Thread: Public asked to shape open-government bill

CONGRESS

Public asked to shape open-government bill
Foundation posts proposed bill online for public to tweak, bypassing lobbyists.
By Rebecca Carr

WASHINGTON BUREAU


Sunday, April 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — There is nothing unusual about an open-government group advocating new legislation that would shine a light on the secretive ways of Congress and the executive branch.

But rather than hire an army of lobbyists to push the proposal, as is the custom in Washington, the Sunlight Foundation is taking its measure directly to the public.

The foundation has posted its Transparency in Government Act of 2008 on the Web at publicmarkup.org and has invited the public to tweak, add to or criticize any aspect of the proposed bill. The goal, said Ellen Miller, executive director of the foundation, is to change the backroom, secretive way that legislation is typically passed in Washington.

"This is front-porch politics," Miller said.

The bill seeks to require Congress and the executive branch to be more transparent by making information, including sensitive financial data, available online so that people living in Austin or anywhere else have as much access to the way government works as people witnessing it in Washington.

The notion of bypassing lobbyists is turning heads on Capitol Hill and among lobbyists.

"Any time that we can hear directly from the American people and not paid lobbyists, it is a good thing," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has sponsored several open-government initiatives.

The idea of letting the public shape legislation levels the playing field between affluent groups that can afford lobbyists and the public, Cornyn said.

The idea was not as well received by Paul Miller, past president of the American League of Lobbyists. Miller says lobbyists are unfairly portrayed as backroom-deal makers.

There is more transparency in legislation than ever before, Miller said. But he disagrees with putting bills up for all to rewrite.

"I don't think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, 'All right American people, weigh in on that,' because then what's next?" Miller asked. "Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

Other lobbyists say the idea has the potential to engage the public.

Thomas Susman, who has lobbied on a wide range of issues, called the Sunlight Foundation's approach novel. But passing legislation requires a lot more, he said. Timing of legislation, committee assignments and communicating with lawmakers are crucial.

"Lobbyists are not going to become obsolete because the process is just too complicated, convoluted and difficult," Susman said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... light.html

"Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

Well, Miller, that's the way it sould be, rather than let corrupt pukes like yourself decide for us. What you want is not democracy, it's totaltarianism. Your attitude that 'the masses are asses' proves your arrognace and stupidity. Go crawl back in the hole you came out of.

"I don't think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, 'All right American people, weigh in on that,' because then what's next?" Miller asked. "Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

The U.S. Constitution says 'We the people'--ever read it Mr. Miller?

Lobbyists have already done enough damage--our current situation proves lobbyists should have NO say in trade and IMMIGRATION policy making. For heaven sakes, 'unfriendly foreign governments' lobby our congress.

Citizens are motivated by love of and what is in the best interest for our country--not corporate greed, favors, campaign 'donations' , special interest groups and foreign governments.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

Smoke came out my ears when I read this.

Miller is an arrogant self serving narrow minded jerk who thinks "We The People" should just pay taxes,fight the dirty wars and be good little serfs while important Elitist like himself tells OUR government what to do so he can make more money !!!!!! :angry:

"Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

Smoke came out my ears when I read this. (We need a smoke coming out our ears emoticon)

Miller is an arrogant self serving narrow minded jerk who thinks "We The People" should just pay taxes,fight the dirty wars and be good little serfs while important Elitist like himself tells OUR government what to do so he can make more money !!!!!!!!!!

"I don't think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, 'All right American people, weigh in on that,' because then what's next?" Miller asked. "Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

OK THIS MAY BE REDUNDANT....BUT I HAD TO POST ANYWAY.

YES LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE POLICY. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO PROCESS? I CANT BELIEVE HE MADE THIS STATEMENT. IT SHOWS HOW FAR GONE OUR SYSTEM IS WHEN THEY THINK LETTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WEIGH IN IS SUCH A WACKO IDEA.

"I don't think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, 'All right American people, weigh in on that,' because then what's next?" Miller asked. "Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

Isn't that the way its supposed to be? Aren't "we the people" the ones who should decide these issues, and not idiots like you?

What I would like to see is EVERY earmark placed in a bill be put to the public to vote on if they want to spend THEIR money on that earmark BEFORE IT IS PASSED. I would like to see us vote to take those earmarks out when going for signature. NOW THAT WOULD SAVE US A LOT OF MONEY.


Sherry love your avatar. LOL