1. Were there areas of agreement or what you might call "common ground?"

• Phyllis Ceaser
  Yes, restricting lobbyists' gifts, private meetings, and permitting them to write legislation. Concern about citizens' being educated on issues well-enough participate in direct democracy, ie initiatives and referenda. With no restrictions on their contributions it is impossible for the average voter to know what is really in the public interest. Was there any discussion about those who lobby in the public interest vs private interests?

  ---

• Reed Davis
  It did seem as though most people wanted to keep the initiative process but thought that it needed reform. I don't remember there being too many people who thought that reining in lobbyist or placing more emphasis on recalls would be that effective. From my memory, there seemed to have been more interest and agreement in many of the proposals for Choice 1. Many favored caution but few seemed really opposed to it.

  ---

• Carol Hanna
  Everyone seems to agree that the present system is broken or, least wise,is in bad need of repair. Most have expressed proceeding with caution towards imposing greater restrictions as an adverse and unintended affect may result. Serving the public's best interest is paramount to all else. The public's interest is not being served by the purchasing and owning of politicians. A call to the voters to become more interested, informed and active in the political process has been common in nearly every response. The idea of disclosure of information has been strongly supported in this dialog. There is no substitute for disclosure because we know that works well. Some form of public campaign financing is necessary to allow candidates to run and be elected and not beholding and influenced to big money. Political advertising and "sound bites" are not what the voters want or need. Voters are calling for candidates who understand issues and address them.

  ---

• Denise Hood
  While I was not personally able to contribute much to the discussion of Choice 2 (due to some personal time-management problems), from reading the other postings, I see agreement in these areas: 1. With regard to the matter of Initiative and Referendum: a. There is a need to reform and refine the process; b. There is more need for the public to be better educated and informed, and to do better background research before proposing changes to their gov't. thru the process of Initiative and Referendum; c. Find some method for limiting the influence of monied special interests in crafting and lobbying for (thru advertising) Initiatives that promote their special agendas; d. Limit the wording of Initiatives and word in clear, concise and easy to understand language. 2. With regard to Recall, my impression was that the majority feel the use of Recall to be problematic, and, as with Initiative and Referendum, it is felt by many that these conflict with, or seek to bypass and might destabilize our system of representative government. 3. With regard to Lobbying: a. an effort was made to distinguish between "good" (public interest/citizen group) and "bad" (private interest/corporate) lobbies, so that "the baby wouldn't be inadvertently thrown out with the bathwater," in an effort to reduce the influence of corporate lobbyists and their money over our legislators/legislation; b. There was consensus that it is in the area of "soft money" where the most corruption exists in campaign financing; c. Lobbying, in it's purest form, is a "good" thing, as it provides citizens concerns with a "vehicle" for expressing these concerns to their legislators. We should NOT do away with this kind of lobbying. An effort should be made to clean up the corrupting influence of "money" and "corporate" lobbying; d. There seemed to be consensus for imposing restrictions on gifts, private meetings, and the ability to "write" legislation by lobbyists. It was also expressed that there should be some limits placed on those who leave office and become paid lobbyists. 4. There was some time spent discussing how difficult it is to be an "informed" citizen, due to "so much information, and so little time."

  ---

• Jay Oliver
  Not much; people seemed to disagree on the subject of recalls and referenda, and very few had much to say concerning lobbyists.

  ---

• Ellen Russak
  Most people (not all) felt that paid lobbyists have too much influence on legislators. Lobbyists in general were often painted with the same brush and labled as "bad" even though everyone thought citizens should be more active in government (i.e. contacting their legislators about issues) which is, of course, lobbying. The solutions were not so clear cut. I'd like to see all lobbyist "gifts", whether monetary, a special service rendered, or a non-monetary gift, made illegal. Initiative, referenda, and recall weren't as easy to deal with as lobbyists - some people liked the idea of the average Joe being able to take over the job of making laws and "throwing the bums out" between elections. Others felt that was asking too much of an electorate that wouldn't or could't pay enough attention to the complexities and ramifications of such decisions to make good decisions. I am against all of them at a federal and state level - it flies in the face of representative government which I strongly support (even though I realize that early-on, initiatives made some great, long overdue changes.

  ---

• Nancy Thomas
  I agree that there should be some restrictions on lobbyists concerning undisclosed gifts, golf outings, and the like. However, free speech comes into play here too. It seems to be the large amounts of money that breed the appearance, if not the reality, of impropriety.

  ---

• Frances VENN
  Lobbying by citizen groups is essential if legislators are to be informed on their constituents viewpoints. Lobbying by contributing large monetary contributions to gain special favor on certain bills ( i.e., tobacco companies seeking to kill public health bills related to smoking) corrupts the political system. In other words, there is lobbying beneficial to democratic decision-making and lobbying that is destructive of our democratic institutions. How can we promote that which is beneficial?

  ---

• dorothy wheeler
  In my clean state of Wisconsin, a lobbyist can get in trouble for buying a legislator a cup of coffee so the money goes into the coffers for reelection. Some of the legislators must be in "permanent campaign" mode like Bill Clinton or so I've read. I still believe that people at the grass roots can be heard if they make the wheel squeak loudly with enough voters in on the action. It makes my heart sing when issues are settled in this way and it has happened in Wisconsin but it takes a heck of a lot of work.

  ---

2. What have you learned from your fellow participants, and how has it changed or informed the way that you think about this choice?

• Phyllis Ceaser
  Very well-informed and knowledgeable about this issue. Trying very hard to be fair but in some cases going overboard. It has not changed my feelings on this choice. There must be restrictions on lobbyists. I did not agree with any of the tradeoffs.

  ---

• Reed Davis
  It seems that most of the other participants are fairly informed on the subject and few are very dogmatic in their views. Although this is not a representative sample of the population, it does give me more hope that some intelligent reform will be achieved.

  ---

• Carol Hanna
  I have come to a realization that democracy is as fragile as life its self. A balance must be struck in order to preserve democracy just as maintaining a state of homeostasis is important to preserving health and supporting life. There appears to be a profound and systemic psychological and social effect on the voting public. Our present system has fostered distrust, anger, oppression and a host of negative feelings and attitudes. The corruption is so embedded in government and so out of control that the most that can be done is to watch carefully and keep it in check as much as possible. If I were a doctor, determining the condition and prognosis of our democracy, I would classify its condition as grave with a poor prognosis unless aggressive intervention was initiated immediately to avert a catastrophic event. That requires a team of experts.

  ---

• Denise Hood
  The wide range of opinions that exist about the whole issue of campaign finance reform, and JUST how strongly those opinions are held. The level of knowledge and "passion" being brought to the discussion by the participants. I have been thoroughly enjoying this exchange of ideas, and have great respect for my fellow participants views. While it hasn't really changed my basic beliefs, it has helped to "hone" and "focus" what I believe, and it also has given me insight into the other possible arguments for/against my beliefs about CFR.

  ---

• Jay Oliver
  Very few seem to feel strongly either way concerning Choice #2.

  ---

• Ellen Russak
  I have learned that at the state level there are unusual types of CFR being tried that were previously unknown to me - I'll be watching them with interest to see how they do. I don't think my feelings about CFR, or the issues in choice 2, have changed but it has forced me to clarify to myself what I do believe and to look more closely at possible problems that might crop up. Ellen Russak

  ---

• Nancy Thomas
  Many of the participants seemed to think that ballot issues and recall votes would be a good solution. That worries me because, unless more citizens are well informed and take a real interest, some advocate interest groups might shift their sights from using money for reward to this method as punishment.

  ---

• Frances VENN
  How difficult it would be to provide equal access to legislators, eliminating the advantage of contributing large sums of money to campaigns.

  ---

• dorothy wheeler
  It takes a great effort to be really informed. Unless one frequents the capitols where the laws are being passed, it may be very confusing as well. We can all write letters letting officials know how we feel but when and to whom can be a mystery if we have no clear direction. We all must keep trying. We must join groups that carry our ideas on their agendas and in their lobbying efforts. We must know how our own representatives are going to vote on a given issue.

  ---