Reform Act 2011

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sure. Back in the fairness act days, if opinion, especially controversial opinion crept into a news story or interview, the reporter would give a disclaimer before and after the interview. So if due to some relevance, CBS News or whoever decided to do an interview with Alex Jones or Glenn Beck Grover Norquist, the reporter would tell everyone before and after that it's an opinion or an unverified theory and that the subject escaped from an asylum and eats dicks constantly. You get my point.

so all you want is for news anchors to say that their guests are presenting an opinion?

idk, I'd rather just not have government involved at all, considering how little that is going to change anything

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no actual practical sense in which the Queen can dissolve Parliament. Tjhere is also no sense at all in weakening Government which has regular fixed-term elections in such a way. You are simply wrong to think that representative democracy is furthered by allowing such recalls- it does nothing of the sort. You only need ONE limiter on government behaviour; that they need the vote at the next election. Almost every Government in any Western democracy ever has had 60% of the populace pissed off with it at some point but suggesting they all should have been dissolved is lunacy, plus your system is utterly impractical by the definition of 'any time'.

I lover the way you said you would pretend I didn't say it and then went on to address me saying it. Fascism is merely a particular form of totalitarianism and attempting to ban people from trying to persuade Government representatives to see their point of view absolutely falls into that category. In advocating it, you are taking the position of the fascist and I condemn it utterly.

Outright bribery is already illegal. If you want to tighten those laws, fine, but broadening that to attack the idea of lobbying itself and throwing around literally insane ideas like a 20 year prison sentence simply show your views as being hysterical.

Luckily, no-one who thinks at all like you will ever remotely get close to any tiny modicum of power. You think you are the good guy but you are VERY much the enemy here.

You can persuade government officials by communication, petition, paid media advertisement, or voting. You don't need to contribute money to a reelection campaign, or do their job for them in your favor, or have secret meetings, or buy them dinner and whores.
How does making government public, banning dirty tricks, and eliminating influence peddling make me the enemy? How could you Europeans even comment on that considering that for the most part, your democratic governments still represent the interests of its constituents rather than holding and economy hostage and planning to starve half the country in exchange for a cushy retirement.

Do you even know that under current law people who run for office get to keep campaign contributions as personal income after an election? why do you think Newt Gingrich is running and why elected officials keep raising funds even when their terms are up or when they aren't planing to run?

what would you have them do with the money?

Originally posted by inimalist
what would you have them do with the money?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
11. A consensus vote of 60% of a state's population of no confidence may at any time dissolve a state's government and force an immediate election. A consensus vote of 40 state governors or 60% of the general population of no confidence at any time will dissolve the federal government and force an immediate general election. This right may be suspended only upon a declaration of war by the congress of the United States and only after an attack on US soil by a foreign power or entity or a formal declaration of war by another nation state.

Even if the logistics could be cleared up, you'd be left with a two-party system of government see-sawing from one party to the next every couple of years. As soon as one loses favor, the other would get all the votes and receive all the <$50 donations. Obama came in with a large majority of the votes for the Democrats, but 2 years later his approval rating had dipped below half. You would have the entire executive branch dissolved based on polling? Even at a single state's level that'd be a nightmare.

And how would you conduct this objective and unbiased poll? Take a small sample of the population like every poll does? Take the time (and public money) to fund a door-to-door mandatory census opinion poll? You would dissolve the government and force an immediate election based on shifting opinions?! Granted that's pretty much what happens every 4 years, but to do it at any given time? That would be one helluva messed up government.

Iunno maybe I missed a post you made that easily explains those problems, but I don't see how any solution could be offered with a law like that in place.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
As I said, put it back into a general election fund or into their local government/community.

man, why not just give all the money to the state in the first place?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Do you even know that under current law people who run for office get to keep campaign contributions as personal income after an election?