It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How About A New Law?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Make it illegal for a politician to work for a company or corporation that was effected, in any way, by any bill proposed or voted on by the politician. This would include subsidiaries of the company or corporation. That way the politician would have no conflict of interest and no incentive to vote one way or another. This would prevent some of the corruption in politics when politicians are secretly offered jobs to vote (one way or another) on bills.




posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
That would never pass. Too many politically active people do that. They aren't going to pass a law that will negatively effect themselves.

At least they should pass a law restricting top ranking employees of the FDA from having worked previously for the companies they rule over. Many of the FDA employees worked for big corporations that they govern. Many leave the FDA to go work for these companies also.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Magister
 


I believe that most systems of government that emulate the Westminster System already enshrine this in law.

I imagine that such a conflict of interest would grant significant political advantage to an opponent politician and so each party would take great pains to ensure that no links or inferences of conflict of interest could be sustained.

It is also, simply, not something that is police-able, so I don't think the addition of such a law would be particularly useful.

I do know that the current Prime Minister of New Zealand (John Key) had to step down from the board of a boutique winery upon entering politics to ensure that there could be no conflict of interest. He made significant press over this as he had some bottles of wine with his picture and name on them which he asked to be able to retain.
edit on 12/5/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magister
Make it illegal for a politician to work for a company or corporation that was effected, in any way, by any bill proposed or voted on by the politician.
Not sure if your aware of this . but....

INSIDER TRADING for Congressmen IS NOT against the Law.

So,,,,if you think these Legal Crooks would do anything so Moral. as you Propose....

Theres a Bridge I have for Sale.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
It's not for the politicians to do, it's for the people to do! Of course I agree that the politicians would never do it.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Magister
 

I'd prefer a law that forbids lawyers from holding an elected office. I feel they are behind many of the problems currently facing this nation. Didn't we have one at one time?

See ya,
Milt
edit on 12-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Magister
 


both yourself and rickymouse, have valid points for law. how about this.

governmental fairness and transparency laws

1)no politician or close family member may work for any company or corporation or subsidiaries of the company or corporation affected by any bill proposed or voted on by the politician. for the politician as well as spouse or significant other for life, for close family for a period of no less than 10 years.

as stated by Magister

That way the politician would have no conflict of interest and no incentive to vote one way or another. This would prevent some of the corruption in politics when politicians are secretly offered jobs to vote (one way or another) on bills.


2) no member of a governmental ruling body (such as the FDA for example), or close family member shall have worked for, currently works for, or work for in the future any company, corporation or their subsidiaries that the controlling body is in place over.

again this is to insure no conflicts of interest, between those governing bodies and those they are supposed to be governing over. sadly yet again this is something that seems to occur way too often, thus putting said governing bodies in the pockets and control of those they are supposed to be controlling.

3) no currant or past member of the military, or their close family may work for a military supplier, research development company or corporation, or any other company or corporation that deals with the military or their subsidiaries, for any more salaries, perks, or special offers, than they would have received as a member of the military. in the case of close family this would be applied as for the serving member. for the serving member, spouse or significant other this would be permanent, for close family members this would be for a period of no less than 10 years past the date the serving member left military service.

another seemingly abused thing, military service personnel going to work for contractors and research firms, normally as "consultants", for high pay, especially those service personnel that had something to do with procurement responsibilities. yet at the same time it is perfectly understandable that an ex military consultant working for these companies can be a very good thing as they have intimate knowledge of what the military may need, as such allowment needs to be made that they could do that while at the same time limiting the possibility of abuse, and conflict of interest.

4) any politician, or government worker, including but not limited to controlling bodies or military service personal involved at any time with approvals and or procurement of equipment and supplies. and their close family shall have transparent financial status. that is any and ALL financial transactions, trusts, investments and properties including foreign transactions, accounts, investments, trusts and properties etc held by these people MUST be submitted to at time of taking the position to (whatever the proper authority in control of this) as well can be checked at any time by a competent authority, to be sure there is no graft or other suspicious activity taking place. any findings to be held by said competent authorities as private and confidential, unless something untoward or suspicious is uncovered, or upon proper order for an investigation and then only be released to proper investigative personnel.

5 after this moment any material within a bill to be passed, must deal DIRECTLY with the bill in question, no adding unrelated material within it. also ALL bills must be COMPLETELY read and a full understanding of what all the bill pertains to BEFORE any vote can take place, ample time shall be given before any vote to insure of this. non compliance of reading said material before hand means an immediate eviction from the position and a new vote to replace that person. all bills must be written in such a way that their can be no mistake about it's intents and purposes. it must also be easily read and understood by a layman.

to be con't



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
con't from before

you will notice that i have also included "close family" when writing this especially spouses and significant others. while this even to ME seems rather unfair, unfortunately when it comes to shady dealings, when it is difficult to "pay off" the actual recipient the "easy trick" is to pay off a close family member. the same can hold true something for example like a man works for the FDA, so they hire his son to work for the company, just for the express purpose of gaining influence with the father.or even as a "bribe", of furthering the son's career for services rendered. or adversely the son going to work for the FDA for the express purpose of working on behalf of a company or corporation, or their subsidiaries,that their parent works for.

this would definitely help stop some of the "irregular" activity that happens within the government. now the trick would be to do as politicians like to do and HIDE IT within something unrelated in order to pass it.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 

Other than the "hard on" that you seem to have for military personnel and their dependents, I reckon that's all good and well, but non of those changes will pass until you get rid of the lawyers serving (?) as lawmakers.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 13-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


I like your ideas very much! Now it's a matter of getting people interested in making them law!



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


The constitution says that you cannot hold office if you have been given a title. Some people interpret this to mean lawyers are included.

BTW: Do you know why you don't see lawyers at the beach? It's because cats keep covering them with sand!




top topics



 
2

log in

join