<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.publicampaign.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign - Reform in Tennessee - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/07/24/reform-in-tennessee</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Reform in Tennessee&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>limited terms</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/07/24/reform-in-tennessee#comment-24299</link>
 <description>Though I do not live in Tennessee I plan to move there soon.  I am &quot;just checking things out&quot; so to say.  What do you think of limited terms.  Don&#039;t leave them up there long enough to become corrupted.  </description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Reform in Tennessee</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/07/24/reform-in-tennessee</link>
 <description>As is often the case, ethics reform legislation follows nasty bouts of corruption in the halls of Congress and in state houses. That&#039;s what happened in Tennessee where the legislature has passed ethics reform. The co-author of the ethics legislation is Rep. Frank Buck (D-Dowelltown). But the Jackson Sun and Rep. Buck don&#039;t think the ethics reform goes far enough. It&#039;s time to look at how campaigns are funded if we really want to change the system.</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
