RE: Choice 1 Starting Questions

[F.X. Rosica <frosica@gfn.org>]

Sorry I missed yesterday's conversation.  I've been involved in community discussion groups, forums, and study circles in Michigan and now in Oregon.  I work in the area of community and natural resource development independently and for a non-profit organization.  I have been 'wrestling' with the issue of democracy, particularly participation for the last 20 years. 


There are certain points in this choice (Choice 1) that make it attractive:

a. We do need some sort of reform to the current system.
b. People who have contributed in the past have done so possbily because their contribution has been effective.  I have worked with a couple of legislative work groups in the recent past where public or individual input was almost non-existent.  Of course the special and vested interests were there...because they know how to use the current system.
c. The process outlined above shows what happens when the system becomes imbalanced.

This raises the question of how to reform?  Does controlling the amount of dollars given have any effect on the outcome? Or does it just allow all of us to "behave badly" in an equal footing?

What if we put the onus on the politicians to show that the dollars donated do not influence their decision on an issue?  What kinds of tests could be used to monitor/verify?