M1, yea or nay?

[Lycanthrope]

This one was requested, so here it is...

State legislature ethics commission establishment... I dont know the details as this is a long complicated one. I believe some oversight would be nice, but people I trust, who are more involved in govt are urging people to vote no, saying it is overpowered and can be used as a weapon. This is sponsored by out of state interests, earning more skepticism from myself. Im leaning NO at this time...

 

[deleted member]

thanks for starting this Lycan. i want to hear more from the minds on this site before i vote.

 

[Lycanthrope]

https://www.facebook.com/beckerfornd/videos/670096896698827/

One legislators opinion FWIW...

 

[Apres]

After sitting through a quick 5 min pro M1 presentation, I initially thought sure sounds good. But not being really smart about things like this I asked a good friend who works in politics in the state what his thoughts were. The take away from his rant was it doesn't do enough for campaign finance reform or address the real problem of out of state donors propping up campaigns. Whatever that means... He did like the 2 yr gap between office and lobbyist which I also thought was a good thing. and that the Ethics commission will just create a bureaucratic board that wastes taxpayer money. Also, if you are part of a group/business nonprofit or otherwise that would say anything that tries to change a public policy or sway an election and you spent over $200 you would have to disclose where that money came from. As I understand hypothetically, If Volmer spends more than $200 on this site in a year and he chimes in on a ND game and fish policy, or comments on a thread like this one with his opinion, he would have to show where his funding comes from to the public or be in trouble with the ethics commission. Or if you spend more then $200 at a Conservation group banquet including gas to get there or lodging if you're from out of town and that group says anything about any public policy then you have to show that that money came from your pocket from your bank, from your paycheck, or possibly get in trouble. That's how I understand it anyways... Might be right?

Anyway I took this pic of the back of the flyer I was handed just fyi.

 

[TWN]

Another very poorly written bill. There is nothing in here that is not already addressed in century code other than the two year wait for lobbying. Even the lobbying is questionable. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but if you are in charge of making laws or rules it is in your best interest to hear testimony from people who are experts in that field. This would not allow anyone to testify, much less lobby for two years after they were in a public position. Way too broadly written and I believe that was on purpose. A very small fraction of the funding for this has come from ND residents, meaning some out of state interests are wanting influence on the government of North Dakota. I believe there is a hidden agenda that they will bring forth once they get their own commission. Bad bill.

 

[Allen]

We seem to have a never-ending supply of well intentioned, but poorly worded measures in ND.

 

[Muley14]

I don't listen to the radio much but this afternoon I heard a couple of old grandma's from either side of the aisle touting how we need to stop out of state special interest groups from taking over North Dakota politics. I listened closely at the end for who was paying for the ad, it was North Dakotans for Public Integrity.

I did a little search the Secretary of State website. They have reported contributions of greater than $100 totaling $419,354.87. Of that $39,702.59 is from North Dakota addresses. To be fair they have reported another $91,000 in contributions of less than $100 and those you can't tell where they are from.

Now I have no problem with out of state money coming into the state to represent their own ideas or business interests but to go on and advertise that measure 1 is to protect North Dakota from outside interests seems fairly disingenuous.

 

[Lou63]

from what I have heard it is not good, written by California and Massachusetts groups, one thing is if you donate to a charity anonymously and that charity donates to a political interest then all that donate to the charity have their names are unmasked. lots of stuff that is not needed in North Dakota as there is already an ethics commission and this rewrites the state constitution making it very hard to correct the bad things in it. I voted NO.

 

[Davy Crockett]

I don't listen to the radio much but this afternoon I heard a couple of old grandma's from either side of the aisle touting how we need to stop out of state special interest groups from taking over North Dakota politics. I listened closely at the end for who was paying for the ad, it was North Dakotans for Public Integrity.

I did a little search the Secretary of State website. They have reported contributions of greater than $100 totaling $419,354.87. Of that $39,702.59 is from North Dakota addresses. To be fair they have reported another $91,000 in contributions of less than $100 and those you can't tell where they are from.

Now I have no problem with out of state money coming into the state to represent their own ideas or business interests but to go on and advertise that measure 1 is to protect North Dakota from outside interests seems fairly disingenuous.

I'm not sure how this measure was born but I remember Al Carlson squealing like a stuck hog because some out of sate money came into play to get the medical marijuana measure started.

 

[eyexer]

yea I had no idea on this until I did a little research and it will be a no from me as much as I'd love to spank politicians pee pee's.