Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
It's an interesting notion on its face, but there are several problematic aspects of the bill. The requirement to read a bill under penalty of perjury is likely unenforceable. The thing about "vote trading" is also likely unenforceable as a legislator could simply assert that he voted for it for some other reason. As far as bribery goes, it's already illegal. Also, what's the deal with making a "no" vote easier to cast?
I think this is nothing other than a "feel good" measure, particularly since it's a friggin' Californian trying to impose it in North Dakota. What's up with that?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
Stupid idea IMHO, to start not everone has access to the Internet, so many bills contain references to existing legislation where would you stop reading. Yet another California proposition.
|
Interesting points. Isn't it a step toward transparancy though? Room for fine tuning? Absolutely! But a step in the right direction none the less. Yes, no, maybe?
Mike