BACKGROUND The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has proposed two sites in downtown Harrisburg for a new federal courthouse: one at North Second and Locust streets; the other at North Third and Pine streets. If the GSA proceeds with either of these downtown sites, existing businesses would be forced to close. Jobs would be lost. Customers would lose the benefit of the services and conveniences available to them at these locations. Additionally, the city and its residents would suffer from a costly economic loss. These two sites are the most expensive to acquire. Another site exists at far less cost to taxpayers and with no loss to the city. PETITION We call upon the U.S. General Services Administration to select the city
No comments yet.join the discussion
Koichi, France2 years ago Comments: This amendment is great, and I hope it coinenuts to accumulate more signatures . I think even more people would sign if Dylan was a little more up front on the show about the fact that after this amendment will necessarily come some sort of public financing. Of course, that public financing solution will be hashed out in detail by congress much later, after we pass the amendment, but some people I know are dissuaded from signing this amendment because they think that it means that only rich individuals would be able to campaign for high office (which would admittedly be better than individuals bought out by big money, but still not very democratic). Public financing may prompt some anti-government rhetoric, but on base it has worked magnificently in much of Europe and could mean cheaper elections generally.
Samlin, Korea, Republic of2 years ago Comments: Thanks Dylan, I can see what you're saying, it's best to focus on the root proelbm and leave secondary items (such as the particular new system for campaign finance) for later. I am wondering if perhaps this movement would be more effective if it focused on the scope of the federal government. In other words, it seems to me that an amendment banning political contributions will actually miss the root proelbm. As long as the federal government is involved in regulating or legislating a given industry or process, won't it continue to be the target of regulatory capture? If we get rid of contributions, that is one thing, but it seems like whatever malevolent agent was trying to ruin the system with campaign money will now just find a new way to lure legislators into their grasp. (For example, giving lucrative jobs to politicians upon retirement or getting their executives into leadership roles at the regulatory agencies). On the other hand, if the federal govt was not in the business of legislating whatever issue is being considered, there would be no incentive for the malevolent agent to attempt to buy the government. Presumably the regulation of whatever issue would be relegated to the states, where of course the agent could attempt to buy regulators out, but such corruption would be much more easily monitored since we have more control over our state legislatures than the distant congress in D.C. Maybe I am missing something, but basically it seems like regulatory capture will always be a proelbm when the federal govt has the authority to regulate a given issue.
Yudi, United States3 years ago Comments: Ich muss zgbeuen, dass ich (technische Umsetzung hin oder her, inhaltliche Schwachen hin oder her) beeindruckt bin, dass die Petition schon bei deutlich uber 20.000 MitzeichnerInnen ist. 0 likes
There are no highlights yet.