Yes that’s the main benefit but there are other reasons to do it.
@juliusgoat.bsky.social Well, you know, if you read what the Founders wrote in letters between each other, many things are clear. One is that they felt that no politician should get paid to serve by the federal government. If states want to pay their senators, fine. But serving in the House or Senate was unpaid.
Using your position to make money is, of course, criminal corruption, and would land you in prison or worse.
That's all forgotten today. Corruption reigns from town councils to the top of government.
@shuttersparks @juliusgoat.bsky.social Not paying elected representatives is a bad idea, not in the least because it means only people lots with money will be able to do the job. Or worse, people being paid by people with lots of money, which is even more of an incentive for corruption.
@bjn @juliusgoat.bsky.social It's an interesting idea but it doesn't work. One of the problems, which you mention, they didn't see as a problem. There was discussion of only letting citizens that own land vote. (Can't vote wisely unless you have skin in the game.) But they realized that would never work. Some Founders thought it a good idea to place that same requirement (being a "landed" person) on elected representatives.
On the other hand I think the idea of making the states pay their own representatives has merit.
