Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act

19 May 2013

George Rebane

Chatting around the dining table the other night, we reviewed all the laws that require sellers to fully disclose to the buyer the condition and relevant history of what is being sold. Such full disclosure provisions as apply to real estate, cars, firearm purchases, medicines, and so on.

But when it comes to politicians who will not only affect our lives, but the future course of a state, or region, or even the whole country (world?), we are pretty much encouraged to buy a pig in a poke. In vetting candidates for office, we rely on a hide-and-go-seek game between the candidate and the press, or the ‘political operatives’ of their opponents. For all too many good reasons, today people think very little of journalism and journalists. According to the Pew Center for the People and the Press, two out of three people think press reporting is “often inaccurate”; four out of five believe the press “tends to favor one side” and is “often influenced by powerful people and organizations”.

So here we go again, voting for some smooth talking, slicked down Sam or Sally, and later we happen to find out that s/he has been fighting clinical depression for years, has a law degree from an online diploma mill, ran two businesses into the ground, smokes pot regularly, or mysteriously lost a spouse whose remains have never been found. You get my drift.

Wouldn’t it be better if there were a Candidates’ Full Disclosure of Material Facts law that requires each candidate to fill out an appropriately revealing questionnaire, and publish its answers online? The questionnaire would also ask if there were any other material factors or incidents in the candidate’s past that would bear on a decision by a reasonable voter to reject the candidate. The law would stipulate that knowingly providing false, incomplete, and/or inaccurate information constitutes perjury, and its subsequent discovery would be prima facie sufficient cause to start impeachment proceedings against the office holder.

Would such full disclosure laws on the books of the several states and in the US Code result in our becoming better informed voters while getting a better slate of candidates, and consequently a better set of politicians in office? Or would there be collateral effects that outweigh any benefits, advising us to just suck it in and be satisfied with being led by sleazebags and morons?

Posted in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, We the iSheeple

69 responses to “Pipe Dream – Candidates’ Full Disclosure Act”

Gregory

21 May 2013

Paul, in defense of Sacramento requiring parking for the development of new housing designated for homeless… there are no guarantees that it would remain for homeless and carless people for long. And many of the homeless have cars that double as their kitchen, dining room, living room and bedroom.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

Gregory
I was not taking a stance for or against parking for homeless housing alternatives. I was only noting that it seems to counter Ms Korie’s view that people were being forced into communities without automobiles so that they could be more easily controlled by the powers that be. On the contrary, Urban Development at least in Sacramento has serious parking requirements before housing can be built.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

Greg,
If the label fits. I stopped trying to be cordial and polite awhile ago on this blog. And yes, I will call Rebane’s Rumination’s fascist, corporatist, and authoritarian blog. The only one who should be ashamed are those who are so callus and selfish to hold such views that are status quo at RR. I guess referring to Sierra Foothills Report and its host by many different names other than the official or its host is alright.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

As for benghazi, what a political opportunist game the republicans are playing with other peoples lives once again.
Here is piece by John Dean
President Obama’s Burgeoning Scandals—Benghazi, IRS, and AP’s Telephone Logs—Are All Smoke and No Fire
“There is nothing Nixonian or Watergate-like about any of these purported scandals, and those claiming otherwise are remarkably ignorant of history.”
http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/17/president-obamas-burgeoning-scandals-benghazi-irs-and-aps-telephone-logs-are-all-smoke-and-no-fire

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

I disagree with you on this one Ben.. Yes indeed Benghazi and AP’s Telephone Logs are short lived and a controlled burn so to speak but the IRS situation may burn awhile at least until Obama takes a Reagen Iran Contra “I didn’t know what everybody else knew” defense. Worked for him. Then Hillary can be the clean up woman and give the fallen ones pardons.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

Personally I believe the IRS issue is business as usually. Excerpt from Mother Jones article.
“For much of the last century, abuse of the IRS for political ends has been the rule, not the exception. Under Republican and Democratic presidents alike, the IRS has gone after communists, students, black activists, young conservatives, and mainstream political rivals.”
Here is what John Dean said in an interview I can’t find but I found the same message in this piece.
IRS Tea Party Targeting Came After Court Rulings Upended Agency Role
Blumenthal
“WASHINGTON — As the Internal Revenue Service began to use broad search terms like “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12” to target groups seeking tax-exempt status in March 2010, the agency was already facing a major crush of applications for exemption under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.
As Lois Lerner, director of the IRS’ exempt organizations division, explained to a Washington crowd of tax lawyers on May 10 during her initial apology for inappropriately focusing on conservative groups, “[B]etween 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving.” The number, she said, “more than doubled — about 1,500 in 2010 and over 3,400 in 2012.”
This increase came after two major Supreme Court decisions — Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 — opened the door for 501(c)(4) groups to engage in increasing amounts of political activity.
“There’s a pretty direct link between the Citizens United line of cases and why the IRS is put in this position,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, “although it does nothing to explain how the IRS decided to deal with this problem.”

LikeLike
Gregory

21 May 2013

Ben, it is amusing to note that according to the LA Times, your source, the IRS’ Ms. Lerner, has notified the House that she will be invoking the Fifth Amendment when testifying tomorrow.
Regarding your namecalling, no, it doesn’t fit anyone here. Nor, in my experience, have you ever been “cordial and polite” to anyone here who has seriously challenged you.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

21 May 2013

Smart thing to do Gregory. Any lawyer would recommend that. To quote Leonard Cohen “When you’re pressed for information that’s when you have to play it dumb.”

LikeLike
Ben Emery

21 May 2013

Greg,
On the name calling. I am following the lead of the blogs host who uses labels frequent and often. I tried to be cordial and polite for a long time pointing to issues we can agree on but was insulted, called names, and lumped into straw man categories. Despite being a non violent activists I am not a push over or a pacifists. My labels of Rebane’s Ruminations is spot on. George and his minions are authoritarian fascist/ corporatists that want business to shape and control the society and culture in which we live.
I will give a list of fascism in America and it pretty much sums up the philosophy of Rebane’s Ruminations and many of the regulars.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism and homophobia
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

21 May 2013

Greg, as I read BenE’s list I would suggest he is truly a paranoid.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

21 May 2013

Ben@08:49PM
Given your number ten, how do your react to this bit of news. We learned to day the the CA High Speed Rail Authority cut a deal with the Unions, the HRS Contractors can only use union labor in building the HSR.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, In 2012 union members accounted for 17.2 percent of wage and salary workers in California.
The HRS was sold in part as a jobs project, but the Union deal just cut 82.9 percent of the California labor force in CA out the picture.
Since there was Federal funding for part of the project thus Davis-Bacon would require that prevailing wages would be paid to all workers, regardless of Union affiliation. But now the Unions have eliminated the possibility that any non-union members will be allow to have a job on the HRS.
Ben, do you think this was the proper use of Union thuggery, to cut 82 percent of the work force out of a high paying job?

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

22 May 2013

Nice little list you have there, Ben. Sounds like the attributes mostly of the Obama administration. Exactly what does that list have to do with RR and conservatives?
I’d love to see you go down the list and come up with examples. This will be entertaining.

LikeLike
MikeL

22 May 2013

Ben where did you get that list? Thank you for the early morning chuckle.

LikeLike
Gregory

22 May 2013

A truly bizarre list, Ben. It would seem the thought crimes of George and his eeevilll minions are mostly just their disagreeing with you on both the facts and how to best interpret them.
How’s that degree in Nursing coming along? You touted your status as a student in campaign literature, just seems reasonable to ask how it’s goin’, especially given the topic being discussed here.
Russ, the only labor that’s been cut out of the chimerical High Speed Rail project is the labor that doesn’t contribute to Democratic election funds. The winners will be tithing in the future.
Paul, I’ve been advised by council never to answer questions by any officer of the law; even at a traffic stop, there’s no way to win. You always have a right to remain silent, but it does appear the IRS oaficial in question may have screwed the pooch by proclaiming their innocence after being sworn in and before invoking the 5th. I do believe the key after deciding it’s time to shut up is that you need to shut up.
While you can’t convict someone for refusing to give evidence against themselves, every R on that committee knew they’d hit political paydirt. Nothing keeps on giving like a 5th under oath to a congressional committee; using scare quotes around ‘scandal’ just won’t fly now.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

22 May 2013

Gregory
Next up sill be an offer of immunity. Ultimately Obama will skate with a Reagan type “didn’t know about it” denial. Any rolled heads will be restored by pardon much like Watergate or Iran Contra. Nothing really new here.

LikeLike
Walt

22 May 2013

Russ.. when it comes to unions I do have a little insight.
For a LONG time here, if government money involved, unions have first
dibs. Just like the resurfacing of the roads around here and in G.V.
It was an out of town outfit that got the work. Ya’ think Hanson Bros.
or any other LOCAL paving Co. (non union of course) were happy to see
a carpetbagg’n outfit here doing (by all rights)a job they could handle,
and for a cheaper rate now doubt.
Then there is that little provision in the good old crapulis bill.
” Only union shops can bid on projects paid by this moneys”
Prevailing wage is also rigged in the union’s favor. Take any given job title
and compare the itemization of that hourly rate.
The last time I checked, prevailing wage was about a buck fifty more an hour VS union scale. Then there is a “training” category added for the union. But don’t count on that “training” wage to be calculated into the bids.
Take the HY49 over runs. See how fast the state rolled over and picked up the cost?
A Non union Co. would probably eat it.
I really can’t say I’m surprised the 49 job was well over budget.
The Co. that did the work was about as big as the one I worked for
when we rebuilt the Union Pacific rail yard, and we finished that job in less time. The funny thing is, the General Contractor was non union.
This was UP money, and not FED money. There was no mandatory “who does what”.
Then we have the Bay Bridge……

LikeLike
Ben Emery

22 May 2013

Greg,
You are competing with Todd for the most immature contributor on RR.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

22 May 2013

Walt,
Prevailing wage was put in place to make sure union workers weren’t being undercut. It is a good policy. Since contractors charge their clients for journeyperson wages despite having one journeyperson and the rest laborers and apprentices working on the job a prevailing wage protects workers from contractors from stealing the $20 plus difference between the wages of an apprentice and the journeyperson.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

22 May 2013

BenE, please don’t dicuss these things you know squat about. You and Frisch, what a know-it-all pair. Prevailing wage was created to stop blacks from getting jobs back in the 30’s. It is a travesty against free markets and wages. You are just plain stupid.

LikeLike