Heed the Will Of the People

To the Editor:

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

To the Editor:

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the USA, must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves, while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara

Auburn, Wash.

 

An Actionable Plan for 9/11 Truth

An Actionable Plan for 9/11 Truth

An Actionable Plan for 9/11 Truth

By Senator Mike Gravel

At each 9/11 anniversary, the significance of this tragedy looms ever larger in our history. As new evidence, new whistleblowers, and new calls for reopening the investigation come forward, the work of the 9/11 truth movement grows in historic significance. All of this points to the urgent need for a new, independent, investigation with subpoena and other grand jury powers––a citizen’s commission that is truly free of partisan political interference.

Many ask why we need a new investigation of 9/11. Wouldn’t it be a waste of time and money in view of these budgetary hard times? President Obama answered that question just after his inauguration when he declared: “We won’t look back.” That decision set the tone for the Congress and mainstream media to marginalize and even suppress any public discussion of what happened to the United States on 9/11. The President has rendered a great disservice to our democracy by officially stating that we don’t want to know more about the event that plunged the nation into three wars, wasted trillions of dollars of public treasure, and depressed our economy. Not looking back limits our ability to look forward. Continued ignorance about what happened on 9/11 condemns our nation to repeat the mistakes of the past, which is exactly what we are doing.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 also reminds us of other horrors that resulted from the government’s official 9/11 story. In addition to the interminable wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and the War on Terror, the official line also conveniently set the stage for the Patriot Act that abridged so many of our liberties and civil rights. It also set the stage for a long list of other abuses such as egregious torture of “terror suspects” in the name of national security. (Consider a prescient statement by James Madison: “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”)

The U.S. government’s investigation that culminated in the 9/11 Commission Report purported to set the record straight about the perpetrators of terrorism on our soil and the mistakes made by those whose sacred task is to defend our shores. But this 2004 report has since been called into question by a very long list of credible voices, not only within the United States but throughout the world.

The chairman of the Commission, Governor Thomas Kean, admitted failure: “We think the Commission, in many ways, was set up to fail. Because we had not enough money, we didn’t have enough time, and we [were] appointed by the most partisan people in Washington.” “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth…It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

Commission co-chair Congressman Lee Hamilton said: “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right…the commission was set up to fail…people should keep asking questions about 9/11…”

Commissioner Timothy Roemer said: “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting.”

Senator Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It’s a national scandal.”

John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general, who led the staff inquiry, said: “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened…I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described…The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…This is not spin. This is not true. There were interviews made of the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened.”

If the 9/11 Commissioners and the Commission staff don’t buy the official story, why should mainstream media and the American people?

Thousands of civic volunteers calling themselves the 9/11 truth movement have gone on to parse the events of that fateful day, offering scientific and rational arguments for why the government’s official account is inaccurate, incomplete, implausible, and in fact constitutes a flimsy conspiracy theory. This body of new evidence and argumentation brought forward by ordinary citizens, combined with the refusal of our political leaders to even countenance a new investigation, and the systematic marginalization of 9/11 truthers by our corporate-controlled mainstream media, adds to the suspicions that something is profoundly amiss.

Direct Democracy: The Way Forward

Presently, our heroic 9/11 truth activists can continue to educate Americans and the world’s people with the hope of pressing the U.S. Congress to act. However, it is evident to me that the federal government won’t act to change the official 9/11 story line; and the American people simply can’t act, given the structure of our representative democracy. All the people can do is educate, agitate and protest, and give their power away to representatives on Election Day. That’s because of one obvious reality: the way to meaningful citizen participation in public policy is blocked by the elites now in control of the mainstream media and of government (regardless of party). Citizens lack access to the legislative procedures needed to implement the central power of government––lawmaking––at the federal level. Indeed, this is true as well in most governmental jurisdictions of the United States. But fortunately there are 24 states that have some form of initiative lawmaking where people can enact laws.

Direct Democracy for 9/11 Truth

The cause of direct democracy has been my principal passion since my two terms in the U.S. Senate (1969–1981). I founded and served as president of the Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States through the enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy (NI4D). NI4D is meta-legislation that would empower the American people as lawmakers in every government jurisdiction of the nation. We have yet to enact the National Initiative, but the process of direct democracy at the state level is available for direct action by the people. And that’s why, at a gathering of 9/11 truth advocates in New York City in September 2010, I suggested a new strategy for the 9/11 truth movement: that of using the initiative process in several states as a vehicle to enact a law creating a new 9/11 citizens commission that would investigate the intelligence failures prior to 9/11, and the events during and after 9/11. My suggestion was well received in New York and subsequently in talks with 9/11 truth activists across California, the state best known for initiatives. My idea was not original in that it followed upon a campaign for an initiative under New York City law proposed by truth advocates, one that had garnered more than 80,000 petition signatures, only to be thrown out by the New York State Supreme Court.

Building on the New York experience, I approached both the California and the Oregon Legislative Counsels for assistance in drafting a prospective law that would create a new investigative commission––independent of federal and state governments––but with the necessary powers to get to the facts (i.e., subpoena and oath taking). These Legislative Counsels have bought into my concept. The vision of the commission would be to pursue an investigation wherever the evidence leads. No person would be immune from criminal implication, regardless of political station in or out of government (domestic or foreign).

I am convinced that the independence of the new commission can only be guaranteed if the appointment of its members is controlled by the vision of the 9/11 truth movement, rather than the customary commission-appointment process typically conducted by governors and legislators. Our proposal envisions that the steering committee of the Citizens 9/11 Commission campaign, made up of activists from various states, would select the commissioners from nominees proposed by the public.

The key element of the proposed initiative is the use of a Joint Powers Agreement, whereby similar laws enacted in several states are harmonized to create one single commission. The Joint Powers Agreement also facilitates the endorsement and participation of other state governments at a later time, thereby adding their grand jury powers to the Commission. Our plan envisions enacting an initiative law in one or more states. These proposed initiatives would be presented to state voters for their decision on November 6, 2012.

Key Strategic Considerations

Enacting the Citizens 9/11 Commission initiative in California would have the greatest national impact. However, enactment in California would be expensive: on the order of $1 to $2 million to be successful. The second state with the greatest national impact is Massachusetts, sincepass Boston is the media capital of New England and one of five political hubs on the East Coast.

Oregon would also be a great state in which to wage a political campaign to enact the Citizens 9/11 Commission initiative. The timing to secure petition signatures to qualify an initiative in Oregon is very favorable. That is not the case in Massachusetts where the deadline for filing an initiative was August 3, 2011. We were able to meet that deadline and get certified approval to begin gathering signatures (received from the state’s Attorney General on September 7th) thanks to a great group of local activists headed up by Rich McCampbell and Rich Aucoin. The cost of succeeding with an initiative effort in Massachusetts is about $300,000. An Oregon effort would require a similar amount. However, unlike Oregon, Massachusetts has a short period of time to collect 68,911 valid petition signatures. To be sure that we have sufficient valid signatures, we must collect more than 80,000 by November 23, 2011. This is why Massachusetts is the top priority in our present efforts to secure the necessary funding to place an initiative on the ballot in Massachusetts.

The Challenge Ahead: Building an Effective Citizen’s Campaign

Success or failure will be determined by the resources that can be brought to bear on our organizational efforts and the petition campaigns to qualify the initiatives and secure their approval by the people. Success will require money––the mother’s milk of politics.

If we are able to raise the necessary funds for this undertaking, I believe there is no possibility of failure. Regardless what happens we will certainly advance the national debate on 9/11––alerting more Americans to the problem, and more importantly, pointing to an actionable plan where the people are the solution––not the government.

We recognize that the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign’s fundraising efforts will compete with many elements of the truth movement whose members seek to raise funds to educate and proselytize new members for their particular vision of 9/11. Unfortunately, we know that after ten years of arduous efforts that creating awareness of what went wrong on 9/11 alone is not nearly enough, since people armed with this new information can only beg the Congress to act. The Congress won’t even discuss 9/11; this approach alone is a fool’s errand.

We on the steering committee hope that the various 9/11 truth groups will realize that funds committed to securing signatures on petitions to qualify initiatives in several states across the country will have to effectively communicate information about 9/11 in order for anyone to sign petitions.

Thus, our goal is the same as the entire truth movement’s desire to educate the public, except that we ask the public to act on that information right then and there by signing an initiative petition, thereby participating in a legislative process to create a new Citizens 9/11 Investigation Commission. This is real citizen action that makes all the difference in a democracy.

We, therefore, hope that all factions of the truth movement will focus their fundraising abilities on supporting our efforts, channeling funds to us at: 9-11cc.org so that we can succeed in Massachusetts, then in Oregon, Colorado, and California and in any number of other states.

The 9/11 truth movement is global, since the impact of 9/11 was global. In fact, the peoples of many nations are more skeptical of the U.S. Government story line than Americans. For that reason, we hope to bring worldwide resources to bear on succeeding to enact a Citizens 9/11 Investigation Commission.

One thing I know is this: the 9/11 truth movement is grassroots; that sovereign power lies with the people; and that our fellow citizens are becoming aware of 9/11 truth in vast numbers. It is time for a winning approach to turn education to action: the method of direct democracy—the state ballot initiative

————

Mike Gravel was a two-term Senator from Alaska (1969–1981), during which time he was best known for his lengthy filibuster that ended the draft, and for reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, the legality of which was confirmed in an historic Supreme Court case. Gravel later founded and served as president of the Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States through the enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy. Gravel founded the citizens’ 9/11 Commission Campaign in 2010. http://9-11cc.org/

This is not remotely initiative ‘reform’

Should California’s initiative process be improved? Sure. There are plenty of good ideas worth considering. Financial backers of proposed measures could be identified more quickly and thoroughly. More thorough vetting of proposals might lead to fewer surprises or legal reversals after adoption. Safeguards that guarantee a more neutral approach to the crafting of ballot language make sense.

Should California’s initiative process be improved? Sure. There are plenty of good ideas worth considering. Financial backers of proposed measures could be identified more quickly and thoroughly. More thorough vetting of proposals might lead to fewer surprises or legal reversals after adoption. Safeguards that guarantee a more neutral approach to the crafting of ballot language make sense.

However, much of what’s going on now in Sacramento under the guise of reforming the initiative process isn’t about fixing a flawed system. It’s about revising a flawed system in a way that insulates lawmakers from voter-mandated change.

One proposed bill would allow the Legislature to amend or repeal winning initiatives four years after their passage. Another bill would allow lawmakers to ask voters to consider changes in initiatives as they are voting on them.

These ideas are depicted as sensible measures to give the state government ways to get relief from excessively onerous or poorly thought-out ballot initiatives. Yet recent history suggests the proposals aren’t driven by a reform impulse but by the frustration felt by state Democratic lawmakers and their allies that California voters disagree with major parts of their agenda – especially their frequent call for higher taxes – and use direct democracy to make that clear.

The claim that a desire for reform is what’s fueling the push for altering the initiative process is further undermined by the latest proposed change: keeping all measures off the primary election ballot, starting next year. The result would often be a general election ballot with 15 to 20 ballot measures for voters to consider; so much for any hopes the legislation would be carefully considered. This can’t remotely be billed as reform.

This is why some supporters of the change openly acknowledge that the idea is driven by the assumption that in 2012, general election voters will be more favorable to the Democratic point of view on ballot measures than primary election voters.

There’s likely to be a great deal at stake in these measures. Epic fights over state spending limits, pension benefits for public employees and allowing union members to keep their dues from being used for political purposes all appear to be in the works. Perhaps Democratic lawmakers think too much is at risk to not try to shape the battle in their favor as much as possible. But please, let’s end the pretense that initiative changes are being pushed for noble purposes.

Instead, in this centennial of California’s adoption of direct democracy, this extreme maneuvering is a reminder of why Gov. Hiram Johnson pushed so hard in 1911 for voters to be given veto power over the Legislature via initiative, referendum and recall.

We hope Gov. Jerry Brown agrees and does his part to stop the multifront power play now unfolding in Sacramento.

Written by
Union-Tribune Editorial Board
 
midnight, Sept. 4, 2011

Direct democracy for a better nation

Dear Editor

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

Dear Editor

The elections of fall 2010 have long been over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the U.S.A., must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves, while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara
Auburn, Wash.

 

Viewpoints: Celebrate our initiative process by improving its transparency

Viewpoints: Celebrate our initiative process by improving its transparency

By Kim Alexander
Special to The Bee

Viewpoints: Celebrate our initiative process by improving its transparency

By Kim Alexander
Special to The Bee

Published: Sunday, Aug. 14, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 5E

California’s world-famous initiative process is 100 years old this year, a good time to think about how well that process serves the people of California.

This is the people’s lawmaking arena. But can voters participate in this process in a meaningful way? And for those who do vote, how do we maximize the chances that they make informed choices?

Love it or hate it, there is no doubt that voters value the initiative process and its ability to deliver changes the Legislature would not make because of special interest pressure or lawmakers’ self-interests. California voters have turned to initiatives for term limits, redistricting reform, recycling, cigarette tax increases, and legalizing medical marijuana, to name just a few examples.

But the initiative process is not only for ideas that don’t get a fair shake in the Capitol. It is open to use and often abuse by special-interest groups and wealthy individuals. We’ve seen big corporations, including Pacific Gas and Electric, Mercury General insurance, and now Amazon.com, turn to California’s direct democracy to protect their own corporate interests rather than the broad public interest.

Voters usually defeat initiatives. On average, only one in three put on the ballot has passed in the last 100 years. But it can be a lot of work for voters who want to sort out the details of what to approve and what to turn down.

One of the hardest things for voters to figure out is exactly who sponsors an initiative. Who paid to put it on the ballot? In the Legislature’s lawmaking arena, every bill has an analysis and every analysis lists, at the top, in plain language, who the sponsor of the bill is. It is one of the essential pieces of information relied upon to make legislative decisions.

Voters should have easy access to this same essential information when they make their legislative choices. And that easy access should occur at several points in the initiative process – when a voter is asked to sign a petition, when voters consult the ballot pamphlet, and when they cast their ballots. Making voters hunt for sponsors’ identities on the secretary of state’s website is not good enough.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, wants to make one of these three reforms happen. His Senate Bill 334 requires the ballot pamphlet to identify donors of $50,000 or more for supporting and opposing proposition committees. The bill has the support of Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and there’s a good chance it will get to Gov. Jerry Brown for signature.

California voters support this kind of reform. The Public Policy Institute of California has repeatedly asked Californians whether they want more information about initiative funders. The answer has been a repeated, resounding "Yes" from all quarters. In six polls from 2005 to 2009, 82 to 85 percent of those surveyed said they favor increasing public disclosure of funding sources for signature gathering and initiative campaigns.

So why not add this information to the ballot pamphlet? Some argue it’s unfair, that it won’t be an accurate representation of both the pro and con sides because the supporters will have spent early money qualifying the initiative and the opponents may not have raised much money at that point.

That’s true, but this isn’t a public opinion poll. It’s lawmaking. It is far more important that voters know who the sponsors of a proposition are than to know which side in a contest has the most financial support.

There is other information in the ballot pamphlet that voters can use to assess the opposition, like pro and con arguments, campaign contact information and website addresses. SB 334 adds to this, requiring the ballot pamphlet to tell voters where to find more contribution information online.

Why stop with the ballot pamphlet? We should also require initiative petitions to disclose on the petition itself who paid for the printing costs, so that when voters are asked to sign it they would have this information in plain sight.

Posting lists of top donors as of two weeks before Election Day at polling places would give voters easy and timely access to disclosure data and help them make informed choices.

California’s campaign disclosure laws are good, but voters want more. The obvious next step is to publicize disclosure by placing information about who is financing proposition campaigns in plain sight at key points where voters engage with the initiative process – when they sign initiative petitions, when they consult their ballot pamphlets, and when they vote.

This is the people’s lawmaking arena, and it is up to the people to determine the rules by which we wish to legislate. Let’s celebrate the centennial of the initiative process by making rules for the game that put it more firmly in the people’s hands.

Big Businesses Back Ballot Initiatives in Upcoming Elections

As the 2011 election cycle heats up, there are renewed calls to rein in the initiative process. Now 100 years old in some states, citizen initiatives have had enormous impact across the United States. This form of direct democracy has tackled everything from tax cuts to prohibition, the eight-hour work day and abortion rights. But critics contend it’s been hijacked by big-money special interest groups.

As the 2011 election cycle heats up, there are renewed calls to rein in the initiative process. Now 100 years old in some states, citizen initiatives have had enormous impact across the United States. This form of direct democracy has tackled everything from tax cuts to prohibition, the eight-hour work day and abortion rights. But critics contend it’s been hijacked by big-money special interest groups.

Only three initiatives gathered the required signatures to qualify for the ballot this year in Washington State. All are heavily funded by deep-pocketed interest groups. 

“It’s kind of turned out the opposite, rather than a voluntary grassroots thing,” says Washington’s Secretary of State Sam Reed, “it is special interests being able to get themselves on the ballot and get these things passed.”

Reed’s office qualified one initiative backed by the powerful Service Employees International Union which would force the state to spend millions of dollars training home health care workers. The SEIU spent $1.4 million paying people to gather signatures. Another initiative is aimed at restricting highway tolls. Its campaign received more than $1 million from Kemper Freeman, a big real estate developer whose properties may suffer if widespread tolling were enacted.

And then there’s Costco. The Kirkland, Washington based retailer has spent $2.3 million on an initiative that would privatize liquor sales in the state. Since prohibition was lifted, only state government has been allowed to sell booze. Costco’s initiative would expand that to include large retailers. A similar ballot measure failed last election, but Costco is back for another try.

Amazon has also gotten into the initiative business this year. It has poured money into an initiative campaign that would undo a law passed by the California Legislature. If passed, it would scrap the law requiring online retailers to collect sales taxes in California even if they don’t have a brick and mortar presence there.

Initiative supporters say getting to the ballot is only half of the battle. They still have to get a majority of the votes on election day. 

“The decision makers are ultimately the people in the initiative process,” says initiative guru Tim Eyman. “With the legislative process, it’s always the politicians.”

A growing number of politicians are now speaking out against initiatives. The California Legislature passed a bill that prohibited the paying of signature gatherers per signature. It was supported by a national group called the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center which supports progressive causes and has been a sharp critic of the initiative process.

Ken Jacobsen, a retired state senator from Washington State, is for doing away with initiatives altogether. Currently 24 states allow them. “There’s societies that failed because they had too much democracy,” says Jacobsen, “And it’s getting increasingly difficult to run the state with the initiative and referendum system.”

But initiative opponents are fighting an uphill battle. Courts have ruled against them including the Washington State Supreme Court, which ruled paying people to gather signatures for a ballot measure is a form of protected free speech. Also, governors are often hesitant to chip away at the process, fearful they’ll be viewed as taking power away from the people. California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed a bill that would have prevented payment per signature.

Even as special interest groups flex more muscle, the process is still viewed by most of the public as their chance to have a voice.

(By Dan Springer)

US congress has been ‘dysfunctional for a long time’

A former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate says the U.S. Congress is dysfunctional. Mike Gravel says the dysfunctionality is something that has been with the American people for a long long time.

A former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate says the U.S. Congress is dysfunctional. Mike Gravel says the dysfunctionality is something that has been with the American people for a long long time.

 

In an exclusive interview with Press TV’s U.S. Desk on Monday, Gravel said, "People on election day give their power away, their sovereign power to politicians who tell them what they want to hear."

 

"So what needs to be done is obviously to devise a method to empower the people so they can set policy."

 

Gravel concluded that a way to do that was by "enacting the national initiative for democracy which would empower the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials."

 

Relax. Here are three easy ways to fix Congress

Okay, we’ll need to recap the week before moving into a quick review of the Big Ideas to Fix Everything.

Okay, we’ll need to recap the week before moving into a quick review of the Big Ideas to Fix Everything.

First, the congressional debate over a a national debt ceiling managed to tank our fragile economy while raising the question: We have a national debt ceiling? Who knew that the greatest country on earth depends on the exact same process as hitting your VISA limit on vacation and calling for more credit?

Suddenly it was like Casey Anthony was elected to the House. The Super Bowl doesn’t get this level of 24/7 news coverage, and it generates real news. Then we find that Congress didn’t get around to funding the FAA, including the safety inspectors. They put some sort of quick fix on that, no doubt when they realized it was time to fly home for vacation.

Then the stock market crashed on fears of recession and widespread speculation that the U.S. had lost it’s mind.

Then the New York Times and CBS News surveyed Americans to discover that 82 percent see Congress as the top culprit in the debt sanfu. Four in five said it was more about gaining political advantage than doing what’s right for the country, apparently confirming our fears that one in five Americans now works directly for Congress.

Of course, Congress is in that strange group of ironic cultural icons where we might collectively disapprove of the group but totally exempt OUR member from the outrage. Like parents discovering their kid was among a rampaging teen gang, we figure our congressional delegation was just visiting the party anyway, or perhaps led astray by The Others who lack adequate parental supervision or perhaps suffer from sugar addiction..

“I knew it was a mistake to let our delegation hang out with those Tea Party kids, staying up late and reading the constitution out loud in somebody’s basement,” we say.

How else to we explain why, with those disapproval ratings, we keep returning mostly incumbents to the halls of power? If Congress was a TV series it would get bumped by late-night infomercials touting kitchen miracles. By last Friday, you half-expected to channel-surf past Nancy Grace and see an Amber Alert for the Constitution.

All this is particularly galling to those of us who have actually figured out the answers. You see it in the eyes of the flat-taxers and health care reformers and, well, me. I’m totally different from the crazies out there because my solution is multiple choice.

Pick any one of these and we’re back on track.

We could just make any of these changes, our national nightmares will end.

1. Jury-pool Congress. Face it, this elected government thing has pretty much run its course. The founding fathers clearly had their doubts, eliminating direct democracy in favor of electing representatives to make the tough calls. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

I say if jury selection is good enough to decide if somebody goes to jail or even if they live or die, it’s certainly good enough to decide COLA formulas for supplemental program administration. This would work just like current juries – pull the names from anyone who still maintains a driver’s license and if they can’t come up with a doctor’s excuse, off they go for a full term.

2. Buy Congress back. Hey, if the process is really “for sale,” let’s get a bid in. Kick salaries to a million bucks a year, provide upscale housing and pay the people running the country exactly like we’d pay people who are actually qualified to run a country. Make the public broadcast airwaves free to qualified candidates for national public office. At minimum, we’d run up the cost for anyone bidding against us.

3. My favorite: Let the parking people do it. At a time when we are losing faith in most of our institutions — turning education over to charter schools, watching regulatory agencies cave in to Big Oil, writing Congress off by a margin of 4-to-1, watching our poor president age like a time-lapse video — the parking folks rock on, a marvel of functioning civil service.

Name me a major city where that’s not true? You may hear people complain that they can’t find a cop when they need one; they’ll never say that about a parking official.

In Portland, the tough but fair parking patrols contribute something like $4 million to the city’s coffers. Nobody thinks they slack off. If they ran Wall Street like they patrol Congress Street, the crooks would get the boot faster than you could get more quarters from the friendly corner grocery.

So just switch them around. Granted, if Congress did parking tickets we’d have delivery trucks triple-parked on I-95 while the subcommittee on lane-change regulatory oversight debated financial disclosure rules for its pending ethics probe, but that seems a small price to pay for a return to Glory.

Otherwise, Casey Anthony starts to look good. What’s her home state again? Florida.

Perfect.

(Curtis Robinson is founding editor of The Portland Daily Sun. See his interview show on CTN-Channel 5.)

Direct democracy online

Direct democracy online

This is in reference to “Voter ID laws hurting our democracy.” In ancient Greece there was direct democracy. All the people of Athens gathered into the great hall and voted on issues before them. As countries grew from small city-states into massive entities this sort of direct democracy became impossible.

 

The Internet has now brought us full circle.

 

Direct democracy online

This is in reference to “Voter ID laws hurting our democracy.” In ancient Greece there was direct democracy. All the people of Athens gathered into the great hall and voted on issues before them. As countries grew from small city-states into massive entities this sort of direct democracy became impossible.

 

The Internet has now brought us full circle.

 

The web makes universal multi-way communication easy and inexpensive. It may be time to reconsider the "representative" aspects of our democracy.

 

We have had too much partisanship and too many egos standing in the way of effective government. We can melt deadlock and change the system to allow the people to vote en-masse on important issues.

 

As we all become increasingly aware of current communication technologies, this issue will become more central to our politics. We could still keep the legislatures for the mundane everyday work of legislating mundane things. As to the contentious issues, be they social or fiscal, let the people have their say!

 

JUDE REICHENTHAL
Former Chairman
Communications Advisory Board
City of Bonita Springs
(Disbanded by Mayor Nelson and his council gang who want to minimize democracy)

Is California’s ballot initiative process broken? Lawmakers think so.

California’s experiment in direct democracy – where citizens pass laws by voting on initiatives and referendums, sidestepping the legislature entirely – is facing three new reforms.

California’s experiment in direct democracy – where citizens pass laws by voting on initiatives and referendums, sidestepping the legislature entirely – is facing three new reforms.

To get on a ballot, measures must be supported by petitions with more than 500,000 signatures. This has led to the practice of paying people for each signature they collect, which critics say promotes "signature fraud."

Others say the whole process needs more transparency, as big-money contributors can remain largely unknown.

California’s initiative process was designed to give serious, political voice to the average citizen, says state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, but over the years has become "hijacked by monied interests on the right and left." Special interests spent over $1.3 billion on proposition battles between 2000 and 2006, according to the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS), a Los Angeles-based political reform organization.

He adds, “what is wrong in California is abuse of the initiative system."

Opponents of the reform bills say legislators are hoarding power by making citizen legislation more difficult. “They’re trying to make it harder for plain folks,” Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told California Watch.

The three bills moving forward are:

  • SB 334 requires the Secretary of State to list in the ballot pamphlet the five largest contributors supporting or opposing each measure, along with their total contributions. The bill has passed the Senate. “Voters need more information about who is behind these initiatives,” says state Senator DeSaulnier
  • SB 448 says that anyone circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition must wear a badge. If they are being compensated, the badge must say so. If not, it must say “volunteer.” Different versions of this bill have passed in the Senate and the Assembly.
  • SB 168 makes it a misdemeanor to pay or be paid per signature, when circulating a petition for a state or local initiative. This has passed both houses and is awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

“These are real, significant reforms to a process in desperate need of massive changes,” says Jessica Levinson, former political reform director for CGS.

“We have the most generous ballot initiative process in the country," she says. "It has gotten us into trouble, because a lot of stuff passes without due deliberation.” California citizens have tried 344 times, over the past 100 years, to go around their elected legislators. Some blame the process for California’s perennial difficulties in passing a balanced budget on time, since some 60 percent of the state’s general fund is locked into place by citizen-made laws.

The new reforms are well-intentioned, but the measures may not do enough, says John Matsusaka, president of the Referendum and Initiative Institute at the University of Southern California.

“I have never seen evidence that signature fraud is enough of a problem – and if it was, this wouldn’t change that,” he says.

“It will become more costly to get signatures” under the new reforms, Professor Matsusaka adds, since signature-collectors will have to be paid by the hour. “It’s ironic that the reformers are unhappy that the process is dominated by rich groups,” he says, because “this will require that initiative backers be even more rich.”

Past efforts to reform the process have gotten little traction, in part due to strong opposition from former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reformers hope that the “fix this state” attitude of Governor Brown will create a more reform-friendly environment.

Reform efforts have also floundered because “legislators hate the process and don’t want to improve it – and voters don’t trust the legislature to do the right thing,” says Robert Stern, CGS president. He thinks the proposed reform measures merely chip away at the edge of the problem, which is that voters are faced with too many ballot measures – including many that are poorly drafted.

Adds Mr. Stern, “It may take an initiative to reform the initiative process.”