I saw that, and I watched the republican caucus pooh-pooh the dishonest practice of throwing those earmarks in and forcing a vote before anyone had an opportunity to review them.  Congress has himmed and hawed sponsoring, in many cases, completely meaningless legislation far too much during this session which is why it came down to the wire in getting the budget passed.  This, I'm certain, was by design.  One such earmark was for a bicycle path in Wisconsin or Minnesota, I can't remember which, in the amount of $700K. 

These incumbents are the disease, and, God willing, I pray that GOOOH is the Penicillin.

Did you happen to see the budget currently zipping through the House and Senate? According to Americans for Prosperity the 3500+ page bill has "at least 9000 earmarks, hundreds of which are brand new and have never been debated in either the House or the Senate. It strips the Senate-passed provsion that would ban lawmakers from phoning in earmark requests to agencies, which are untraveable and could add countless additional earmarks. It even allows funding for HIlary Clinton's infamous Hippie Museum." Phoning in earmarks?#!?!

This is why we need accountability. In our system, it is almost certain that GOOOH representatives would have no choice but to vote against this budget, and they would have to start over. That is what we want. Force each item to be debated on its merits.

We understand it isn't done that way today, but GOOOH intends for it to be done differently. If you support the process playing out once again, it is unlikely that GOOOH is for you.

Regarding the 20%, we are only saying 20% of GOOOH members (not 20% of the district). If 20% will not vote for or against a representative changing his mind, the default answer is he cannot. The assumption is it must not be very important if nobody bothers to vote.

I agree, 20% participation is totally unrealistic.  The American People are so fed up, they don't bother to participate.  I believe wholeheartedly that we MUST oust the entrenched class so I signed the letter, but in so doing, I realized that I may be obligating myslef to park my common sense at the door when I go in to vote on a bill in order to abide by the requirement.  That's not wise.  I think that really needs some work.  It is not possible to be perfectly prescient, now, with respect to the issues that we will face.  I'm not sure it is wise to force genuine patriots to abandon their faculties and good sense.

One of the intents of GOOOH seems to be to get common folks into office, see how things REALLY run and draft/submit bills to change the process.  One might argue that a change in process would slow things down in Congress.  I argue that no legislation is better than bad legislation.

Have you ever been asked by your congressman what you think about a piece of legislation before they vote?  Have you ever called/written your congressman/senators to admonish them for the way they voted on a measure?  Have you called/written them to praise their record on an issue by issue basis?  Have you known beforehand which way your representative would vote on particular issues before they did it?  Wouldn't it be nice to know that you'll know whether or not your right to say what you want, when you want would be protected by your elected officials? 

Wouldn't it be nice to know that your elected official would argue against cloture on an issue that hasn't been duly discussed?  Ending debates early and forcing a vote just in the interest of appearing productive does no justice at all to the legislative process.  Government that governs least, governs best, right?

I think constituents need the peace of mind to know exactly what they get when they vote.  I see not problem as all with the commitment letter.  There are other parties, you know.  We live in an age where a pro-choice adulterer is endorsed by a prominent Christian leader and a socialist is being touted as the most prepared to run our country as president.  So why is it so undesirable for a "non-partisan party" to be principled, while the others are not.  This is a revolution, peaceful, albeit.  Revolutions don't succeed without principles and clear objectives.

From what I understand, you'll be able to discuss WHY you answered a particular way during the candidate selection process. 

Bills *should* have sufficient time to be argued, but that is not always guaranteed. You need to make allowances for that.

What happens when a bill comes through with two of my yes/no answers, one I said yes to, and the other I said no to? According to the letter, I must vote no. Problem is, that perhaps the yes question is a vote to get out of Iraq or something similarly important. I'd vote yes anway, and risk the wrath of goooh. :) The point here is, that we cannot lock in fixed responses without knowing the future in advance. And we dont, so we can't.

Please consider re-working the letter, and the questions to be more *intent* and *guidline* oriented. There are always exceptions to every rule.

We agree the commitment letter needs some work, and we will modify as needed as we gain input. Until it is to a point that you can agree with, simply do not "sign" it (and certainly don't send in your $100 until you are fully on board). Continue to provide input on how it should be revised, but the key point I would make to you is we do not want to make decisions based on intent - we want commitment.

On your first point, we believe that all bills should have plenty of time for a candidate to read and seek outside consultation. Riders and Earmakrs that are snuck in the at the last minute are generally unjustified favors and / or poor legislation - that is why we are paying $7.8 million to research Hawaiian sea turtles, and $6 million for Alaskan sea lions.

I think you are also trying to ask what if you need to change your mind on how you answered one of the questions. The answer is that you are required to get the approval of the GOOOH members in your district if you wish to change your documented answer. You use the Override Clause to do that.

In the letter 1) does not always occur. Often bills are snuck in at the last minute.

Also in the letter 3) just isn't going to happen. 20% active membership at all times? Totally unrealistic

In the body of the letter:

"you must either abstain or vote no"

But what if  YES is the better choice? How can you know ahead of time? This is a poor requirement.

The commitment letter is completely defective. I had to click submit with "I do NOT agree". And I'm a GOOD GUY! Please fix this letter ASAP. You are excluding decent, honest, intelligent people.