CA prop 54

[ivwshane]

If there is anything this election cycle has taught me its that the sausage making in politics isn't always pretty and most people can't stomach it but it is necessary. For example, there used to be pork added to bills to grease the wheels and get bipartisan support on otherwise good bills. However, since that ability was removed, partisanship has increased greatly and progress has slowed (is there a correlation? I think so).

So, prop 54, on the surface sounds like a good idea. It forces legislators to post changes to bills before they can be voted on. Sounds great but when the sausage making gets going full steam, sometimes deals need to be made and sometimes these deals aren't politically expedient which could cause legislators to not compromise (fyi, compromise is not a dirty word to me). It also could give lobbyists time to mount public/private opposition to such changes, which again can hurt the process.

For those in California what are your thoughts on this particular proposition? Great idea or full of unintended consequences?

 

[Riparian]

I think it was a decent attempt to counter the "gut and amend" practices of the legislature. Honestly, I doubt the general public will bother with reading the posted laws and will most likely rely on the news agencies to digest the laws for them. I suppose giving the news agencies extra time to report on the content of new laws will have positive effects. I don't really see how allowing the public or special interests (which are still a part of the public) will lead to politicians not compromising over legislation. Overall, I'm sure there will be unintended consequences to the law but the added transparency made me lean towards supporting the proposition. Taking a little extra time to pass legislation or to allow the public to review what's being passed is, in my humble opinion, a net benefit.

 

[pauldun170]

The issue is complex.

The measure does three main things. First, it would require that every bill be in print and available online for at least 72 hours before it came up for a vote in the Senate or Assembly (unless the governor declares a state of emergency). It’s quixotic to think that lawmakers would actually page through the enormous stack of proposals that come up for votes late in the session, but Proposition 54 would at least give the public three days to digest a proposed law, while stopping the Legislature from holding votes on measures its members could not possibly have read.

Second, it would guarantee the right to record public legislative proceedings and use the video and audio for any purpose.
Third, and perhaps most important to those who want to keep an eye on lawmakers but who aren’t in Sacramento, is The requirement that all public meetings be captured on video, with the recordings posted online within 24 hours and retained there for 20 years. Right now, many but not all legislative meetings are recorded, and when and for how long they are posted varies.

Putting proposed legislation on the internet for 3 days is technically a good thing in a perfect world.
1. There is an entire industry around shaping public opinion
2. People are generally ignorant and biased.
3. By exposing the collaboration, cooperation and negotiation involved in the law making process you create more resistance to perform that sort of activity in our hyper partisan environment.
4. You enable those who are in it for the partisan ship. Those who don't care about the job. All they care about is winning elections and pushing forward the brand. the idiots who like to grand stand and create black and white narratives.
5. You punish legislators who cross the aisle, who work with others.
6. You can play obstructionist by continuously introducing changes to a bill. Change some phrasing, bill is locked for 3 days. Correct spelling. Bill is locked for 3 days.
7. Recording proceeding and then allowing it to be used for anything would turn the entire process into a circus. Basically turning it into the equivalent of watching Professional Wrestling.

I'd support tossing bills on the internet and the delay.
Recording it, publication, fair usage rules and data retention rules should be pulled out and stand on its own.

 

[ivwshane]

The issue is complex.

Putting proposed legislation on the internet for 3 days is technically a good thing in a perfect world.
1. There is an entire industry around shaping public opinion
2. People are generally ignorant and biased.
3. By exposing the collaboration, cooperation and negotiation involved in the law making process you create more resistance to perform that sort of activity in our hyper partisan environment.
4. You enable those who are in it for the partisan ship. Those who don't care about the job. All they care about is winning elections and pushing forward the brand. the idiots who like to grand stand and create black and white narratives.
5. You punish legislators who cross the aisle, who work with others.
6. You can play obstructionist by continuously introducing changes to a bill. Change some phrasing, bill is locked for 3 days. Correct spelling. Bill is locked for 3 days.
7. Recording proceeding and then allowing it to be used for anything would turn the entire process into a circus. Basically turning it into the equivalent of watching Professional Wrestling.

I'd support tossing bills on the internet and the delay.
Recording it, publication, fair usage rules and data retention rules should be pulled out and stand on its own.

Yep, that was my concern too. Just because California is a dem stronghold doesn't mean compromises don't need to happen and extreme partisanship wouldn't be good for the state either.

 

[pauldun170]

Looking at the proposed changes to current law seems to speak to the true intent and why this being pushed by lobbyists and political entities specializing in branding, marketing and influencing public opinion.

Section 5.1. Section 9026.5
https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0083 (Legislature Transparency)_0.pdf?

I would imagine this is reason enough to reject it.
If the true intent is to give the public access to the legislative process, then they would have no problem focusing on just the internet posting of bills\3 day waiting period and dropping the proposed changes to current law.

 

[senseamp]

I am more interested in how prop 61 plays out with the drug pricing.