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

[ArguesWithStrangers]

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

Lol I love it just because it will make politicians look like the whores they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Great give the coorporations commercials...
next you will have Hillary Clinton brought to you by Coca Cola.

It makes me giggle, so I want it.

[Espe]

More of this please.

Can't imagine any non-politician, except maybe right-wing shills, to be against this.

- - - Updated - - -

"Any politician being funded by Local Businesses for Prosperity wants to tear your house down to build a strip mall!"

Yep. Totally won't be used for us vs. them campaigning.

Much better when all that bribery, errr, I mean lobbying is kept in the dark.



- - - Updated - - -

why is it different? Because it's a group you don't like?

Yeah because committing genocide against minority groups is totally the same as being transparent about who is paying your for political favors. Completely equivalent.

Conservatives, just when I think they can't sink any lower....

[Bushtuckrman]

Why does California hate capitalism?

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

Which is a lot better than the rest of your politicians and presidential candidates who would have to walk around with 20 foot sign poles strapped to them to fit all the campaign contributors and puppet masters.

- - - Updated - - -

More of this please.

Can't imagine any non-politician, except maybe right-wing shills, to be against this.

- - - Updated - - -



Much better when all that bribery, errr, I mean lobbying is kept in the dark.



- - - Updated - - -



Yeah because committing genocide against minority groups is totally the same as being transparent about who is paying your for political favors. Completely equivalent.

Conservatives, just when I think they can't sink any lower....

Are you under some kind of impression that its the right who have corrupt politicians? Whats hillary's campaign contribution total atm? 100 mill? I believe it was 77 million in october?

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/20...paign-finance/

From october (I believe the next report isnt until jan or feb)

Trump is the only one that isn't corrupt.

[Reeve]

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

It's a ballot initiative, not a legislative one.

[Independent voter]

I don't think wearing the logo would do anything but if they had to put it on all the mail they send out, that might make a change.

[Sky High]

or how about we fix the issue of bribery/lobbyism? granted I'm agasint this but it doesn't directly solve the problem either.

[Reeve]

or how about we fix the issue of bribery/lobbyism? granted I'm agasint this but it doesn't directly solve the problem either.

A lot of problems are better solved indirectly by providing incentives rather than trying to force a specific behavior.

[Sky High]

A lot of problems are better solved indirectly by providing incentives rather than trying to force a specific behavior.

"shrug" I don't have that much faith in the American voters, at least when it comes to senators or house reps.

[Belize]

or how about we fix the issue of bribery/lobbyism? granted I'm agasint this but it doesn't directly solve the problem either.

Wouldn't you say that once politicians cannot deny being handed wads of cash, they'd back off a little on the lobbying? Public shaming works wonders sometimes.

[Kujako]

or how about we fix the issue of bribery/lobbyism? granted I'm agasint this but it doesn't directly solve the problem either.

Would take overturning the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United. Not gona happen in our life time. And frankly I have a hard time coming up with an argument as to why spending money isn't free speech...

[Reeve]

Wouldn't you say that once politicians cannot deny being handed wads of cash, they'd back off a little on the lobbying? Public shaming works wonders sometimes.

It's important to point out that lobbying is actually necessary and good. Someone has to provide lawmakers with specialized information, as it's impossible to expect legislators to know everything there is to know about every topic. The point of lobbying is to let people who know a little about the industries/situations being lobbied about a chance to discuss the issues with the lawmakers, who may not know as much.

It's the use of lobbying as a trojan horse for excessive campaign contributions that's the problem. Politicians don't have time to speak to every person who comes to their door, so they often prioritize by who has the ability to contribute to their campaign the most. Since most organizations, outside SuperPACs, are limited in what they can contribute, lobbyists will put on events where hundreds of people may show and all donate the maximum allowable amount, if the politician in question will give the lobbyist a couple hours of their time to talk about their pet issues.

In reality, it's hard to ignore what the person is asking for when they've contributed so much, since it would mean they're unlikely to contribute again, but that's a separate issue from lobbying itself, which is an important part of representative democracy.

[Sky High]

Wouldn't you say that once politicians cannot deny being handed wads of cash, they'd back off a little on the lobbying? Public shaming works wonders sometimes.

hoesntly I'd rather we just ban lobbying out right then just insetivize them to do it differently. granted I could be overstating how clever they are.

[Reeve]

Would take overturning the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United. Not gona happen in our life time. And frankly I have a hard time coming up with an argument as to why spending money isn't free speech...

Yeah, while I think Citizen's United was bad for the country, it was certainly the correct decision from a constitutional law perspective.

[Kujako]

Yeah, while I think Citizen's United was bad for the country, it was certainly the correct decision from a constitutional law perspective.

Well I think the "corporations are people" part is against the 13th Amendment. So I think we can get rid of that bit.

[Sky High]

It's important to point out that lobbying is actually necessary and good. Someone has to provide lawmakers with specialized information, as it's impossible to expect legislators to know everything there is to know about every topic. The point of lobbying is to let people who know a little about the industries/situations being lobbied about a chance to discuss the issues with the lawmakers, who may not know as much.

It's the use of lobbying as a trojan horse for excessive campaign contributions that's the problem. Politicians don't have time to speak to every person who comes to their door, so they often prioritize by who has the ability to contribute to their campaign the most. Since most organizations, outside SuperPACs, are limited in what they can contribute, lobbyists will put on events where hundreds of people may show and all donate the maximum allowable amount, if the politician in question will give the lobbyist a couple hours of their time to talk about their pet issues.

In reality, it's hard to ignore what the person is asking for when they've contributed so much, since it would mean they're unlikely to contribute again, but that's a separate issue from lobbying itself, which is an important part of representative democracy.

hmm yea if they got rid of the money under the table part I wouldn't have an issue with it.

[Reeve]

Well I think the "corporations are people" part is against the 13th Amendment. So I think we can get rid of that bit.

Maybe, but that's not the critical bit of Citizens United.

[Felya]

why is it different? Because it's a group you don't like?

Being a politician is a job, not just a group. The badges are for their campaigns, regardless of the political party. Do cops wear badges because they are a group you don't like?

[Kujako]

Maybe, but that's not the critical bit of Citizens United.

But it kind of is. Because corporations are people, they get 1st amendment protection, and can spend unlimited money in politics. But the 13th amendment says that owning people is against the law, so corporations can't be people, so we can limit their political spending.

[Felya]

Would take overturning the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United. Not gona happen in our life time. And frankly I have a hard time coming up with an argument as to why spending money isn't free speech...

They arrested a guy being funded by ISIS. If money is free speech, that was a clear violation and people can send/receive funding from/to criminals without punishment, just like they are free to talk to them. The issue with Citizens United is that it defines money as speech in elections, to permit the subverting of donor information. In just about every other judicial sense, spending money is not free speech. If it was, the idea of money laundering is less a crime, than just being a translation of speech.

[ComputerNerd]

Nah.

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

I agree.
More transparency I support, but the logos idea just sounds petty.