Why a Theoretical Physicist Wants All State Bills To Be Online Before Final Vote (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Among a slew on ballot propositions that Californians will be asked to consider on Election Day (Nov. 8) is Proposition 54, a proposed constitutional amendment that seems like a no-brainer. If passed, the law would require that the final text of all proposed legislation be published on the Internet for 72 hours before lawmakers can conduct a final vote. Typically, the text of bills in California is put online as it goes through the committee and voting process, but sometimes those bills can change at the last minute. Accessing those changes isn't always easy. The initiative, which seems all-but-certain to pass, has massive support from Charles T. Munger, Jr., the son of billionaire Charles Munger. The younger Munger, an experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a longtime Republican activist, has donated over $10.6 million to the "Yes on Prop. 54" campaign. The effort supporting the opposing view has taken in just over $27,000. Proposition 54 would also force the Assembly and State Senate to allow the public to record meetings as well, which could potentially be used in political advertising. So why would anyone oppose the bill? According to Steven Maviglio, the director of Californians for an Effective Legislature, a campaign committee formed to oppose Proposition 54. It all comes down to who is behind the initiative, and why. "The first thing you need to do is follow the money," he told Ars, pointing us to Munger, Jr. "He's been the top contributor to the California Republican Party. His goal is to disrupt the power of a legislature that's getting things done."

Comments

Re:Some backroom chatter is necessary for democrac

[Anonymous Coward]

AFACT, this only applies to public meetings, the ones that any random person could attend before. Now, they'll be allowed to record the meeting as well, rather than rely on the government to supply transcripts or videos - if the government feels like it. There was a court case about this for some city in CA recently, where a town tried to prevent someone from using video from a meeting in a campaign ad.

Backroom meetings and informal conferences can still occur without public scrutiny. But the results will need to be online for 72 hours before the vote.

Sigh

[argStyopa]

"Follow the money" means to find out who ultimately benefits.
It does NOT mean "follow the money until it comes to someone you don't like and then reflexively oppose it because you just don't like them"...

Re:Yes please

[drinkypoo]

There isn't enough time in a Federal session to read a single big bill aloud.

Congratulations, you got it in one.

Re: Yes please

[kenh]

I think there should be a requirement that all bills are read aloud in full before the legislative body that is to vote on them.

The Republicans tried to do this when PPACA was being discussed/passed - you may recall a few high-profile Democrats saying things like "we have to pass the bill, so you can see what's in it" (pelosi) and "what good is reading the bill if you don't have 2 lawyers with you to explain it to you?" (Conyers, admitting he never actually read the bill he was sponsoring in Congress). The republicans tried to force Dems to hear, from f they wouldn't deign to actually read, the bill they were trying to pass.

Re:Yes please

[legRoom]

there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief

The author(s) of Prop 54 agree. From the text of the proposed law (section 3, part c; emphasis mine):

To give us, the people, and our representatives the necessary time to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the final version of a bill before a vote by imposing a 72-hour public notice period between the time that the final version is made available to the Legislature and the public, and the time that a vote is taken, except in cases of a true emergency declared by the Governor.

Re:Republican Would Benefit?

[sycodon]

Nope.

Leadership regularly adds items to bills at the last minute. That practice is ubiquitous in all legislative bodies, even the US Congress, and is bullshit.

And, what's the fucking hurry? When a Bill is changed it takes a while for it to be analyzed and the people it may affect to understand it and bring their concerns to the attention of their legislator.

The only reason for allowing that bullshit is to slip something in under the wire and without due consideration.