Lots of talk on the Speakah’s reform proposals. Lots of people applauded the Governor’s reform proposals. I wasn’t one of them, because it was mostly making already-illegal things more illegal. None of those ideas are bad, but if politicians aren’t afraid to break rules now, what makes people think many pols still won’t be afraid to break them in the future? People break rules all the time, regardless of the consequences. They don’t think they’ll be caught – or caught anytime soon. Simply put, you can’t have ethics reform without reforming the electoral system and making government more transparent.
A formula for real reform, making government responsive to the people as well as more ethical:
* Stiffer penalties for laws already on the books which are commonly broken +
* Public financing option for elections +
* Other electoral reform including instant runoff & same-day registration +
* Lobbyist reform on dollars & time +
* More transparency including posting on the internet:
1. When and who all lobbyists meet
2. What bills each elected leader proposes, votes for and/or signs.
3. Public video of all floor votes and/or committee hearings (watch presently empty committee hearings suddenly become full).
This is a comprehensive view on ethics reform, because it ensures that politicians are accountable to their constituents. Just looking at ethics through the lense of law-and-order is a recipe for failure, because it’s so hard to catch politicians in the act. However, it’s not so hard for constituents to tell if an elected official isn’t adequately representing their community or is favoring special interests — citizens just don’t have the tools necessary to effectively mount challenges in all but the most extreme cases. It shouldn’t take a federal indictment to get someone out of office. That’s why ethics reform can’t come without electoral reform.
Note: I wrote this a few days ago on RyansTake.net, but wanted to get it out to a wider audience.
could be bundled with an honest redistricting? You and I both know our districts don’t even pass the laugh test. If we’re going to reform, I say go big or go home.
Redistricting is a bigger issue — and I don’t necessarily think independent/judicial committees are any better than doing it through our legislative branch, so long as we provide adequate instructions. No discrimination against specific communities, such as those based on race or religion. That’s honestly the biggie.
<
p>Districts should be kept as dense and contiguous as possible, but there has to be reasonable exceptions. For example, I’d rather a small town be bundled up with other small towns than be forced to be a part of a major city where no candidates from that town would ever have a chance, and politicians could feel free to ignore that community knowing that it doesn’t really matter on election day… even if that means bending the district a little more than I would otherwise like.
<
p>Maybe one good alternative is to make the redistricting process somehow more transparent and responsive to individual communities. But there’s no solution that’s going to come even close to 100% good. Some constituency is going to get screwed no matter what. BTW – I don’t view this as a partisan thing, more of a community vs. community thing.
I just look at Newton and Fall River and try to find things they have in common…can’t be done. Eh I don’t have to tell you how ef’d up it is.
that should be fixed. LOL.
<
p>To be fair, no one’s ever challenged Barney Frank based on constituent services.
Are part of an elected official’s JOB! THE VERY FACT THAT HE WAS SEXUAL PARTNERS WITH THE FREDDIE MAC CHAIRMAN dismisses any credibility he ever had. Your democratic legislators at work/play.
You make some good points.
<
p>There should be electorial reform, but this is something that happens once a decade.
General ethics rules are applied every day, every year.
<
p>So let’s start with the simple, achievable ethics reform, since right now the electoral reform is a lost cause. No one is focused on it and, I believe, it has been decided already. Stay focused on the ethics reform that is on the front-burner.
I don’t think they should be seperate at all. It’s much harder to catch a person in a criminal act, no matter how stiff we make our regulations, than it is to allow people to have a better chance of electing new representation. While it’s hard to prove someone a criminal, it’s not hard for a population to see that they’re not responsive to constituent issues or that they’re easily bought off by lobbyists. That’s why we need election reform to accompany ethics reform. They’re two sides of the same coin problem.