Soul searching re: Gov't by People Act

In the last Congress, House Bill H.R. 20, The Government by the People Act, was introduced by John Sarbanes on February 5, 2014. According to this Congressional reference, H.R. 20 had 160 co-sponsors. In scrolling down the list, I identify only one Republican co-sponsor, to wit, Walter Jones, of North Carolina, who was one of MAYDAY's eight anti-corruption candidates in the 2014 elections.

The 2014 elections have pushed Congress more to the Republican side.

Ostensibly, this is not auspicious for having a reform minded Congress by 2016, including not auspicious for MAYDAY's recent indication that we cannot wait for the 2016 elections and voters should be recruited to ask members of the new Congress to co-sponsor fundamental reform legislation.

This calls for some soul searching I think.

Our contention is that the corruption of campaign finance impairs Congress in properly doing its job for the American people.

To keep things clear, Congress "properly doing its job for the American people" does not mean that everyone (in the 99%, or whatever) will get exactly what they want.

"Properly doing its job for the American people," to me, means Congress being more accountable and responsive to (in Lessig's words "dependent on") the people, if not exclusively then much more so, and not so "dependent" on the funders.

What then is to be said about H.R. 20 and that all except one of the 160 co-sponsors were Democrats?

Is it that the case has not been sufficiently made to the voters, including Republican voters, that we all suffer from an impaired Congress?

Is it that it is not possible to make a sufficient case about this?

Are Democratic leaders insufficiently persuaded about Congressional impairment case, and they are ineffective in making the case to the American people? Are they half-hearted (or less) about this?

Relative to my Alabama 6th Congressional district, Democratic Representative Terri Sewell of the adjacent 7th Congressional district has declined to make any response to this letter Dear Representative Sewell, and the Democratic candidate in the 6th Congressional district, Mark Lester, declined to make any response to this Open letter to Professor Mark Lester.

What does it signify if Representative Sewell and Democratic candidate Mark Lester declined to make any response to my letters?

I think Democrats in my area should be demanding of responses from Representative Sewell and Professor Lester.

I think Representative Sewell should cross district lines and call on the newly elected Congressman Palmer of the 6th district  to respond to Just answer the question, Gary Palmer. I think those Democrats who co-sponsored H.R. 20 and remain in Congress should be more vocal in stating the "impairment of Congress" case to the voters and should be willing to cross district lines to state the case in districts represented by Republicans.

What do you think?