California’s ballot initiative, require legislators to wear logos of top contributors

[GennGreymane]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-lo/?page=all

SAN FRANCISCO — You can tell who sponsors NASCAR drivers by the patches on their jumpsuits. So why not do the same for politicians?

That’s the idea behind California entrepreneur John Cox’s proposed 2016 ballot initiative, which would require state legislators to wear the logos of their top 10 campaign contributors on their clothing when they advocate for policies on the Senate or Assembly floor.

He kicked off his campaign, “California Is Not for Sale,” this month with press events displaying life-size cardboard cutouts of all 120 members of the state Legislature, each adorned with logos from corporations such as Chevron and unions including the California Teachers Association.

Mr. Cox said he wants to “call attention to a problem,” namely that “our elected leaders are controlled by their funders.” In other words, this isn’t a stunt.

“This is a very serious initiative. This is not a joke,” said Mr. Cox. “If you came down from Mars and you looked at our electoral system, you’d say to yourself, ‘How dumb is this?’ You’ve got a system under which people who want something from government fund the campaigns of the people who make the decisions. How stupid is that system?”

The proposal would give the California Fair Political Practices Commission the authority to decide which 10 donor logos would decorate the suits of legislators. The logos also would appear in their advertisements.

“I frankly wish that every legislator who walks into that chamber would have a clean suit on,” Mr. Cox said.

His group plans to begin gathering signatures, using paid circulators and volunteers, in January, and he is confident that the idea will draw enough signatures to qualify for the general election ballot.

At his launch events, he said, “we had people coming up and asking if they could sign a petition.’

“It didn’t matter if they were liberal or conservative or no party. The public gets it, the public understands who controls the political system in this country.”]

The measure is the first element of a two-part plan aimed at reforming state government. In November 2018, Mr. Cox hopes to qualify a Neighborhood Legislature initiative that would create mini-electoral districts for neighborhoods.

Each district would choose a candidate, and the winner of the mini-caucuses would choose one candidate to represent the district.

The effort follows another attempt at bringing government in the unwieldy state closer to the voters, the Six Californias initiative, which would have split California into six states. The proposal failed to gather sufficient signatures to qualify for the November ballot next year.

Mr. Cox wasn’t a fan of Six Californias. He said it would have created “six dysfunctional states” while falling short of addressing corruption, which he sees as the biggest challenge.

“There are so many proposals that have been enacted in California, like redistricting reform or term limits and all these other things, but they all dance around the edge of it,” Mr. Cox said. “They really don’t go at the core of the corruption in the system. The core of the corruption in the system is the power of the funders.”

Neither political party is expected to be thrilled with the proposal. Although Democrats control the state Legislature and most state offices, Republicans also have a stake in defending the status quo, he said.

“They aren’t in the majority and they don’t have much power, but they make a living off of politics,” Mr. Cox said.

A former Democrat who switched parties with President Reagan’s election in 1980, Mr. Cox describes himself as a “kind of a [Jack] Kemp Republican,” with an emphasis on policies that promote entrepreneurship, opportunity and competition.

Mr. Cox, who owns five businesses, is planning to put his money where his mouth is. “I’m not Donald Trump, but I have more than enough to get this on the ballot,” he said.

If the logo idea catches on, Mr. Cox said, he thinks it will spread nationwide.

“California is widely considered to have one of the most dysfunctional legislatures in the country. So there’s a need for it,” said Mr. Cox. “Also, California has a history of ballot initiatives and a record of being an innovator. This might be something that leads the country.”

He added: “Can you imagine members of the U.S. Congress wearing these stickers?”

[Selastan]

Why does California hate capitalism?

Also, if that was a thing, Trump would have a sticker of his own face =)

[primalmatter]

Seems like a good idea honestly but can never see it passing with current politicians being such whores.

[Zan15]

Why does California hate capitalism?

Also, if that was a thing, Trump would have a sticker of his own face =)

Don't remember capitalism definition including buying your pols favor.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Why does California hate capitalism?

Also, if that was a thing, Trump would have a sticker of his own face =)

This isn't against capitalism, this is against crony capitalism.

[I Push Buttons]

Nah.

I am all for legislation that restricts conflicts of interest and bribery... But this is just dumb.

[primalmatter]

Nah.

I am all for legislation that restricts conflicts of interest and bribery... But this is just dumb.

why?

/tenchars

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Nah.

I am all for legislation that restricts conflicts of interest and bribery... But this is just dumb.

It means that people will know who is paying for the politicians. I see nothing wrong with this.

[Dsonsion]

I hope this was passed for "scientists" too. Not that it's hard to differentiate an honest scientists from one that's in the pocket of some corporations, but for laymen, things can get a little obfuscated in terms of facts.

[I Push Buttons]

why?

/tenchars

Because running for office takes money, if for no other reason than to simply inform voters. What do they even consider a business sponsor? It doesn't say, it simply says a commission will make that call... What is the break off point? The ownership and the unions compete with each other... If each donates to one candidate or another do both politicians get made out to be in the pocket of business X by slapping their logo on them? Even though their involvement with either of those parties are directly contradictory of each other and imply nothing about the business.

Would you rather we take all of the money out of politics and politicians give a few speeches and only the couple thousand people who see them in person vote for them? And the same for his opponent(s)...? And then we have people winning office to govern millions on behalf of the votes of only a few thousand politically active/motivated people who happened to be there and be informed?

Like I said, I am all for legislation that prevents conflicts of interest... So like preventing a politician who received most of his campaign contributions from affiliates of the banking industry serving on a banking committee... Or restriction of soft "bribery" in the form of services/incentives/jobs for those who do your bidding in the legislative process... This proposed system serves only to arbitrarily demonize politicians and their contributors... For participating in a process that literally requires copious amounts of money to even pass the barrier of entry, let alone to actually win.

[primalmatter]

Because running for office takes money, if for no other reason than to simply inform voters. What do they even consider a business sponsor? It doesn't say, it simply says a commission will make that call... What is the break off point? The ownership and the unions compete with each other... If each donates to one candidate or another do both politicians get made out to be in the pocket of business X by slapping their logo on them? Even though their involvement with either of those parties are directly contradictory of each other and imply nothing about the business.

Would you rather we take all of the money out of politics and politicians give a few speeches and only the couple thousand people who see them in person vote for them? And the same for his opponent(s)...? And then we have people winning office to govern millions on behalf of the votes of only a few thousand politically active/motivated people who happened to be there and be informed?

Like I said, I am all for legislation that prevents conflicts of interest... So like preventing a politician who received most of his campaign contributions from affiliates of the banking industry serving on a banking committee... Or restriction of soft "bribery" in the form of services/incentives/jobs for those who do your bidding in the legislative process... This proposed system serves only to arbitrarily demonize politicians and their contributors... For participating in a process that literally requires copious amounts of money to even pass the barrier of entry, let alone to actually win.

I disagree. It should be clear who is getting payed and from where. Hell no money should be involved to start with. The idea that whoever can spend the most on attack ads wins turns democracy into a joke.

Hell we should have a questionnaire when you vote that draws on the parties platform if you get less then eight out of ten wrong on it your vote should be discarded. I grow weary of morons voting basing their choice on a thirty second add with scary music.

[negawonka]

I would agree with this 100% and go as far as to say the 0-10 companies should be listed on the ballot with them. Informing voters can't ever be a bad thing, unless the person has something to hide.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why does California hate capitalism?

Also, if that was a thing, Trump would have a sticker of his own face =)

Buying candidates is capitalism?

Besides, I thought sponsors loved to have their names plastered all over the things they fund.

Or is it because you realize there's something inherently negative about the general public knowing who's bought which candidate?

[I Push Buttons]

I disagree. It should be clear who is getting payed and from where. Hell no money should be involved to start with. The idea that whoever can spend the most on attack ads wins turns democracy into a joke.

Hell we should have a questionnaire when you vote that draws on the parties platform if you get less then eight out of ten wrong on it your vote should be discarded. I grow weary of morons voting basing their choice on a thirty second add with scary music.

You can see almost all of it, even the money raised and spent by Super PACs. The rules are sketchy and they may not report donors until after an election, but you can see it nonetheless.

And money will always be involved, we live in a capitalist society and the air waves are owned by private companies. If you want to broadcast your message, you need to pay for that. To remove money from politics would remove the ability to communicate to the masses, like I said previously, leaving only a politically active few to actually be informed.

You think people are stupid and uninformed now? Do you want people voting for someone because their name sounds nice? Because that's about all they will know about them if they don't get blasted that politician's message on mass media.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So really, let's just stop and think about something.

We have people who find it dumb that candidates should freely show who is buying their political influence.

We know campaigns need money, but it has gone beyond that. It's basically turned into whichever candidate has the most money wins. That's not democracy. That's a joke. That's something else entirely.

So why be against labeling who the candidates are funded by, unless you realize this is an inherently negative thing.

[Dextroden]

Wait. I thought everyone hated Trump because he wanted to make certain people wear patches that identified something about them.

[primalmatter]

You can see almost all of it, even the money raised and spent by Super PACs. The rules are sketchy and they may not report donors until after an election, but you can see it nonetheless.

And money will always be involved, we live in a capitalist society and the air waves are owned by private companies. If you want to broadcast your message, you need to pay for that. To remove money from politics would remove the ability to communicate to the masses, like I said previously, leaving only a politically active few to actually be informed.

You think people are stupid and uninformed now? Do you want people voting for someone because their name sounds nice? Because that's about all they will know about them if they don't get blasted that politician's message on mass media.

I don't believe in apathy. I don't think just because something is a joke it needs to remain so. Honestly at best currently maybe one in fifth-teen voters are informed voters. I see this as a good step in the right direction if every candidate but hell at this point trump walks out with a massive coke brothers sticker I think it will start a conversation we sorely need about how elections are run.

You claim the info is available but I can tell you know the average voter has degraded to the point that they would never research that. More facts are good I donlt see you objection to be honest.

[EyelessCrow]

Wait. I thought everyone hated Trump because he wanted to make certain people wear patches that identified something about them.

Clearly the same thing...clearly.

[Lovecrafts]

Great idea, now we can see which companies own the goyi-....erm, I mean candidates.

[Felya]

Wait. I thought everyone hated Trump because he wanted to make certain people wear patches that identified something about them.

Brilliant! Trump also wants to build something, somewhere, to stop someone from doing something... Which means you building a PC is supporting Trump's wall with Mexico. His support now totally makes sense...