Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on September 18, 2008, to extend to candidates running to be a delegate to a potential Constitutional convention the same campaign finance disclosure requirements and regulations that apply to other candidates for public office

The vote was 73 in favor, 35 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 828 at House Journal 84)

Click here to view bill details.

Don't fiddle with the state constitution ! ! You People have done enough damage to this State already.

that think you're smart enough to mess with the constitution should be fired immediatly. The public school system has given you more self esteem and ego that your brain power can back up.

If what L. Brooks Patterson - Oakland County Executive -- and his cohorts are proposing for a Con-Con the people and their individual rights are in a great deal of trouble. What he basically proposes is to expand the rights of Big Brother government, while taking away and minimizing the rights of the individual. NO TO CON-CON.

A poster has written in respect to this bill: “Any Of You Treasonous Morons [by Anonymous Citizen on September 23, 2008] that think you're smart enough to mess with the constitution should be fired immediatly. The public school system has given you more self esteem and ego that your brain power can back up.” That comment suggest the poster’s home schooling has failed utterly in the realm of basic academic preparation and intellectual discipline. Else, the poster actually would have read the Michigan Constitution and been able to comprehend its various provisions. One such provision Pertinent to this bill) is contained in Article VII, Section 34, which begins: “At the general election to be held in the year 1978, and in each 16th year thereafter and at such times as may be provided by law, the question of a general revision of the constitution shall be submitted to the electors of the state. If a majority of the electors voting on the question decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, at an election to be held not later than six months after the proposal was certified as approved, the electors of each representative district as then organized shall elect one delegate and the electors of each senatorial district as then organized shall elect one delegate at a partisan election. The delegates so elected shall convene at the seat of government on the first Tuesday in October next succeeding such election or at an earlier date if provided by law.” By terms of our Michigan Constitution itself we are facing a constitutional convention question (whether or not a convention will be called) on the general election ballot in 2010. Actually, we should applaud legislators for getting ahead of the curve for a change, by preparing for future eventualities, as this bill does. We certainly are entitled to criticize details of this legislation with we may disagree. But to condemn legislators for this on the basis of their contemplating and preparing for the possibility of a constitutional convention is either rank stupidity or reflects dismal ignorance. Thinking about a constitutional convention proposition on the 2010 ballot it is very sobering to reflect on what happened in Michigan earlier this year. In less than 5 months during early 2008 a group calling itself Reform Michigan Government Now! actually collected some 400,000 signatures on a petition supporting a 2008 general election ballot proposal to make 27 amendments to the existing Constitution. The proposed amendments contained nearly 20,000 words. Common sense tells us it is very unlikely that many, if any, petition signers read even a fraction of what they were endorsing. Our democratic processes allow for this, and they allow ballots to be cast by even the most ignorant voters. That includes types who make asinine comments criticizing legislators for getting on the right track (a rarity). Heaven help us!

why do you ASSUME that everyone is homeschooled? why do you hate homeschoolers? were you taught NOTHING at home? obviously not. appears you were taught very little at the indoctrination centers either.

A member of the lunatic fringe posts: [hey dipweed [by crazycajun on November 18, 2008] about 2008 House Bill 6468 (Constitutional convention candidate campaign finance disclosure ) why do you ASSUME that everyone is homeschooled? why do you hate homeschoolers? were you taught NOTHING at home? obviously not. appears you were taught very little at the indoctrination centers either.] I dunno who or what dipweed is, but suppose this might be aimed at me because I mentioned home schooling in this thread, so here goes. First, I suppose it actually is something of a compliment to be stalked by members of the lunatic fringe on forums like this. So thanks for the revealing post, there, looney tunes. To answer some of the questions: No, I don’t assume that everyone is home schooled. But I do observe that a disproportionate number of wacko posts reflecting profound ignorance accuse others of being ignorant as a result of public schooling. It’s fun to poke back, and rewarding to know the poking has found a sore spot with one of the crazies who evidently doesn’t like taking a whack or jab from his own stick. Score one for the good guys! Nah, I don’t hate home schoolers or even home schooling. I have an active dislike for certain types of jackasses, though, the kind whose posts so often accuse others of being ignorant as a result of public schooling. It’s fun to poke back … see paragraph above for the rest. Oh, I was taught plenty at home, including how to laugh, how to be honest and straightforward, and to stand up for what I believe in. Exactly the kind of things ignorant crazies find offensive. (Or is it, terrifying?) C’est la vie, as they say. I also got an excellent education in both public and private schools. I learned to read well, with more than adequate comprehension. My education taught me to question, study, research, analyze and engage in disciplined critical thinking. It taught me about mathematics. It exposed me to a lot of information about government, history, philosophy, the arts, and the sciences. Most of all, it taught me how to learn more on my own, a process that hasn’t ceased in all the decades since graduation. Finally, my education reinforced values instilled me at home -- to celebrate knowledge and enlightenment rather than ignorance and darkness. In short, public and private schools provided me a very high quality, well rounded education. I note that public and private institutions continue this tradition, although all certainly are not created equal. If wacko crazies have a problem with that, all I can say to ‘em is, tough beans. Hope that satisfies your quest for information, loony tunes. Have a nice day. Now, to get back on topic, I applaud our legislators for looking ahead and making some preparations just in case Michigan voters in 2010 (or sooner) decide to call a state constitutional convention.

with all of your profound education, and regal upbringing in the local indoctrination centers, why, pray tell, are you CONSTANTLY on the wrong end of these discussions? to "poke" for fun without purpose is, to put it mildly, the sign of a sick mind. thanks for filling us in on the fact that you like to hurt other people for FUN. now, I, ignorant man that i am, know what a dipweed is, so why don't you? i also know who is homeschooled and who isn't by the way they speak their minds, clearly, succinctly, and with (usually) a clearly right wing point of view. they are well educated, independent thinkers, who know government interference when they see it. obviously you don't. unless you are lying about that too. thank you for "confessing" to all of your psychotic abnormalities, and to the fact that a public school education left you longing for a private scchool "finishing". let's see... standing up for hurting people for fun puts you in the definate minority on this thread. most intelligent people don't listen to those with psychoses. i'm glad you finally came to grips with your problem, seek help. and finally, i was educated at home, at public and private schools. so, it's a little tough to hurt my feelings. i have no particular allegiance to any one, but feel i learned the most at home. next highest was the private school, and lastly was the public school. exatly what most have experienced. now, you, with your high and mighty attitude and your desire to hurt for fun, got it all wrong. so, you have EARNED the title DIPWEED. have a nice day.

an anti-homeschooler posted this drivel. "A member of the lunatic fringe posts: >obviously, anyone who disagrees with him is part of the LUNATIC FRINGE< [hey dipweed [by crazycajun >I see his problem, it's PERSONAL against our friend from the bayou.< on November 18, 2008] about 2008 House Bill 6468 (Constitutional convention candidate campaign finance disclosure ) why do you ASSUME that everyone is homeschooled? why do you hate homeschoolers? were you taught NOTHING at home? obviously not. appears you were taught very little at the indoctrination centers either.] I dunno who or what dipweed is, >I thought you said you were educated. get a clue.< but suppose this might be aimed at me because I mentioned home schooling in this thread, >well, you're getting warmer.< so here goes. First, I suppose it actually is something of a compliment to be stalked >stalked? you aren't using a name, only hiding behind "anonymous citizen". what are you gonna do when we all have to log in?< by members of the lunatic fringe on forums like this. So thanks for the revealing post, there, looney tunes. To answer some of the questions: No, I don’t assume that everyone is home schooled. But I do observe that a disproportionate number of wacko posts reflecting profound ignorance accuse others of being ignorant as a result of public schooling. >that's only because it's TRUE.< It’s fun to poke back, and rewarding to know the poking has found a sore spot with one of the crazies who evidently doesn’t like taking a whack or jab from his own stick. >when was the last time somebody poked you with a stick? well, that's too long.< Score one for the good guys! >only if i get to poke you first.< Nah, I don’t hate home schoolers or even home schooling. >that must mean you lie well, cuz your posts sure say different.< I have an active dislike for certain types of jackasses, though, the kind whose posts so often accuse others of being ignorant as a result of public schooling. It’s fun to poke back … see paragraph above for the rest. >you dislike 'jackasses' but you don't mind acting like one. very good, dipweed.< Oh, I was taught plenty at home, >no you weren't.< including how to laugh, how to be honest >REALLY???? so how come you lie in your posts? just to POKE PEOPLE?"< and straightforward, and to stand up for what I believe in. Exactly the kind of things ignorant crazies find offensive. (Or is it, terrifying?) >SO, WHEN ARE YOU GONNA START???< C’est la vie, as they say. >no, it's C'est la guerre. (look it up)< I also got an excellent education in both public and private schools. I learned to read well, with more than adequate comprehension. My education taught me to question, study, research, analyze and engage in disciplined critical thinking. It taught me about mathematics. It exposed me to a lot of information about government, history, philosophy, the arts, and the sciences. Most of all, it taught me how to learn more on my own, a process that hasn’t ceased in all the decades since graduation. >yeah, right. now, try proving that in your posts.< Finally, my education reinforced values instilled me at home -- to celebrate knowledge and enlightenment rather than ignorance and darkness. >so, why are you so ignorant and dark?< In short, public and private schools provided me a very high quality, well rounded education. I note that public and private institutions continue this tradition, although all certainly are not created equal. If wacko crazies have a problem with that, all I can say to ‘em is, tough beans. >so, that being said, why are you so dead set against home schooling?< Hope that satisfies your quest for information, loony tunes. >nah... we just wanted to hear your "explanation" of why you hate homeschoolers. good luck.< Have a nice day. Now, to get back on topic, I applaud our legislators for looking ahead and making some preparations just in case Michigan voters in 2010 (or sooner) decide to call a state constitutional convention. >why shouldn't they? it certainly needs straightening up.<

And watching the crazies go bonkers in the light of day is wonderful sport. Are we havin' fun yet? You Betcha!

“I applaud our legislators for looking ahead and making some preparations just in case Michigan voters in 2010 (or sooner) decide to call a state constitutional convention.” In response to that simple statement, one of the crazies, ever spoiling for an argument posts: [>why shouldn't they? it certainly needs straightening up.<] I can only surmise this vague statement refers to voters deciding in 2010 to call a state constitutional convention. Of course, this thread is not about whether to call a state convention or whether a state constitutional convention is needed. It is about the legislature making some preparations in the event a convention is called by the voters. That’s good practice (rare enough) on the part of Michigan legislators. The idea of requiring convention delegate candidates to disclose information about their campaign finances is laudable, even if you think some of the details of this bill need to be tweaked.

you didn't talk about any of that in your first post. you only griped about "homeschoolers" and "the lunatic fringe" NOW you talk about the legislature making preparations two years in advance of a constitutional convention they are not even sure is going to take place. now, campaign finance reform is always welcome, as it leads to more HONESTY in politics, but you are only now stopping poking people with sticks and making your point. i'm glad that being called to task twice works to set you on the straight and narrow. you're still a dipweed, though.

you crawl out from under? maybe you need to adjust your homeschooler's tinfoil hat.

One of the lunatic fringies writes: [“you didn't talk about any of that in your first post. you only griped about "homeschoolers" and "the lunatic fringe. NOW you talk about the legislature making preparations two years in advance of a constitutional convention they are not even sure is going to take place.] Au contraire. Or, to put it more directly, you are a liar, lunatic fringer. See documentation, below. Only 20 words out of a post containing 474 made a remark about home schooling. Forty-five words of that first post quoted the post to which I was responding. Another 199 words introduced and quoted a pertinent part of the Michigan Constitution pertaining to constitutional convention questions on election ballots. The remaining 256 words of the post was my own commentary bolstered by pertinent facts on why it is so important for our legislature to make preparations – as this bill does – for the very real possibility that a constitutional convention could be called by voters in 2010. As usual, the fringies here focused on less than 5% of content in my post (and, revealingly, the only part of it that really was quite irrelevant to issues raised by this bill) as an excuse to launch personal attacks against me. Of course, that is the fringies’ usual modus operandi – getting on topic and launching personal attacks instead of actually addressing issues. Oh, well. It can great fun to watch their childish antics. For the record, I applaud the legislature’s getting ahead of the curve for a change, by working on legislation to require campaign finance disclosure by constitutional convention delegate candidates. Here, to demonstrate what kind of a lying lunatic the fringie who most recently attacked me is, you have my original post in respect to this bill, in its entirety: ------------------------------------------ A poster has written: “Any Of You Treasonous Morons [by Anonymous Citizen on September 23, 2008] that think you're smart enough to mess with the constitution should be fired immediatly. The public school system has given you more self esteem and ego that your brain power can back up.” That comment suggest the poster’s home schooling has failed utterly in the realm of basic academic preparation and intellectual discipline. Else, the poster actually would have read the Michigan Constitution and been able to comprehend its various provisions. One such provision Pertinent to this bill) is contained in Article VII, Section 34, which begins: “At the general election to be held in the year 1978, and in each 16th year thereafter and at such times as may be provided by law, the question of a general revision of the constitution shall be submitted to the electors of the state. If a majority of the electors voting on the question decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, at an election to be held not later than six months after the proposal was certified as approved, the electors of each representative district as then organized shall elect one delegate and the electors of each senatorial district as then organized shall elect one delegate at a partisan election. The delegates so elected shall convene at the seat of government on the first Tuesday in October next succeeding such election or at an earlier date if provided by law.” By terms of our Michigan Constitution itself we are facing a constitutional convention question (whether or not a convention will be called) on the general election ballot in 2010. Actually, we should applaud legislators for getting ahead of the curve for a change, by preparing for future eventualities, as this bill does. We certainly are entitled to criticize details of this legislation with which we may disagree. But to condemn legislators for this on the basis of their contemplating and preparing for the possibility of a constitutional convention is either rank stupidity or reflects dismal ignorance. Thinking about a constitutional convention proposition on the 2010 ballot it is very sobering to reflect on what happened in Michigan earlier this year. In less than 5 months during early 2008 a group calling itself Reform Michigan Government Now! actually collected some 400,000 signatures on a petition supporting a 2008 general election ballot proposal to make 27 amendments to the existing Constitution. The proposed amendments contained nearly 20,000 words. Common sense tells us it is very unlikely that many, if any, petition signers read even a fraction of what they were endorsing. Our democratic processes allow for this, and they allow ballots to be cast by even the most ignorant voters. That includes types who make asinine comments criticizing legislators for getting on the right track (a rarity). Heaven help us! -------------------------------------- And now the first fringie’s completely off-topic response to that post: [hey dipweed [by crazycajun on November 18, 2008] about 2008 House Bill 6468 (Constitutional convention candidate campaign finance disclosure ) why do you ASSUME that everyone is homeschooled? why do you hate homeschoolers? were you taught NOTHING at home? obviously not. appears you were taught very little at the indoctrination centers either.] ----------------------------------------

tired of being wrong? obviously not. you keep on trying to convince others that you are right. good luck, oh wise and ignorant anti-home-schooler. you have set yourself up as one who takes pride and pleasure in hurting others for fun. why should we even listen to you, much less pay any sort of attention to what you have to say. you are the "lone ranger" for your point of view, and you are wrong. you speak of the "lunatic fringe", yet you speak alone. it is YOU who are at the left fringe here. admit it, leftie, you are just too liberal for your own good, or anyone elses. but you are far too liberal to ever admit that, just as you are far too proud to admit you are wrong. say what you will, you have blown your credibility. you will be ignored, except to chastise you for the error of your ways. have a nice day, dipweed.

We'll stay on topic. It is good to see our legislators actually getting ahead of the game in anticipating the possibility of a constitutional convention being called and preparing for it ahead of time. This legislation is something to support, if not in its detail in its principle. Why would anyone oppose requiring campaign finance disclosures of candidates for election to delegate chairs at a constitutional convention? Only the lunatic fingers know.

rant on about how stupid homeschooled people are? why doesn't the legislature simply follow the proceedure set out in the constitution? campaign finance disclosure hasn't been IMPORTANT to them for 170 years, why start now? and why not start with their own elections?

tongue. first, our dipweed DISAGREES with the government interfering with private citizen's lives and businesses, NOW he is IN FAVOR of the government interfering with the desires of private citizens to become delegates to the constitutional convention. why the turn about, dipweed? you SAY you are against governmental interference ON PRINCIPLE, but you quickly turn that around. which is it, dipweed? you can't have it BOTH WAYS.

everyone who disagrees with you always referred to as a "lunatic fringe wingnut?" you are certainly working hard to earn your title.

And it is rooted in the old wisdom that "he pays the piper gets to call the tune." People should have the fullest possible opportunity to know who, and whose interests they really will be voting for in every election. That includes who is underwriting the cost of a candidate's campaign for office. And that is why disclosure of campaign finances is important in every election. Common sense tells us such disclosure is especially important if we are faced with electing delegates to be our voices at a convention called to rewrite the state constitution. There is much at stake in that for Michiganders and their Michigan. After all, the state constitution is, in a manner of speaking, the state law that rules all state laws.

the same "disclosure" gained by photographing gun purchasers? why are you concerned with this now? why only for this issue and not ALL politicians? isn't "disclosure" like this only thinly veiled GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE? you said you were AGAINST that ON PRINCIPLE. you lied. nuff said.

your high and mighty ideals, dipweed. why not do a background check on them while you are at it? how about we write it into law that anyone who shows the slightest leftist leanings should be automatically disqualified.

Q: “why are you concerned with this now?” A: Because it is timely. In the General Election scheduled for November 2, 2010, voters will decide whether to call a constitutional convention to revise the Michigan Constitution adopted by voters in 1963. A vote to convene a constitutional convention is placed on the ballot every 16 years, as is required by Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution, itself. If a majority of voters in Michigan vote "Yes" on the question of whether to convene a convention, an election will be held within six months to elect delegates. A total of 148 delegates would be elected at a partisan election--one person from each state representative district, and one from each state senate district. Those delegates would then convene at Lansing on the first Tuesday in October following their selection (or at an earlier date if provided by law) and form a constitutional convention, at which changes to the state's then 48-year old constitution would be researched, debated, and voted on. Q: “why only for this issue and not ALL politicians?” A: This question is misleading, based on a totally false premise. House Bill 6468 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to require that constitutional convention delegates comply with the act in the same manner as do those holding state elective office. The candidates who stand for election as delegates to a constitutional convention run for that office in the districts of their state representatives and state senators. Like them, they run in partisan elections. Unlike their state representatives and state senators, the candidates seeking to represent their districts at the constitutional convention are not now required to file campaign financial disclosure reports. Currently under the law, "state elective office" is defined to mean a statewide elective office (that is, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, or attorney general, justice of the supreme court, member of the state board of education, regent of the University of Michigan, member of the board of trustees of Michigan State University, or member of the board of governors of Wayne State University), or the office of state representative. House Bill 6468 would expand the definition to also include "a constitutional convention delegate." Q: “isn't "disclosure" like this only thinly veiled GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE?” A: No. Campaign finance disclosure in no way interferes with anyone’s right to participate in the political process or do anything else that is legal. Quite to the contrary, it protects all citizens’ rights to be informed of matters pertaining to their interest in electing people who will govern the state in their behalf. Q: “you said you were AGAINST that ON PRINCIPLE. you lied.” A: This is not a question. It is an accusation, and a patently false accusation (a lie), at that. I have supported this legislation from the beginning, because it is sound public policy. My view of this bill evidently is shared by a good majority of legislators in the Michigan House – elected officials, themselves – who voted to approve it by better than a 2:1 margin. These are people deeply immersed in the political process – which includes campaign fundraising -- who know, by experience, why campaign finance disclosure is important to protect the public interest. This bill also is a rare example of those elected to govern granting true power (access to information is power) to the people who elect them. That should be applauded by all who truly cherish the concept of individual empowerment in our great nation. Q: “nuff said.” A: Also not a question, but at least we agree on something.

Then we are in very very big trouble with the communist that you guys just elected. The people that are pulling his strings do not have your best interests in mind.

how is timeliness going to jibe with your PRINCIPLES, which, according to you, cause you to oppose ANY kind of government interference, or were you just lying when you said they did? i'll bet you were just lying. besides, you, dipweed, have no principles.

[re: "he pays the piper gets to call the tune." [by Anonymous Citizen on November 20, 2008] about 2008 House Bill 6468 (Constitutional convention candidate campaign finance disclosure ) Then we are in very very big trouble with the communist that you guys just elected. The people that are pulling his strings do not have your best interests in mind.] Well, a majority of U.S. voters who had the same information available to them as you did, but reached diferent conclusions about it, formed opinions that differ from yours and voted accordingly. That’s the American Way. Get over it.

You need to watch the interviews with obama voters at howobamagotelected dot com. These people were turned into turnips by the people at cnn msnbc and such. If obama was a white republican do you think the so called news media would have ignored rezko, wright, ayers, the money coming from the mid east, his idea that we have 57 or 58 states? And what lies and half truths they didn't get from the media they were spoon fed the communist pablum in the colleges. We need to get back to only letting property owners vote since this election just proved that ignorant people in large groups are dangerous. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be, if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." (Thomas Jefferson)

When Almost Everyone is Lying to You Alan Caruba In March of this year I attended a conference on climate change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank. Some five hundred people attended to hear three days of lectures and seminars on the true science, the known science, regarding the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, global warming. How can it be that millions can be led to believe the Earth is warming when, in fact, the warming that occurred following the end of the last Little Ice Age in 1850 was completely natural? Nothing “forced” it to occur as is the claim about the Industrial Revolution, the use of so-called fossil fuels, and an utterly false assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary factor for the warming. Like all periods of warming (and cooling) the Sun was and is the primary factor. Everything else pales in comparison. My eye was caught by a report on Saturday in a British newspaper, the Daily Mail that took note of “a surreal scientific blunder last week that raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming.” The reporter, Christopher Booker, noted that “On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr. James Hansen, and is one of the four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.” The announcement, of course, was based on the same “computer models” that have been the basis for the global warming hoax. These models, scientists will tell you, are significantly flawed. For example, they are unable to account for a major weather factor, clouds. To this day, clouds remain a mystery to scientists because they form and disappear often in seconds or minutes, yet they play a very real role in determining the weather. Just consider, for example, the satellite photos of hurricanes with their huge circulating cloud formations or just your nightly weather report that show you the movement of clouds in your area. “Across the world,” noted Booker, “there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand.” “In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperature for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th warmest October in 114 years.” The erroneous NASA report was caught and reported by the blogs of a U.S. meteorologist, Anthony Watts, and a Canadian computer analyst, Steve McIntyre. Some excuse was offered by NASA, but the fact remains that anything that is announced by Dr. James Hansen’s agency must be immediately suspect. It was Hansen who told Congress back in the 1980s that global warming was a huge threat and who has prospered mightily for his protestations that seas will rise and the land will be scorched unless we shut down everything that generates CO2. This, of course, is the mantra of Al Gore, also prospering with the sale of bogus “carbon credits” and other “sustainable” energy schemes. At about the same time that NASA was putting out false data, the United Nations was announcing that clouds of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threatened health and food supplies in the world, citing what it called the newest threat to the global environment. Now connect the dots. If you want to know why we continue to hear about alleged new threats to the global environment and false assertions of a warming that is not happening, you need begin with the United Nations—in particular its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and then factor in the deliberate machinations of various U.S. government (and other nation’s) agencies that are committed to maintaining the global warming hoax. This is not about the climate! It is about the private gain of many people, some of them the world’s wealthiest already, and the need by various governments to keep people frightened and distracted from the simple truth that the Earth is now fully a decade into a distinct, identifiable, and verifiable cooling cycle. As Lord Monckton wrote in a letter to John McCain, “Not for a single moment longer must you allow yourself to be distracted by the murderous foolishness of the climate alarmists.” The problem for Americans is that the next administration will be as green, if not more green, than ever before. You can expect to hear that blizzards that leave entire states and regions under several feet of snow are the result of global warming. Want the truth? Subscribe to Environmental & Climate News, just $36, published ten times annually by The Heartland Institute. You can order online at www.heartland.org.

This is what has replaced civil discourse, thanks to the lunatic fringe wingnuts among us: [“dear dipweed [by crazycajun on November 20, 2008] about 2008 House Bill 6468 (Constitutional convention candidate campaign finance disclosure ) i'll bet you were just lying. besides, you, dipweed, have no principles.”] That was posted in response to someone citing the Michigan Constitution. Now, only a fool would lie about what the State Constitution says, since it is so easily checked. And how is it unprincipled to note that the Michigan Constitution sets out that a question as to whether to call a state constitutional convention will appear on the 2010 Nov general election ballot, for the voters to decide? Especially, when such a fact is directly related to the legislative bill under discussion in this thread?

YOUR principles are (or are SUPPOSED to be, or more appropriately USED TO BE) against government interference. the constitution clearly states what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN, but YOU want to throw in some interfering campaign finance reform HERE, AND ONLY HERE. that goes against what YOU SAID YOUR PRINCIPLES WERE. now, if you ARE for less government interference, you MUST oppose this legislation ON PRINCIPLE. if you ARE NOT for less government interference, you ARE a liar. simple as that. now, which is it, as if we didn't know.

 let's see if dipweed will sign in with a user name and continue this conversation.

i doubt he will.

he hasn't the stomach to crawl out from under the rock of anonymity and stand in the daylight and defend his twisted views.

The House Legislative Analysis of this bill reports pertinent facts:

 

--------------------------------

“In the General Election scheduled for November 2, 2010, voters will decide whether to call a constitutional convention to revise the Michigan Constitution adopted by voters in 1963.  A vote to convene a constitutional convention is placed on the ballot every 16 years, as is required by Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution, itself.

 

For example, debate might concern, among other things, state legislative and congressional district reapportionment; the appointment rather than election of judges; the appointment rather than election of board members to university boards; revision or repeal of term limits; elimination of the prohibition on the death penalty; restoration of affirmative action programs by state government and public universities; abortion rights; elimination of the prohibition on public aid to non-public education; and equitable funding for public schools.

 

“If a majority of voters in Michigan vote "Yes" on the question of whether to convene a convention, an election will be held within six months to elect delegates.  A total of 148 delegates would be elected at a partisan election--one person from each state representative district, and one from each state senate district. Those delegates would then convene at Lansing on the first Tuesday in October following their selection (or at an earlier date if provided by law) and form a constitutional convention, at which changes to the state's then 48-year old constitution would be researched, debated, and voted on.

 

“The candidates who stand for election as delegates to a constitutional convention run for that office in the districts of their state representatives and state senators.  Like them, they run in partisan elections.  Unlike their state representatives and state senators, the candidates seeking to represent their districts at the constitutional convention are not required to file campaign financial disclosure reports.”

-------------------------

 

And:

--------------------------

“House Bill 6468 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to require that constitutional convention delegates comply with the act in the same manner as do those holding state elective office.

 

“Currently under the law, "state elective office" is defined to mean a statewide elective office (that is, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, or attorney general, justice of the supreme court, member of the state board of education, regent of the University of Michigan, member of the board of trustees of Michigan State University, or member of the board of governors of Wayne State University), or the office of state representative.  House Bill 6468 would expand the definition to also include ‘a constitutional convention delegate.’”

--------------------------

 

This proposal is simply a matter of requiring the same level of public accountability for Constitutional Convention delegate candidates as is required of candidates for other state level elective offices.  It is appropriate to remember that our State Constitution is the law that rules all state laws.  That makes whoever gets elected to draft a proposed new Constitution a matter of first-level importance to Michigan citizens. 

 

If HB 6468 fails to pass in the current legislative session, now coming to a close, then its reintroduction and passage should be a matter of high priority in the new session beginning January 2009.

 

 

 

 so, why hasn't it been a HIGH PRIORITY up until now?

come to think of it, why haven't ANY of the things you listed been a HIGH PRIORITY up until now?

could it be that the "POWERS THAT BE " in michigan don't WANT campaign finance reform?