Legislation the left and right should be able to get behind (but the left won't because a Republican is suggesting it).
Politicians May Have to Wear Donor Logos in California
Initiative sponsor predicts victory, asks Trump and Sanders to jump aboard.
A wealthy Republican wants to require unprecedented transparency in California by forcing state politicians to plaster their suits and dresses with the logos of their top 10 donors -- and voters fed up with those politicians may actually get the chance to vote on the idea in November.
The unusual dress code is offered in a proposed ballot initiative that backers say likely will be cleared for signature collection within the next week or two. Then, 365,880 valid signatures will have to be submitted for a spot on the ballot.
Initiative sponsor John Cox, an attorney who owes his fortune to real estate, says he doesn’t foresee a challenge in the threshold, which is relatively low due to poor 2014 voter turnout. Cox says he expects a boost from popular anti-establishment sentiment reflected in the presidential race.
Cox says he’s seeking the endorsements of GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom have rallied passionate supporters in part by denouncing their rivals as indentured servants to corporations and other wealthy donors.
“It’s going to be immensely popular,” Cox says. “We have a system under which people who want something from government fund the campaigns of the people who make those decisions. In any other solar system that would be considered corrupt.”
Cox says he’s put aside $1 million for paid canvassers, which he believes virtually ensures a spot on the ballot.
The initiative is somewhat bare-bones, and intentionally so, requiring members of the state legislature to wear “stickers or badges displaying the names of their ten highest campaign contributors” during official business, but delegating details to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
“The bureaucrats there are pretty good at figuring out all the scams people could use,” Cox says. “There’s a very easy way to go into those chambers with a clean suit, that’s to not accept any money. I don’t think it’s silly. I think it’s going to highlight the system.”
The ballot measure also would require disclosure statements of donors on political advertisements.
Cox says he owns about $200 million in real estate, mostly in Indiana, and self-identifies as a Jack Kemp Republican.
“Sanders and Trump are doing a decent job calling attention to the problem, but I’m sick and tired of people calling attention to the problem and doing nothing about it,” he says.
First Amendment experts are divided on whether the initiative could survive a lawsuit, something Cox says he believes would not come until after the measure passed.
“It actually would raise some fascinating issues if it were to be applied,” says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “Politicians could challenge the law as applied in how the determination is made of the top donors when most money may come from individuals,” he says, as “lobbyists often donate as individuals rather than as representatives of their companies or clients.”
Turley adds “there could also be challenges over the vagueness of terminology and standard as well as due process elements in the enforcement of the law.”
But, he says, “on the other hand, citizens are allowed to create disclosure requirements and dress codes related to government service. There is not a great deal of case law in those areas. It would first likely be decided under state constitutional law, including addressing any conflicts with other laws on disclosure.”
Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, is more skeptical of the initiative's ability to survive a legal challenge.
The idea, he says, “strikes me as a textbook case of invalid compulsory speech.”
“Politicians do not shed their free speech rights when they take office,” Zick says. “Absent compelling justification, government cannot compel speakers to convey particular viewpoints or subject matters against their will. Not all campaign disclosure laws are invalid, of course, but this measure, as [described], is not a measured way to combat fraud or impose transparency.”
“It essentially forces officeholders to act as state billboards,” he says, “whenever they are acting in their official capacity. I would say this is worse than a dress code from a First Amendment perspective – a dress code implicates speech rights, but in a less direct way than this content-based proposal.”
But Cox says he can’t imagine who would want to have their name on any such lawsuit, and says that finding donor information online is too arduous.
Despite his wealth, he insists he hasn't personally become a politician puppeteer to advance his own financial interests.
“I’m not Donald Trump and I haven’t bought politicians,” he says. “I don’t believe in crony crapitalism.”
Politicians May Have to Wear Donor Logos in California
Initiative sponsor predicts victory, asks Trump and Sanders to jump aboard.
A wealthy Republican wants to require unprecedented transparency in California by forcing state politicians to plaster their suits and dresses with the logos of their top 10 donors -- and voters fed up with those politicians may actually get the chance to vote on the idea in November.
The unusual dress code is offered in a proposed ballot initiative that backers say likely will be cleared for signature collection within the next week or two. Then, 365,880 valid signatures will have to be submitted for a spot on the ballot.
Initiative sponsor John Cox, an attorney who owes his fortune to real estate, says he doesn’t foresee a challenge in the threshold, which is relatively low due to poor 2014 voter turnout. Cox says he expects a boost from popular anti-establishment sentiment reflected in the presidential race.
Cox says he’s seeking the endorsements of GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom have rallied passionate supporters in part by denouncing their rivals as indentured servants to corporations and other wealthy donors.
“It’s going to be immensely popular,” Cox says. “We have a system under which people who want something from government fund the campaigns of the people who make those decisions. In any other solar system that would be considered corrupt.”
Cox says he’s put aside $1 million for paid canvassers, which he believes virtually ensures a spot on the ballot.
The initiative is somewhat bare-bones, and intentionally so, requiring members of the state legislature to wear “stickers or badges displaying the names of their ten highest campaign contributors” during official business, but delegating details to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
“The bureaucrats there are pretty good at figuring out all the scams people could use,” Cox says. “There’s a very easy way to go into those chambers with a clean suit, that’s to not accept any money. I don’t think it’s silly. I think it’s going to highlight the system.”
The ballot measure also would require disclosure statements of donors on political advertisements.
Cox says he owns about $200 million in real estate, mostly in Indiana, and self-identifies as a Jack Kemp Republican.
“Sanders and Trump are doing a decent job calling attention to the problem, but I’m sick and tired of people calling attention to the problem and doing nothing about it,” he says.
First Amendment experts are divided on whether the initiative could survive a lawsuit, something Cox says he believes would not come until after the measure passed.
“It actually would raise some fascinating issues if it were to be applied,” says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “Politicians could challenge the law as applied in how the determination is made of the top donors when most money may come from individuals,” he says, as “lobbyists often donate as individuals rather than as representatives of their companies or clients.”
Turley adds “there could also be challenges over the vagueness of terminology and standard as well as due process elements in the enforcement of the law.”
But, he says, “on the other hand, citizens are allowed to create disclosure requirements and dress codes related to government service. There is not a great deal of case law in those areas. It would first likely be decided under state constitutional law, including addressing any conflicts with other laws on disclosure.”
Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, is more skeptical of the initiative's ability to survive a legal challenge.
The idea, he says, “strikes me as a textbook case of invalid compulsory speech.”
“Politicians do not shed their free speech rights when they take office,” Zick says. “Absent compelling justification, government cannot compel speakers to convey particular viewpoints or subject matters against their will. Not all campaign disclosure laws are invalid, of course, but this measure, as [described], is not a measured way to combat fraud or impose transparency.”
“It essentially forces officeholders to act as state billboards,” he says, “whenever they are acting in their official capacity. I would say this is worse than a dress code from a First Amendment perspective – a dress code implicates speech rights, but in a less direct way than this content-based proposal.”
But Cox says he can’t imagine who would want to have their name on any such lawsuit, and says that finding donor information online is too arduous.
Despite his wealth, he insists he hasn't personally become a politician puppeteer to advance his own financial interests.
“I’m not Donald Trump and I haven’t bought politicians,” he says. “I don’t believe in crony crapitalism.”