One Law One Bill

Transparency in Legislation

sponsored by Candidate Steven Reynolds • Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Government
secondary topics: Amendments, Equality, Government, Lobbying, Other

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
90%
BIPARTISAN RATING

Sumbitted by Steven Reynolds, Progressive Party, OR01, http://www.truth2012.org


Bills or measures passed by the House/Senate should be restricted to one issue. All parts/provisions of the bill should be pertinent to the legislation.

This will force representatives to vote their values further enabling their constituents to see where they stand on the issues. Politicians will no longer be allowed to vote for "Bad" legislation and given the cover of "having to vote for the good" legislation (See most recent NDAA.)

This would also end the practice of "riders," "poison pills," and "Pork." Make them vote each issue independently.

Op-eds

Context

by @jmdenn on 07/05/12

Think of this bill as a "health code" for congress. Much like any chef knows the cutting board used to debone a chicken needs to be sanitized before cubing croutons. It prevents disease.

This allows for transparency of legislative action on a specific singular law, and not hyper-complex sausage making.

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here