Slashdot Mirror
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."
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. At the very least, it ensures that all present are aware of the contents. It also has the nice side effect of keeping legislation concise and likely ends bundling various thing together that have nothing to do with each other.
What I would love to see is laws being tracked in version control. The text of congressional bills are large and people can easily slip in minor changes with major impact. There is no real tracking of who edited a bills text and version control would provide that transparency.
Beats having people acting shocked with something is added at changes added at the last minute.
"getting things done" is not the same thing as "doing the right thing" - the person opposing posting the final language of a bill for 72 hours before passage is hoping you don't see the difference...
The whole point of Prop. 54, as I read it, is to make sure the gov't is "doing the right thing" - what's wrong with that? Oh, right, it was proposed by a "republican"! Yikes! It must be a trick of some kind!
Ken
That, and bill's text for disaster relief can be pre-written, and simply enacted upon disaster. If the text hasn't changed, then there shouldn't be any issues.
Are you serious? Do you imagine first-responders to disasters need a literal act of (state) congress to respond? The various departments of the state are pre-authorized to respond, the so-called 'disaster relief' bills would address things like investments in reconstruction, providing emergency housing, etc., and are passed well after the disaster. First the disaster occurs, then the damage is assessed, cost estimates are formulated, then disaster relief bills are drafted and passed.
You could always amend the state constitution to provide a fast-track for a very specific type of bill, but honestly such a provision would likely be exploited way too often, rendering the bill useless.
Ken
The 72 hours requirement kicks in once you have 'final text', not each draft.
Ken
On the other hand, there are a good number of things I can think of where a 72 hour waiting period might be inappropriate such as disaster relief and other time sensitive bills typically handled swiftly by all parties involved.
Th categories that require an immediate response usually do not require an immediate vote. Things like grounding planes, mobilizing troops, deploying national guard to a disaster, etc.. are usually authorized by the governor and/or president without the consent of a legislative body. Declaring war and additional funding is done by the legislatures but a 72 hour freeze isn't going to really have much effect on that.
It annoys me that the summary decided that it is a bad law solely by the side funding it. A law should be decided on its merits and in this case, I think this is a good law. I also think things like picture ids for voting, background checks for buying guns, and plenty of other things which are sensible laws should not be immediately rejected just because the other side wants it. That's why we have the current stalemate that we currently have.
I don't know about California state legislation, but Federal bills are literally unreadable. You'd need a staff of dozens, all experienced in the subject matter, studying the bill to have a chance of understanding it within 72 hours.
And this is absolutely insane. We have members of congress regularly voting on bill that they themselves haven't read and don't understand. How can anyone think this is acceptable?
But here is the kicker -- Senator A and Senator C both have towns in their districts that build floatys and arm-wings for the Navy... The Navy doesn't actually need them, and if they completely control their own spending, they will cancel the contract. Both Senators will have heavy job losses in their districts, spurning hard economic times, making it harder for them to get re-elected. If they write a bill that dictates that the Navy buys all these floatys and arm-wings for the Navy, then they saved jobs and are heroes... The same goes for army/navy bases, etc. Heck, it's reasons like that, that there is a fully stocked air-force armory in my town -- 75 miles away from the closest air-force base and 30 miles away from the closest airport that can even land a jet.
And that is why things don't chance. If we made these organizations more efficient and allowed them to spend in ways that are actually useful to them, lots of people lose their jobs (mostly people in congress, but you know)...
Yes, the criticism is a true ad hominem: this person supporting the idea is "bad", therefore the idea itself is bad.
"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."
So, Republicans would benefit by everyone knowing what they are voting on, that the public know what's going on, and that the legislation be carefully considered?
What does that say about the people who oppose this? That they don't want people to know what they are voting on, don't want the legislation to be carefully considered, and that the public not be informed?
Is the definition of "getting things done" mean having things slipped in at the last minute while keeping the public and the legislators clueless ?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And then require that every law on the books be read aloud once every 6 years or the law expires.
I've been advocating law experation without renewal for years. It forces elected legislatures to review previous generations' laws for problems and continued validity.
It also recognizes the lower weight assigned to simple majority decisions (as opposed to supermajorities).
If there is too much for the government to do even a cursory review every 5 years, there's too much to expect The People to obey it all.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Unfortunately, the purpose is more insidious. The intent isn't as much delay as it is to give the people with money and an agenda a chance to see bills and react with either private lobbying or very public press thrown at the bills. In this case, press as in spin, misinformation, and lies. Basically some wealthy people with an agenda want more control over the legislative process than they have now.
Would I like to see bills ahead of time? Sure. But what would I be able to do about a bill I disagreed with? Not write to my representative - the timing is too tight for that. Call? Sure, but that isn't going to do as much as hordes of lobbyists descending upon the state capitol or a slanted news report. I actually did vote no on this one - just because it will allow money even more access.
There's usually a good reason to be against something because someone else is for it in today's bitterly divisive politics.
For instance, it is the goal of certain nutjobs on the right to see to it that government can't do anything. Not "can't do anything right", but literally to make government unable to function. Then they can say that government is broken, largely because they helped break it.
This is how you get things like "means tests" for certain benefits, illogical qualifications for assistance that make you lose benefits the instant you get any kind of job, etc. They say they want to save money but what they really want to do is make sure that no universal anything exists that benefits all people. They WANT the red tape and inefficiencies, they create them, and they want you to be barely ineligible for help when you need it for nonsense reasons like having a job, specifically so that you'll get frustrated and hate government and hate the people who are worse off than you instead of the ones who are better off through the usual theft and dirty dealings that make rich people rich.
Why? Because government is the one force that can stand up to the super wealthy and the last thing they want is for we the people to start wielding that force effectively like we used to back when we had strong trade policies, strong worker rights, and a strong middle class.
A strong middle class is dangerous. A strong middle class means lots of people who are comfortable in life, not especially worried about where their next meal is coming from or stressed out from working 3 jobs. Confortable people have time to do things like protest things they don't like and take other political actions. The rich right wingers hate that to their core because it's noisy, chaotic, unpredictable, and of course it might affect their wealth and status if they don't behave.
The sooner everyone figures that out and starts to identify who their real enemies are the better off we'll all be.