Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Direct Democracy Amendment Now. If its good enough for Iceland

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 24, 2013, 1:36 p.m. EST by gsw (2697)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We should have direct democracy input via technology....we are not in the 18th century!

Technology exists here's a model... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rX0QAGln1c&feature=youtube_gdata_player -

It is what founders would have wanted for us now.

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff0300.htm

Is this the best way to get back our country? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iceland-referendum-idUSBRE89K09C20121021

http://www.idea.int/publications/direct_democracy/upload/DDH_inlay_low.pdf

DIRECT DEMOCRACY - PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

WORLDWIDE LINKS RESOURCE PAGE

https://sites.google.com/site/democracybythepeople/direct-participatory-democracy-links

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

This might be overreach. (And I support much of Icelands reforms)

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Iceland-s-plan-to-ban-Internet-porn-sparks-uproar-4305251.php

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

The kentem seems more involved than most americans might want to be.

But if it's what the people want to do for government, fine.

Here's how Swiss do it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct-democracy-makes-Switzerland-a-better-place.html

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the Swiss do it with holes

[-] 3 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Oh ... cheese holes.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5850) 1 year ago

The kentum gets people together in person to discuss issues and become familiar with the members of their own community. The problem with technology enabled democracy is that the technology can always either fail or be influenced by those who control the technology.

Democracy is what it is and will be whatever people allow it to be based upon their chosen level of collective involvement. It can be minor or it can be major but that's the inherent nature of a democracy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

SUPREME COURT POISED TO DESTROY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

MTA-highest-bidder.jpgLast week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case — McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

The McCutcheon case attempts to undermine the total combined contributions limit for individuals (already set at tens of thousands of dollars), which will open a whole new floodgate of cash into our electoral system reserved only for the wealthy.

We need the We the People Amendment to safeguard against this kind of treachery. Only an amendment that clearly states that money is not free speech will safeguard our democracy from control and manipulation by the super wealthy.

Help us reach our goal of 250,000 more signatures on the Motion to Amend — spread the word by sharing this link with your friends! You can also ask them to text SIGN to 1-707-656-4019 to sign the petition by text message on their cell phone.

If the court decides in favor of McCutcheon, it is only a matter of time before the rest of the limits fall, and our elections will become an outright auction to the highest bidders.

Please ask your friends to join our cause by signing the Move to Amend petition — share this link: http://movetoamend.nationbuilder.com/petition!

Move to Amend is the only coalition working towards the real solution, while building the grassroots movement to win. There are many organizations doing similar work:

Other groups propose only a legislative solution, which simply won’t work. Any legislation to counter Citizen’s United or McCutcheon, if it succeeds, cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision — that can only be achieved by constitutional amendment.

Some groups only support overturning Citizens United. Does anyone think that our electoral and legal systems were working for the people before Citizens United? Why waste the work of an amendment on such a paltry and meager solution?

Some groups only support passing an amendment to overturn the doctrine that money is speech. But as long as corporations have constitutional rights they are entitled to overturn our laws meant to safeguard the public.

MTA-radio-promo.jpgCorporations and the wealthy will keep chipping away at our constitution in their search for more and more wealth and power. We must answer them with an army of galvanized citizens willing to stand up for what is ours—the heart and soul of this great nation.

Move to Amend must be even more successful than we have been, if we are going to pass on a functioning democratic republic to future generations.

We believe we can double our size and reach this year, but we need your help to do it…

Please spread the word and ask your friends to sign the Motion to Amend petition. You can also ask them to text SIGN to 1-707-656-4019 to sign the petition by text message on their cell phone.

Building our movement signature by signature,

Ashley Sanders, Ben Manski, Daniel Lee, David Cobb, Egberto Willies, George Friday, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Laura Bonham, Nancy Price

Move to Amend National Leadership Team

PS -- Join our next Take Action Webinar! On Tuesday, March 5 we will let you know how you can join our May 10 Day of Action. May 10 is the 127th anniversary of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the "birthday" of the corporate person. Help us make a stand nationwide: 127 years is enough! Click here to RSVP for our webinar.

MOVE TO AMEND

PO Box 610, Eureka CA 95502 | (707) 269-0984 | www.MoveToAmend.org

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Bill HR 29 Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)


Section 1.
Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2.
Money is Not Free Speech
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


Consider your key project – jobs, military, elections, education, tax reform –
ANYTHING
Now imagine that the 1% opposition cannot spend to get their way against you

*** .

This responds to hundreds of local & state resolutions and Move To Amend for a “We the People” Amendment - The movement for constitutional reforms that would end “corporate rule”. The Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that: Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities – including corporations, unions, and parties. and that Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. Government belongs to the people & must not be for sale to the corporations and the wealthy and the 1% special interests. The Move To Amend coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment. This bill is specifically different from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United because it also specifically addresses corporate personhhod. In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have voted to end “CP”. The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely with this amendment.

If you want to understand

Citizens United &
Corporate Personhood &
the Amendment Process

Please visit our OWS CU / CP / Amendment site:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

70+ videos & 40+ documents on this issue from Sanders, Chomsky, Maher, Hedges, Lessig, Warren, Grayson, Hartmann, Hightower, etc

►►Support this bill HR29◄◄
Write & email your congresspeople house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

call Rep Rick Nolan to show support 202 225 6211

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Yes, but no- "It is what founders would have wanted for us now." because free speech is abridged.

After ART5 and preparatory amendment, YES!

Why?

Democracy depends on opinion, opinion depends on information, information depends on media - oops.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We are trying in NY

http://lowercased.org/

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

italy suggest online vote on euro.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-fracking-health-study-news-194243132.html

Should be binding and would be one step closer to direct democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

What about New England? I dont think americans are so foriegn to the idea of 'direct' government.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Americans were Raised on direct democracy.

Here's a compendium of world wide direct democracy links. https://sites.google.com/site/democracybythepeople/direct-participatory-democracy-links

http://democracybythepeople.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-poll-says-americans-want-direct.html

They would like it more than a congress with a 15 percent approval.

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/02/congressional_approval_now_at.html

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

So isn't the answer obvious?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That's what I said.........

[-] 3 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

So against direct democracy arguments are?

--fear of mob rule? we'll be stupid in lawmaking

Make contradictory laws, or run deficits.

That it will be difficult to educate the electorate

--not efficient, too many cooks in the kitchen

Are we so unable to be educated so we can decide issues. With dd we will at least feel we had a choice in the matters, not just the elected.

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I agree with you!

New England is a perfect example of direct government. Who can argue with over 300 years of success?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I support that.

[-] 3 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

I would bet a good majority would support it so we should take the amendment and start gathering signatures. My state allows citizens initiatives. ( A majority voted to legalize MJ, here. )

Otherwise get some new ows pols who will run on this one issue, well the others too.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

So hard to see how we get there. I assume it is the logical evolution for democracies, but I know also that the corp 1% plutocrats who currently control our govt would fight this tooth and nail.

It's gonna be years of hard work, but we WILL get there.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Maybe Someboby would put it on the Obama white house petition site, as a start.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Small discussions (in this case 3rd party) on Direct Democracy ARE happening. I suppose the transformation (which I consider an inevitable evolution) will be a long time coming, but just to show a little action on this important issue:

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=cb13105e607dd4a1eccd4b8e2&id=e158566f37&e=2f1829c0f2

(and a well deserved bump up of the critical post/subject)

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I like that. Every little bit. You never know what could inspire a super activist.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

amendment -
easy to do? hard to do?

look at your numbers
300,000,000 Americans
how many have signed petitions?
over 535 politicians - roughly 66% are required
how many support it?


if you say democracy is the problem - this may be the way


I say the problem is the incest between
capitalism + democracy = crapitalism
millions of Americans & over 100 senators + congressmen + 1309 mayors support addressing this problem.
first step: HJR29
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Direct democracy amendment would be as easy to do as any other amendment.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

some amendments took a few weeks, others failed after many years
what is the PRESENT support for this?
how many amendments have been introduced in congress on this?


CU & CP : did you look at HJR29 or any of the dozen on CU & CP ?


specifically, what would "Iceland" SOLVE that HJR29 would not solve

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

You have put a lot of work in this. thank you.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/__overturn-citizens-united-corporate-personhood__/

Someone said they recalled things were messed up before cu. me too.

The financial melt down was before citizens united. The reps do what they want, for themselves and their cronies and friends. They'll get more rich when they are out of politics.

  1. http://ni4d.us/

How do Americans become lawmakers? The Congress is not likely to dilute its power by empowering the people as lawmakers. Therefore, the people themselves must enact the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposed law that empowers them as lawmakers.

The National Initiative is a legislative package sponsored by The Democracy Foundation (www.nationalinitiative.us), a non-profit IRS 501 C (3) corporation that includes an Amendment to the Constitution and a Federal Statute. The Democracy Amendment 1) amends the Constitution asserting the legislative powers of the people, 2) sanctions the national election conducted by the nonprofit corporation Philadelphia II, giving Americans the opportunity to vote on the National Initiative, 3) creates an Electoral Trust (vital to maintain citizen lawmaking independent of representatives) and defines the role of its trustees, and 4) outlaws the use of monies not from natural persons in initiative elections.

The Democracy Act is a proposed federal statute that 1) sets out deliberative legislative procedures (copied from Congress) to be used for initiative lawmaking by citizens in every government jurisdiction of the United States, 2) defines the limited powers of the Electoral Trust that administers the legislative procedures on behalf of the people, and 3) defines the electoral threshold that must be reached for the National Initiative to become the law of the land. It is important to understand that the National Initiative does not alter the existing structure or powers of representative governments. Rather, it adds an additional Check –– the People –– to our system of Checks and Balances, while setting up a working partnership between the people and their elected representatives.

How can American voters amend the Constitution and enact the National Initiative if Congress opposes it? The people must go around all three branches of government to amend the Constitution. There are only two venues within our government structure where constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws can be enacted into law: the people or their elected representatives. The Framers in Article 7 of the Constitution provided a procedure for We, the People to ratify the Constitution and thereby create our government, but failed to provide procedures for the people to alter the Constitution, even though they repeatedly said the people had the right to change their government as they saw fit. However, the Framers did provide amending procedures for themselves in Article V, thereby perpetuating control of government be elites.

  1. http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/constitution-of-the-united-states-direct-democracy/
[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

It is not likely that Congress could be persuaded to eliminate itself. Nor is it likely that the state legislatures, which are modeled after Congress, would call for a convention to do so. And a simple majority in these bodies is not enough. It takes two-thirds of both houses to pass an amendment and it must be ratified by ¾ of the states. Then there is that last statement that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Unless the Supreme Court decides is that zero suffrage is equal suffrage, it could decide that the Senate cannot be eliminated.

Article V makes amending the Constitution ridiculously difficult. Shouldn’t we be able to amend the Constitution by majority vote of the people? The Founding Fathers seemed to think so. Thomas Jefferson said this in the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

On June 8, 1789, when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, he said there should be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that included this statement:

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. In Federalist #39 Madison wrote that "a majority of every national society" is "competent at all times...to alter or abolish its established government."

Alexander Hamilton repeated the principle in Federalist #78, referring to

that fundamental principle of republican government which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/ Here again is Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to T. M. Randolph, Jr. in 1787:

Though we may say with confidence, that the worst of the American constitutions is better than the best which ever existed before in any other country, and that they are wonderfully perfect for a first essay, yet every human essay must have defects. It will remain, therefore, to those now coming on the stage of public affairs, to perfect what has been so well begun by those going off it. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm And Madison asks in Federalist #14:

Is it not the glory of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of the own situation, and the lessons of the own experience? I think the Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that 235 years since the Constitution was written, it is still the law of the land, with only 15 amendments enacted after 1804. But if they believed that the people had the right, even duty, to alter the Constitution, why did they make it nearly impossible to do so? Whatever the reason, we are stuck with Article V. What do the people do when their constitution obstructs the establishment of real democracy? They get creative.

http://steveharrypublicpolicy.com/directdemocracy.htm

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Easy transition through Direct Representatives

True Direct Democracy can be accomplished within the representative system, and  without any changes to its institutions. This can be accomplished simply by electing Direct Representatives who act according to this pledge:

"On every major issue I shall poll my constituents, and vote in Congress (or Parliament) strictly as instructed by the majority."

When Direct Representatives become the majority, government policy will automatically conform to the public will.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Disbanding the U.S. Congress would, of course, require a Constitutional amendment. That is extremely unlikely to happen, given that such an amendment requires an approval of the majority of U.S. states (and existing members of Congress happen to be quite influential in their home states). So to disband Congress, you'd have to convince hundreds of power-hungry people to vote themselves out of power. The odds against that happening are astronomical.

The other option is to just wait for the current U.S. system to collapse, and then replace it with a form of Direct Democracy that makes more sense. This is the more likely scenario, and it may be closer than you think: The financial blowout of America is well under way, and it's only a matter of time before unbridled debt spending leads to runaway inflation and the disastrous demise of the dollar. The passage of the $1 trillion health care bill, in fact, will accelerate America towards financial collapse.

Within a few short years, there may be an opportunity to "reboot America" and create a smarter society to replace the corrupt, outmoded system of government that's failing the American people right now. I support the idea of a Direct Democracy that eliminates the entire U.S. Congress. Of course, there would need to be some sort of process for deciding which proposed laws get put on the public website for discussion and voting, but even that process can be crowdsourced to some degree.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027439_Congress_democracy_America.html#ixzz2Ly4UEhYM

http://www.naturalnews.com/027439_Congress_democracy_America.html

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Just a taste, but at least that.

http://www.nationofchange.org/injecting-democracy-public-spending-1366122354

I never heard anything about this. Someone needs to push for more, & push for more advertizing.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

I haven't heard of it, thanks for sharing here.

Way to get other classes to be more self representative, in local budget decisions.

Great news. If its nearby someone ought to check it out.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I was surprised myself when saw the story, cause I'm in NY.

We should encourage all to pressure expansion of this and any referendum like processes.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ballot Propositions are a form of direct democracy.

Dark money is a threat to that.

http://www.nationofchange.org/investigation-behind-dark-money-defeated-two-ballot-propositions-california-1366041753

FYI, & a bump for this excellent post

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Sergey Mironov; Claudio Del Luongo/Shutterstock Investigators with California's election watchdog and attorney general's office are hot on the trail of the true source of millions in dark money spent to defeat two hard-fought ballot propositions last fall. The wide-ranging probe has conservatives worried that a network of nonprofit groups used to move secret money around the country could be in for some unwanted exposure.

The investigation, led by the state's nonpartisan Fair Political Practices Commission, has already done more than most watchdogs to pry open the black box of the conservative dark-money groups that spent freely in 2012 without disclosing the sources of their money. Last fall, the FPPC revealed what it called "the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money laundering in California history" after it discovered that three nonprofits had funneled $11 million from Virginia to Arizona to California.

As the probe progresses, some conservatives are nervous that more details—such as the identities of actual donors—could be publicized. "This case has got very, very deep and significant implications," says a conservative lobbyist with knowledge of the investigation. "A lot of folks are going to have their dirty laundry hung out, and it's not going to be pretty. Why would money go through such a circuitous route if not to conceal the donors?"

Advertise on MotherJones.com

And the FPPC isn't done. Investigators recently issued a dozen more subpoenas to individuals and nonprofits in connection with the case, the Huffington Post reported. "The most important factor of any investigation of this sort is getting the names of who's contributing to campaigns in California," says Ann Ravel, the FPPC's chairwoman. "Because that's the law." After initially balking, the nonprofits are now cooperating with investigators.

The saga began last October with a mysterious $11 million contribution from a little-known Arizona nonprofit called Americans for Responsible Leadership. ARL gave the money to a political action committee in Sacramento that opposed Gov. Jerry Brown's Proposition 30, which would have raised taxes on the wealthiest Californians, and supported Proposition 32, which would have restricted unions' campaign spending. Though its goals were clear, ARL itself was an enigma: Founded in 2011, it had focused almost exclusively on Arizona; this was its first foray into California politics. And it revealed nothing about where its money originated.

The secret $11 million rocked Golden State politics. Brown tried to score political points by wondering whether foreigners or terrorists were the source of the controversial donation. "I challenge those opponents of Proposition 30: Come out from behind the shadows," the governor said. "Take your mask off. Let voters see who you are."

"A lot of folks are going to have their dirty laundry hung out, and it's not going to be pretty," says a conservative lobbyist. "Why would money go through such a circuitous route if not to conceal the donors?" Under federal law, ARL, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, doesn't have to disclose its donors. But in late October, the Fair Political Practices Committee sued ARL to name the source of the $11 million. The FPPC could do that because California's disclosure laws are tougher than federal ones. The two sides battled it out in court, with ARL refusing to name names. The case reached the state Supreme Court, which agreed with the FPPC and ordered ARL to reveal the source of the $11 million. The group then asked the US Supreme Court to intervene, but to no avail.

On the Sunday before Election Day, Americans for Responsible Leadership finally came clean—sort of. Pay close attention: The source of the $11 million, ARL said, was a shadowy nonprofit in Virginia named Americans for Job Security. What's more, Americans for Job Security didn't give the money directly to ARL; instead, it funneled the money through yet another nonprofit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights. In other words, ARL was just a pass-through, and its money had changed hands at least three times before it arrived in California.

After ARL laid out this shell game, the FPPC declared that the $11 million was "the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money laundering in California history." Yet ARL did not reveal where its money originally came from, and that remains a mystery. (Jason Torchinsky, an attorney for ARL, did not respond to a request for comment for this story.)

But we can glean a few hints from the different groups who handled the money:

• Americans for Job Security, founded by Republican operative Dave Carney, who ran Rick Perry's 2012 presidential campaign, is suspected of being little more than a slush fund for donors seeking anonymity. After investigating AJS in 2009, staffers with Alaska's Public Offices Commission concluded that (PDF) AJS "has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country." Its M.O.: Donors give money to AJS with a cause or campaign in mind, AJS effectively scrubs the donor's fingerprints, and then it spends the money. AJS paid $20,000 to settle the Alaska case and promised not to encourage future anonymous giving in Alaska, but admitted no wrongdoing.

Another clue about AJS: In February, the California chapter of the American Council of Engineering Companies, a trade group that supports privatizing government jobs, disclosed that it had given $400,000 last year to Americans for Job Security to pass the anti-union Prop. 32. Here's the kicker: In a September blog post urging members to donate in support of Prop. 32, an ACEC director wrote that members could give "directly to the 'Yes on 32' campaign (which will be a matter of public record), or to 'Americans for Job Security' (which will allow the donation to remain anonymous)." The post reinforced the notion that AJS is a pass-through for dark money. (AJS president Stephen DeMaura did not respond to a request for comment.)

• The Center to Protect Patient Rights might be described as an ATM for conservative dark money. In 2010 and 2011, the group doled out $59 million to nearly two dozen conservative nonprofits, including the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the 60-Plus Association, and the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. The original source of all this money is unknown because the CPPR is not required to disclose its funders. Sean Noble, an Arizona-based operative with ties to the Kochs' donor network, ran CPPR at the time.

The Fair Political Practices Commission won't say how close it is to wrapping up its investigation. Regardless of the final result, the commission has shown the importance of strong disclosure laws, says Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine Law School. The commission's aggressive actions and California's tough disclosure laws are something worth emulating at the state and national levels, he says, as more donors make use of secretive nonprofits, pass-throughs, and shell companies to mask their spending. "California is doing what reformers have been urging the federal government to do," Hasen says, "which is not to pay lip service to disclosure, but to actually ensure that disclosure is effective."

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I hope no corruption/money stops these investigations.

We'll see, I'll post an upd when I see it.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Stealing elections...why Inclusionman has merit-- uncovering the dark money stealing elections.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/california-dark-money-americans-responsible-leadership

Thanks for psosting this....Californian republicans should be sweating over this heat

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great detail, Again, Kochs, Norquist & other assorted anti 99%'rs. I think the Mormon church was instrumental in defeating gay marriage in cali as well.

Cali has used Props for a long time, We should all push for it because it is like 'gateway direct democracy.'

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

billionaires shuffled money to defeat CA proposed increase tax on wealthy.

They lie and cheat on democraticelections of people. That's tyranny.

This issue should make Americans mad.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And outrage is what we need. Massive numbers of outraged people. So WE must inform as many as possible.

The only solution is growing numbers of outraged people.

The power of the people is greater than the people in power.