Politics And Current Events

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:08 pm

I don't, because then it limits those with limited funds for legit ballots.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:09 pm

Following on to our discussion of ballot initiatives....

California Assembly passes two bills to deter frivolous ballot measures
Amid outrage over a proposed initiative that calls for the execution of gays and lesbians, the California Assembly on Tuesday passed two bills to discourage outlandish ballot measures.

One would increase the $200 filing fee for potential ballot initiatives to $8,000. Another would allow the state attorney general to include a disclaimer in initiative petitions when a proposed measure would be likely to result in a violation of individuals' constitutional rights.

Most Republican lawmakers opposed both bills, arguing that they are an attack on California's system of direct democracy, in which citizens can petition to change the law if the Legislature refuses.
I would suggest raising the filing fee to $25,000, but otherwise I approve.

Zealots find ways to raise money, even $25K would not be prohibitive.
I'm not sure that I'm comfortable using money as a way to influence politics, it would be inconsistent with other stands regarding the role of monied interests in politics.

However I totally agree with the idea that an initiative that would violate the constitutional rights of others has no business on any ballot.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:15 pm

I don't, because then it limits those with limited funds for legit ballots.

Do you think for a truly legitimate cause it would be difficult to raise $25,000?

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:20 pm

I don't, because then it limits those with limited funds for legit ballots.
Do you think for a truly legitimate cause it would be difficult to raise $25,000?

Do you like money influencing politics?

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:22 pm

Right. Because that doesn't happen now at all.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:28 pm

Right. Because that doesn't happen now at all.

Then why do it more?

Postby **count2infinity** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:33 pm

How exactly is this money influencing politics? Raising $8,000 (or $25,000) should be relatively easy for any worthwhile cause. It's a deterrent for stupid things going on the ballot. Now it's 8k instead of just $200 to get stupid things on there. This isn't money influencing politics in the same way that lobbyists and corporations use money to influence politics... not even close.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 pm

I agree that unconstitutional things should be left off, but it is influencing people's decision to create a ballot initiative or not. Whether it's stupid or not. I don't think that's right.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:45 pm

The main reason (some might suggest the only reason) the GOP is against the measure is because they are the minority party in California, and will be demographically aced out influencing state politics within the legislature. Therefore, the only way they will have any ability to get their agenda across is through the ballot initiative process.

Postby **Robot B9** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:47 pm

That said, there's a lot of gasping and sputtering from the "non partisans" when a Republican does something stupid. The worst offender seems to have disappeared...

who?

Just guessing here but Sarcastic?

Great to see the self-fart-smelling is still going strong in this thread. Lol, jk. Keep it going, you're doing great at continuing to be wrong about just about everything.

Postby **BigMck** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:48 pm

I got approached by a couple of organizers outside a grocery store Monday. They both were wearing 'DARE' T-Shirts. The lead guy asked if I remembered the DARE drug program, to which I answered I did. He then said that the Government had stopped funding the program and asked if I believed that the program was a success, and if I would be interested in donating money to help fund the program. I had to answer that if the program were a success in keeping kids off drugs, why is it that now old enough to vote, a majority of the 'kids' that lived during the program voted to legalize marijuana in many states?

Kind of useless to ask for money to feed the horses long after the barnyard door has been left open.

Postby **Algernon** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:51 pm

That said, there's a lot of gasping and sputtering from the "non partisans" when a Republican does something stupid. The worst offender seems to have disappeared...

who?

Just guessing here but Sarcastic?
Great to see the self-fart-smelling is still going strong in this thread. Lol, jk. Keep it going, you're doing great at continuing to be wrong about just about everything.

Wat

Postby **Troy Loney** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:53 pm

I got approached by a couple of organizers outside a grocery store Monday. They both were wearing 'DARE' T-Shirts. The lead guy asked if I remembered the DARE drug program, to which I answered I did. He then said that the Government had stopped funding the program and asked if I believed that the program was a success, and if I would be interested in donating money to help fund the program. I had to answer that if the program were a success in keeping kids off drugs, why is it that now old enough to vote, a majority of the 'kids' that lived during the program voted to legalize marijuana in many states?

Kind of useless to ask for money to feed the horses long after the barnyard door has been left open.

Marijuana use isn't a useful barometer for determining drug abuse.

Postby **MR25** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:00 pm

The main reason (some might suggest the only reason) the GOP is against the measure is because they are the minority party in California, and will be demographically aced out influencing state politics within the legislature. Therefore, the only way they will have any ability to get their agenda across is through the ballot initiative process.

I'll preface this by saying I have no idea what's actually going on, but the question popped into mind:

If you take the party name out of it, that doesn't exactly seem all the fair, does it?

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:03 pm

Right. Because that doesn't happen now at all.

In order to be consistent, one should be true to ones values and not change with what is expedient.

Postby **count2infinity** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:07 pm

I really think the two situations are apples and oranges. This really isn't money influencing politics. It's just adding a higher barrier of entry for legitimate initiatives, and it's not to the point of it being an extreme amount of money by any stretch of the imagination.

Postby **BigMck** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:10 pm

During the period of the program, marijuana was listed as a drug that should not be used. In fact, it was a gateway drug to stronger drugs.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:10 pm

Right. Because that doesn't happen now at all.
In order to be consistent, one should be true to ones values and not change with what is expedient.

It's not inconsistent at all, in large part because of what c2i is saying.

That and the order-of-magnitude difference between this filing fee and, say, one person bankrolling a candidate to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

How is a higher monetary barrier to initiating a ballot, not politics being influenced by money?

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

If you take the party name out of it, that doesn't exactly seem all the fair, does it?

That's called 'democracy'. If your message is not popular enough to attract a majority, you don't get to guide policy making.

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

During the period of the program, marijuana was listed as a drug that should not be used. In fact, it was a gateway drug to stronger drugs.

The gateway theory has long been debunked.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:15 pm

Right. Because that doesn't happen now at all.
In order to be consistent, one should be true to ones values and not change with what is expedient.
It's not inconsistent at all, in large part because of what c2i is saying.

That and the order-of-magnitude difference between this filing fee and, say, one person bankrolling a candidate to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

I think you're well beyond the point of diminishing returns here in trying to explain yourself here. Can't be seen as more than trolling.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:18 pm

During the period of the program, marijuana was listed as a drug that should not be used. In fact, it was a gateway drug to stronger drugs.
The gateway theory has long been debunked.

Yeah, it's really an idiotic premise. It's basically saying all positive correlations are necessarily cause/effect situations. I can't imagine anyone who's actually been addicted to drugs label weed as a "gateway" drug.

Postby **grunthy** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:20 pm

If you take the party name out of it, that doesn't exactly seem all the fair, does it?
That's called 'democracy'. If your message is not popular enough to attract a majority, you don't get to guide policy making.

Isn't our system designed to not leave the minority out though?

Postby **tifosi77** » Wed May 27, 2015 2:27 pm

It's not a question of leaving the minority out. It's a question of the minority doing things in a way that they cannot accomplish legislatively through consensus building. They want to skip the politics part of politics.

It's my primary objection to the ballot initiative process. The legislature legislates. That's their job.