Elaborate.

Suppose I start a social media campaign espousing some left wing beliefs and interpretstions of history.  Suppose we get some benefactors and start meeting in person.  Suppose we start endorsing candidates in various elections.  At what point should our benefactors' donations fall under this 5% cap you mentioned?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think the minute it attempts to influence a specific bill, party, or individual, it becomes political. Courts can decide that.

---

I think the minute it attempts to influence a specific bill, party, or individual, it becomes political. Courts can decide that.

The courts would suddenly have to get a lot quicker and more nimble.  Completely unrealistic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In theory it should be easily distinguished but I can see where funding a specific project could blur the lines.  Probably how we arrived at the mess we are currently in.  I guess if there were a challenge in that regard the courts would have to decide.

Here's a practical example.
About 25 years ago, environmentalists came up with a plan to restore the everglades while bypassing the state legislature.  It was a constitutional amendment.  The FL Supreme Court was hostile.  The plan was to constitutionally mandate a minimum penny per pound tax on sugar produced in FL.  The legislature would be allowed to raise the tax, but not lower it.  The money would be required to be spent on buying up sugar farms and restoring them, the legislature would be unable to divert it or store it up.  As you see, that's all a system of ideas that all have to go together.  On their own, they are pointless.  The FL Supreme Court decided that this system violated the one topic rule for constitutional amendments, however.  They let the amendment proposal stay, after they split it into two ballot items.  Predictably, people thought the fund for glades restoration sounded pretty good, and that became law.  But the people decided that minimum tax rates sounded bad, and nixed that.  So we had this nice fund with no money in it.  A dog with no legs.  

All of this mucking around happened because it was obvious to the activists that Florida legislators, even though they have term limits, even though more of them come from tourist areas than farming areas, even though they come from both parties, effectively all of them are bought and paid for by Big Sugar.  

So we did term limits, and competitive elections, and reduced gerrymandering, and none of it worked.  Then this "common sense" constraint to limit referenda to one topic frustrated our attempt to work around it.

Yet you better believe that if the Legislature or the CRC wants to amend something, there is no single subject rule.  That's for us, not them.

As I mentioned funding of a bill is separated from the bill itself and could pose a problem.  This is a different scenario though.  First of all this was a state constitutional amendment not a federal bill.  Secondly if we are going to adopt this concept we should hammer out how funding would be treated.  Definitely a fine line between the two however this is way out of the boundaries of what my suggestion is attempting to eliminate.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Here's a practical example.
About 25 years ago, environmentalists came up with a plan to restore the everglades while bypassing the state legislature.  It was a constitutional amendment.  The FL Supreme Court was hostile.  The plan was to constitutionally mandate a minimum penny per pound tax on sugar produced in FL.  The legislature would be allowed to raise the tax, but not lower it.  The money would be required to be spent on buying up sugar farms and restoring them, the legislature would be unable to divert it or store it up.  As you see, that's all a system of ideas that all have to go together.  On their own, they are pointless.  The FL Supreme Court decided that this system violated the one topic rule for constitutional amendments, however.  They let the amendment proposal stay, after they split it into two ballot items.  Predictably, people thought the fund for glades restoration sounded pretty good, and that became law.  But the people decided that minimum tax rates sounded bad, and nixed that.  So we had this nice fund with no money in it.  A dog with no legs.  

All of this mucking around happened because it was obvious to the activists that Florida legislators, even though they have term limits, even though more of them come from tourist areas than farming areas, even though they come from both parties, effectively all of them are bought and paid for by Big Sugar.  

So we did term limits, and competitive elections, and reduced gerrymandering, and none of it worked.  Then this "common sense" constraint to limit referenda to one topic frustrated our attempt to work around it.

Yet you better believe that if the Legislature or the CRC wants to amend something, there is no single subject rule.  That's for us, not them.

As I mentioned funding of a bill is separated from the bill itself and could pose a problem.  This is a different scenario though.  First of all this was a state constitutional amendment not a federal bill.  Secondly if we are going to adopt this concept we should hammer out how funding would be treated.  Definitely a fine line between the two however this is way out of the boundaries of what my suggestion is attempting to eliminate.

At the state level we have so many dedicated accounts with so many revenue streams feeding them, that it might be practical to try to make a one topic rule for out legislature, with the one exception being a bill that raises dedicated funds and also designates how to spend them.  But at the federal level there are fewer dedicated funds.  And at both levels most of the spending is out of the general fund, and that's where most of the potentially corrupt deals are made.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think the minute it attempts to influence a specific bill, party, or individual, it becomes political. Courts can decide that.

The courts would suddenly have to get a lot quicker and more nimble.  Completely unrealistic.

Lol, that's all law. What a dismissive attitude. This isn't complicated. If you mention a specific bill, party, or person, advocating for them, it gets counted as support. If you spent any money on it, you have to count the cost. This would allow people to tweet their support, but not companies who are making movies or whatever.

---

As I mentioned funding of a bill is separated from the bill itself and could pose a problem.  This is a different scenario though.  First of all this was a state constitutional amendment not a federal bill.  Secondly if we are going to adopt this concept we should hammer out how funding would be treated.  Definitely a fine line between the two however this is way out of the boundaries of what my suggestion is attempting to eliminate.

At the state level we have so many dedicated accounts with so many revenue streams feeding them, that it might be practical to try to make a one topic rule for out legislature, with the one exception being a bill that raises dedicated funds and also designates how to spend them.  But at the federal level there are fewer dedicated funds.  And at both levels most of the spending is out of the general fund, and that's where most of the potentially corrupt deals are made.

I’m not following you.  At the federal level if you want to propose a bill to build a bridge in St. Johns county congress votes on building a bridge in St. Johns county and that’s it.  No attachments, no tacking on new proposals unrelated to building a bridge and no new laws magically appearing out of thin air.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

At the state level we have so many dedicated accounts with so many revenue streams feeding them, that it might be practical to try to make a one topic rule for out legislature, with the one exception being a bill that raises dedicated funds and also designates how to spend them.  But at the federal level there are fewer dedicated funds.  And at both levels most of the spending is out of the general fund, and that's where most of the potentially corrupt deals are made.

I’m not following you.  At the federal level if you want to propose a bill to build a bridge in St. Johns county congress votes on building a bridge in St. Johns county and that’s it.  No attachments, no tacking on new proposals unrelated to building a bridge and no new laws magically appearing out of thin air.

It gets quite cumbersome to vote on each line item of a budget like that.
Plus, there could still be backroom deals.  "I'll vote for this if you vote for that," there would just have to be a little more faith that the guys voting on the second bill will follow through.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You want backroom deals, dude. It's how it was supposed to work. It's called compromise. That's how it was done when I was younger. Happened all the time.

---

You want backroom deals, dude. It's how it was supposed to work. It's called compromise. That's how it was done when I was younger. Happened all the time.

I completely agree.  It's better if they're open about how the deals are worked out, but they will only be open if they trust their voters to be understanding and humble.  In this environment where few are humble, lying is expected.

The problem is not the making of the deals, nor the lying and double talk.  It's which proposals even get to come to the table and get advocated for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.