vonroach@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:35:22 +0100, Steve Cooper <src@jet.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'd guess they mean more like the single millionaire who
>>financed the getting of the signatures for the California
>>governal recall.
> 
> 
> Untrue many contributed time and money. You bought the usual democrat
> lie.
> 
> 
>>Getting signatures is easy if you have the money, or the
>>volunteers. I have no problem with groups with large numbers
>>of volunteers getting the necessary signatures. But I would
>>worry at powerful/rich individuals or companies being able
>>to do the same for issues there was no general level of
>>concern about.
> 
> 
> Many were looking for the petitions to add their signatures.

I accept that may have not been the case in California, as there
does seem to have been a ground swell of public opinion against
the prior governor. But I've been involved in getting a number of
petition signed, and generally around a 1/3 of those you ask to
sign do so without even asking what they are signing for. You
could predict which of us would get the most signatures, it was
the clean cut, attractive of us. Even having a beard could have
a significant effect on the number of signatures you'd get. If
you have the money to pay people to stand around getting the
signatures you need (or the volunteers) then you will eventually
succeed.

> 
> 
>>I think you'd have to make it that groups going about getting
>>the necessary number of signatures to cause a referendum
>>should be limited on the size of contributions they can get.
>>So that the referendums at least start with some level of
>>mass support, and are not just the whim of a rich individual
>>like Souter.
> 
> 
> You are treading on some very fundamental constitutional rights - free
> speech, peaceful public meetings, petition for change....  Recall is a
> particular kind of referendum that can only be exercised by documented
> voters  qualified to vote in the election. For example virtually all
> federal office holders in the US could be recalled by their respective
> electorates, but the President can not be recalled, having been
> elected by an electorial college. He can be impeached and removed from
> office.
> 

I guess that's where the UK and US differ, we believe in the
equality of free speech, you believe in the value of free
speech. We don't see why someone with a bigger wallet should
have a louder voice. No wonder the americans I know always
complain about their politicians being in the pockets of big
business, they have to be, to raise the money they need to have
a reasonable campaign. If you don't take the money, you have
to be someone like Ross Perot to afford a campaign that will
even make you a blip on the landscape.

If the UK was to bring in something like Wallace is calling
for, similar to the referenda's in the US, I don't want to
see the same big money bias come in as well. I'd want to see
limits on the amount of money that could be donated to any
one side in the debate limited, and that the petition that
triggered the referenda was gathered by volunteers and not
paid stooges.

Steve Cooper