be noted that defamation has seldom been judged fraud. 

Amendment XXVIII (proposed), Section 5:

"A candidate who knowingly benefits from bribery, political fraud or coercion will forfeit the office." 

‘Political fraud’ also covers voter fraud,

which is far less likely when it risks a preferred candidate’s election. 

 This amendment

will eventually

resolve incumbency