General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCalifornia Getting Closer To Having Lawmakers Wear Donors’ Logos
This ballot initiative wants to make lawmakers more transparent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-not-for-sale-initative-california_us_56ba5ff6e4b0c3c5504f3b99
A transparency group in California on Tuesday announced it had collected 40,000 signatures to place an initiative on the ballot that would require state representatives to wear the names of their top sponsors while on the floor of the Statehouse.
The initiative, called "California Is Not For Sale," was created in part to curb the influence of money in politics, and has been compared to NASCAR drivers displaying company logos on their shirts. It is backed by California attorney and businessman John Cox, who committed $1 million to the effort. It will need 365,000 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot in November, and organizers are confident they can muster enough support.
"The idea was conceived during a protest that was being staged for a separate ballot initiative in which we had all of the cutouts of California politicians covered in logos," Ryan Smith, a coordinator for the initiative, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Everyone who saw it said, 'You have to actually do this.'"
In 2013, a White House petition proposed requiring members of Congress to wear NASCAR-style clothing showcasing their donors' logos. The issue of big donors has also resurfaced in the national spotlight following the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and real estate mogul Donald Trump, who both notched victories in the New Hampshire primaries Tuesday. Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, has based his campaign on money in politics, and Republican candidate Trump has primarily financed his own run.
Fantastic idea!
dchill
(38,517 posts)And I'm a 64-year-old man who does not use OMG lightly.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You know it's just one step from there to some shameless assholes declaring "well, this law clearly says we're allowed to sell advertising space on our bodies when we're elected representatives!"
fleur-de-lisa
(14,628 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The sin of relevant omission often illustrates a deep rooted bias.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)That's like getting punched in the face with Gumby.
meow2u3
(24,768 posts)Let this go nationwide. This way, we all know who Congress is really working for.