Your generous contributions make this work possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| published Wednesday, February 14, 2007 |
37502 Views |
|
 |
On February 2, the legislature held its first ever public hearing on a bill to address the growing influence of big money in elections and a bill to require disclosure of financial interests by legislators. After hearing no testimony in opposition, however, the Senate State Affairs Commitee rejected the bills. A huge Thank You to Senators David Langhorst, Kate Kelly, Edgar Malepaeai, Clint Stennett, Diane Bilyeu and Mike Burkett for supporting these meaningful reform. Even though they have been adopted in other states, a majority of Idaho's lawmakers apparently believe Idahoans do not want this kind of openness & accountability in their election and legislative process.
* is modeled after successful election reform in Maine, Arizona, Connecticut and other states. Rather than create more regulations on the current system of private financing, it simply sets up an alternative system that would limit spending and allow ordinary people to run and serve in public office without having to raise funds from private interests. Check out the video at the link below. It tells a powerful story of why Fair and Clean elections are so important, a story some legislators do not want to hear. Video - Road to Clean Elections
* would simply require legislators and candidates for the legislature to disclose their financial interests. Legislators in every state except 3 are required to make these disclosures so that there is no question that their role as public servants is always to protect the public interest. Without disclosure it is almost impossible to determine whether a legislator has a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, most legislators prefer the "just trust me" approach, rather than have uniform, objective and open rules.
Some lawmakers in the committee who opposed these bills became defensive. They had difficulty seeing the bills objectively as ways of making the public's system of elections and legislating better. Instead, they took them as personal insults and there the discussion ended. Fortunately, most Idahoans can rise above defensiveness and will continue to insist that our public institutions should be improved and that the solutions presented this session have track records of effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|