Have to draw a line somewhere. How about no professional politicians backed by wealthy contributors.

I don't think it is necessary to exclude the wealthy. By severely limiting the need for money in order to campaign, and thus opening the door for people who are not wealthy (and don't know potential campaign donors who are wealthy) you will change the balance without specifically excluding the wealthy.

Most of those who are wealthy have earned their wealth. And they managed to do this by having high leadership and managerial skills. Those are exactly the kinds of traits that we are trying to promote in our candidates.

One advantage of disallowing wealthy candidates is that they will be less likely to know wealthy people who can take advantage of the bills they can help get passed. Presumably this will reduce the temptation to engage in graft and corruption. Also, if they violate their agreed positions and need to be removed from office, they will have less money to spend on fancy, high-priced lawyers who can tie it up in courts for a long time while they remain in office. Perhaps the same thing could be accomplished by having wealthy candidates agree not to spend more than a certain amount for legal fees, or something like that.

I have stated previously that I don't support exclusion of anyone.  While I agree that money and an understanding of legal manipulation is a danger to this nation, I believe in equality.  Bren, you're not alone, and as stated, ultimately, the members of GOOOH will decide.

The issue with attorneys, IMHO, has been referenced by Horris, below:

"Being a nation with lots of laws, we need lawyers to help negotiate the existing ones get rid of the archaic ones and write new ones without loopholes."

There's the problem.

The US Constitution is simply written, short, to the point and easily understood.  Any legislation that must be lengthy, I look upon as an attempt at some sort of subversion.  Example: The bailout.  Originally 3 pages, it didn't go far enough to ensure that Paulson did not get the dictatorial powers he was shooting for.  It was an easy read and easy to shoot down.  The result?  A return to the drafting table and the presentation of a 450 page behemoth.  I, personally, haven't read the entire thing.  Have y'all?  If I had to wager, however, I'd guess there's some pretty subversive and pernicious line items in that bill (such as bailing out foreign entities).

Attorneys would be excellent at reviewing existing law.  However, when it comes to drafting law, they are so well-versed in the craft that they would be more likely to add to the problem rather than solve it.

Despite these facts, I am still not in favor of excluding anyone, but I would not be able to personally support an individual who is extremely adept at "working the system".

At the risk of sounding cliche, I will give Ron Paul credit for being against this.  Perhaps I haven't read enough, but every piece of legislation I've seen written by Dr. Paul is short, sweet, honest and to the point.  No room for subversion.  I believe this is how all law should be presented.

Help us shape the system. There is an active survey that allows members to decide if we should exclude lawyers, the wealthy, and politicans as proposed, and ultimately the voting members of GOOOH will decide.

These groups are excluded not because they are "bad" people, but because they are over-represented in government today. We are trying to have a more diverse mix of the population represent us, not only those who are exceptionally wealthy, who have a law degree, or whose parents were politicans. We need change, not more of the same. But, if the members of GOOOH wish to open the process to all as MANY members have suggested, that is what we will do. We had to start somewhere. We will let the people (not the political parties) decide for themselves.

Our hope is you will tell others about GOOOH so they can evaluate the merits of the system and help us shape it. We do not pretend to have all of the answers. The questions are continuously evolving. Help us make it better.

Tim C

Bren,

Although many people in our country feel that government has been partly corrupted by lawyers, they would non necessarily be excluded.  The beauty about GOOOH is that parameters are based on what supporters want.  Your comment about women, blacks, and non-land owners is completely off base.  The overall goal is to get money and power out of politicians' hands and put the power back with the people.  That is why you should support GOOOH.  You should not read into this framework with jaded eyes.  The purpose of GOOOH is so that your opinion can be heard.  Whereas, your opinion does not matter in today's landscape.  If you really have a problem with the original framework, you should be one of GOOOH's biggest supporters.  I don't necessarily like how all of the candidate questions are worded, but I see that my voice counts when this movement takes off.  With your objections, there are probably other people out there that feel the same way.  Instead of calling it bourgeois and writing GOOOH off, keep posting your comments.  Find other people who believe as you.  The reason we are in the current state of dismay is due to Americans thinking they do not make a difference in politics.  See this for what it is.  Your voice and people who think as you could have a representative that you choose.  Instead, money, corrupt special interest groups and corrupt politicians choose a candidate for which you then choose with a vote.  Whereas, GOOOH will allow you to choose the candidate for which you vote.  If you really have a problem with the framework, you should do as I.  Make GOOOH known to anyone and everyone who will listen.

Unfortunately, I cannot support any set of proposals that limit participation based on the types of criteria that have been proposed. When you state who can and cannot represent people based on a subjective criteria such as income, intellect, etc., that makes it a party driven by mistrust and innuendo. I understand that there were limitations suggested that would exclude you if you were female, black, or not a landowner. Is that what you think is a good basis for a party of the people?

It just smacks of class envy and appears to have far too much in common with the russian revolution, Castro, Che Guevera, and the groups that while meaning well could not form any governmentally sound policy based on the ostricism of particular classes.

I am sorry, but as long as the mentality of GOOOH continues a direction of exclusion based on minority of population, I would, in the footsteps of our forefathers stand fast and fight where necessary to keep a group that is this consumed by fear to ever gain a foothold in my country.

With deep appreciation for your gallant goals, but also deep distrust of your bourgeois mentality.

Sincerely,

Bren Stockdale

I have good friends who are lawyers that are just as fed up oith the system as the resto of us.  I know wealthy that feel the asme way.  there are also politicians such as Ron Paul who are not part of the vagabonds in there now.  We need to form the basic platform that we can all agree on then the ones who want to be candidates commit to carry out our basic platform.  Being a nation with lots of laws, we need lawyers to help negotiate the existing ones get rid of the archaic ones and write new ones without loopholes.  This is a big task