Our survey
November 27, 2008 05:05 p.m. by Japhet Els
For the last couple days we have been collecting survey results from our supporters and members on everything from the issues Change Congress should be focused on to how to organize for the coming year. We've enjoyed reading through the responses and well-thought out answers to our questions. We'll be taking these survey results and comments on our retreat this Monday and Tuesday.
A big thank you to those who took the time to respond and toss your hat in the ring. The honesty and thoroughness in the answers revealed a lot about where our community fell on key issues. Many of these issues are not as cut and dried as we'd like and the answers reflect a desire to know more as well as understanding the complexity behind them. Below, I've highlighted some of the comments and feedback.
In response to the question, "Do you think that public financing of elections will help limit the influence of money on our politics?"
- "I want to understand more before I state an opinion. I need help. I need a source that puts the issues in focus and feeds me all sides of the story without paralyzing my judgment with too much information. "
- "I don't like the idea of candidates being beholden to individuals or organizations that donated them large amounts of money as opposed to the broader needs of their constituents. However, I know that I don't want millions of taxpayers' dollars to go towards elections - there should be caps, at least to some extent. "
- "No. Note that I agree with the word "help" in the question, which is not in the answer."
"Do you believe that earmarks are fundamentally wrong or just need to be more open and transparent for the public to see?"
- "The system needs to be cleaned up so that all those expenditures can get proper scrutiny without a lot of political maneuvering and endless delays. Seems more and more that the effectiveness of our legislative process depends directly on a number of arcane rules and customs in the U.S. Senate."
- "I believe that if earmarks are going to exist, they ought to be transparent. That said, I would like to see all bills being only about the subject that they are about, instead of having riders attached."
- "Nothing is 100% wrong or right. Earmarks have their use and full and timely transparency should check abuses."
- "I think earmarks are fundamentally wrong, but only as a process. The actual programs are oftentimes correct, and worthy of funds. But that should be decided based on merit and promise, not on political clout. Things like Infrastructure need to be build, but which projects get built should be done by a non-elected board, to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption."
"What is the one thing you would do to create a more open and transparent government?"
- "All info must be available on the web within a short time. "
- "It's fairly open and transparent now for the legislature, with cspan covering everything (perhaps too much - prevents free discussion."
- "I would suggest a daily e-mail to all constituents listing the complete activity of an elected official the day before. "
- "Send a letter to explain to each taxpayer where his own various taxes have gone(we don't even know at the city level because the sources of money for the city are too complex)."
- "Mandatory helmet cams. If we can't get that, Term Limits."
"Do you think lobbyists have a role in government?"
- "Lobbyists are the single most major flaw in the US government."
- "This is a tough one. Our democracy and principle of freedom of speech pretty much demands that we not eliminate lobbying altogether. At the same time, it badly needs reform. Don't have a clue how to approach that reform."
- "We are all members of "special interests" and it is our right to lobby for our interests vigorously. Limiting this limits our access to an open government."
- "Lobbyists should provide information, not money."
A big thank you to those who took the time to respond and toss your hat in the ring. The honesty and thoroughness in the answers revealed a lot about where our community fell on key issues. Many of these issues are not as cut and dried as we'd like and the answers reflect a desire to know more as well as understanding the complexity behind them. Below, I've highlighted some of the comments and feedback.
In response to the question, "Do you think that public financing of elections will help limit the influence of money on our politics?"
- "I want to understand more before I state an opinion. I need help. I need a source that puts the issues in focus and feeds me all sides of the story without paralyzing my judgment with too much information. "
- "I don't like the idea of candidates being beholden to individuals or organizations that donated them large amounts of money as opposed to the broader needs of their constituents. However, I know that I don't want millions of taxpayers' dollars to go towards elections - there should be caps, at least to some extent. "
- "No. Note that I agree with the word "help" in the question, which is not in the answer."
"Do you believe that earmarks are fundamentally wrong or just need to be more open and transparent for the public to see?"
- "The system needs to be cleaned up so that all those expenditures can get proper scrutiny without a lot of political maneuvering and endless delays. Seems more and more that the effectiveness of our legislative process depends directly on a number of arcane rules and customs in the U.S. Senate."
- "I believe that if earmarks are going to exist, they ought to be transparent. That said, I would like to see all bills being only about the subject that they are about, instead of having riders attached."
- "Nothing is 100% wrong or right. Earmarks have their use and full and timely transparency should check abuses."
- "I think earmarks are fundamentally wrong, but only as a process. The actual programs are oftentimes correct, and worthy of funds. But that should be decided based on merit and promise, not on political clout. Things like Infrastructure need to be build, but which projects get built should be done by a non-elected board, to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption."
"What is the one thing you would do to create a more open and transparent government?"
- "All info must be available on the web within a short time. "
- "It's fairly open and transparent now for the legislature, with cspan covering everything (perhaps too much - prevents free discussion."
- "I would suggest a daily e-mail to all constituents listing the complete activity of an elected official the day before. "
- "Send a letter to explain to each taxpayer where his own various taxes have gone(we don't even know at the city level because the sources of money for the city are too complex)."
- "Mandatory helmet cams. If we can't get that, Term Limits."
"Do you think lobbyists have a role in government?"
- "Lobbyists are the single most major flaw in the US government."
- "This is a tough one. Our democracy and principle of freedom of speech pretty much demands that we not eliminate lobbying altogether. At the same time, it badly needs reform. Don't have a clue how to approach that reform."
- "We are all members of "special interests" and it is our right to lobby for our interests vigorously. Limiting this limits our access to an open government."
- "Lobbyists should provide information, not money."
Categories:
Change Congress
| Permalink
Comments (1)
First time I ever heard this solution (and I've heard alot.)
But does it have appeal to the public?
I think so.
Will its appeal to the public force them to get Congress to pass such reforms?
I hope so.