Comments on: Transparency measure appears headed to November ballot

By: Spurwing Plover

Spurwing Plover — Sat, 07 May 2016 05:37:03 +0000

We already have a goverment so transperent its totaly invisible

By: Queeg

Queeg — Fri, 06 May 2016 16:42:58 +0000

Comrades

The Masses rarely read. They gauge life by wallet cash flow and what’s in their belly. Transparency is a joke!

I once dealt with a real estate transaction requiring language about a height restriction. Two attornies pawed the ground. 14 pages later, three revisions, thousands of dollars billed and challenged, the attornies relieved of their duties.

Who will oversee this Plutocrat transparency?????

By: ricky65

ricky65 — Fri, 06 May 2016 15:51:07 +0000

This is a very sensible and common sense amendment giving the people a chance to see what their legis-whores are up to before they loot the treasury and restrict ever more of our liberties.
So its very predictable that Mapiglio would be against this one. He’s been one of the long time corrupt Dema-Rat cockroaches slithering around the back rooms of the legislature for decades. He and his cronies have been screwing the public and fattening the wallets of the special interests every chance they get.
The special interests controlling the corruptocrats will not give up their control of power easily.
The people will have to take it back one battle at a time.

By: Dork

Dork — Fri, 06 May 2016 13:10:56 +0000

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing.

Those “Special Interests” this clown is talking about are the CITIZENS. I don’t think this law goews far enough. I say add this to the LAW:

All Legislation Shall be Read into the Public Record without Pause by it’s Author. All Elected Officials Shall Certify under Penalty of Perjury that they have read the Entire Legislation before casting a vote.

By: Dude

Dude — Fri, 06 May 2016 06:44:01 +0000

Maviglio’s position couldn’t be more obviously corrupt. His ridiculous argument is absolutely laughable.