This is a matter of being true to a cause not a legal matter. more a moral one.

I sincerely hope that we will not get too caught up in the legality, or lack thereof, of the Candidate Agreement and that this issue neither prompts nor prevents anyone from participating.

If the past, and unfortunately the present, teaches us anything about the law it is simply that what is 'legal' is not neccessarily the same as what is 'right'. In fact it is all to often the to the contrary. Were it not so we would not be near so disgusted with those that make the laws and the laws that they have made.

As I understand the intent of the Candidate Agreement it is to have those who would represent us memorialize their commitment to do just that. A mans, or womens, signature is only as binding as their word and no agreement, not even that to which our current representatives have sworn an oath, will truly bind a person of questionable character.

We have now, without any such Candidate Agreement, both the power and the obligation to remove those from office who do not truly represent us. We are not obligated to live with a mistake in judgement for it's entire term of office.

I believe the CA serves a useful purpose regardless of its ultimate enforceability.

We've considered this one carefully, and feel this is the only way to do it. This is exactly how billions of dollars of earmarks are approved every year; witness the just signed budget. Let's vote on one issue at a time.

Some say politics don't work this way, and we say politics, as practiced today, are not working at all. The results speak for themselves.

We are also investigating a question on the Single Bill Act as proposed on DownsizeDC.org.

After hearing about the GOOH project on the Bud Hedinger Show, I was eager to get online and check it out.  I signed up and went about completing my ACTS.  However, I will not be signing the "Commitment Agreement", in its current form, now or in the future due to the following:

If legislation is presented that contains more than one issue, and voting would require you to violate one of the responses in your questionnaire, you must either abstain or vote no. You should demand that the representatives presenting the legislation separate it into individual items, but understand you will be at their mercy to do so.

I for one believe a legislator should only abstain from a vote when he/she has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the vote.  Legislators are elected to do just that, vote.  To also require a legislator to vote no, simply because to vote would require him/her to violate on or more promises in one way or another is also wrong.  If a legislator feels more strongly about the yes position than the no position, he/she should not be forced to vote on the no position. 

In a perfect world, every issue would have its own vote, so pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with each other do not end up on the same bill.  Maybe this needs to be a question put forth.  Would you support requiring all pieces of legislation to be single issue, including a separate appropriation bill for all pork spending.  If this was the case, then a potential legislator would never be put to this problem.

Whether or not the Agreement can be enforced as a legally binding contract IMO is irrelevant.  It is not so much different than the transcript of a reporter asking a candidate where he/she stands on an issue.  Perhaps the provision in it for the member to step down cannot be enforced, but as mentioned earlier, his/her likelyhood of representing that district again through GOOOH would be nil.

Even if this representative then ran with a major party, he'd have a trouble selling himself as truthful and honest.

I don't think you have it quite right. Our counsel says the Candidate Agreement is perfectly legal. We do not have any evidence that indicates otherwise. Antisocial's comment was that his/her lawyer friend "thought" it was not legal, but they did not have the time to investigate.

The courts may have to ultimately decide if the Agreement is legally binding, but that misses the point which is will a candidate sign a document in advance committing to their answers. The public will ultimately decide the truth for a candidate who does not vote according to his commitmetns. It's really a pretty simple and straightforward concept.

Wait, let me get this straight. An experienced lawyer has said that the candidate agreement is illigal. If true, this would drastically alter the goooh system, and extreme changes would have to take place. But instead of calling a law expert, to check, you ask the forum users (who should not be experienced lawyers) to provide evidence themselves. You prefer to rely on mostly anonymous, inexperienced internet users for expert legal advice? I did look into this myself, and I know what antisoshal is referring to.

But if there's something wrong with one of the crucial aspects of goooh, it would be wise to look into it yourself instead of being lazy and asking others to do your work for you. Fatal flaws rarely solve themselves, you know, and people rarely do work for others they don't know well on the internet...

I have been looking and can find no reason that a Congressman cannot be held accountable to a commitment he makes to his consituents. He could fight it in the courts, but the world would see him for what he is. Imagine the conversation.

"You see, your honor, when I said I would vote for term limits I really agreed they were necessary. But, after working in Washington for a year I can see that I am the only person in my district smart enough to handle this job, and I can do more for my family and friends by remaining in power. My grandchildren will appreciate that I was so important for so many years. After all, this is about me and mine, not the people or our country. And by the way, if you side with me, perhaps I can help you get promoted to the next level."

I just can't understand why anyone would want to try to hold elected officials accountable. Surely they'll do the right thing.

Thanks for the continued input. Your opinions are all valid, but without specifica case law (and we understand why your lawyer friends may not want to take time to research), our counsel is that the Committment Agreement is valid. We have no intention of "suing" someone who violates such a commitment, but we do believe they can be pressured to step down, that they will be effecitvely shamed if they make a written promise and then violate it. We also believe it will be impossible for them to get re-elected if they violate such a commitment. We go one step further and believe it will hold up in a court of law because it is a commitment they made based on their personal convictions, not one that some company purchased - which is illegal.

Our conclusion is that you have asked a very legitimate question, that may ultimately have to be tested in court, but we hope not. What we want is for candidates to give their word, in advance, that they will vote as they say. We believe that 99% of them will do just that, and that is what we want - accountability.

As such, we have changed the title of this thread to a question, "Is the Candidate Agreement Legal?" that better reflects the included dialogue. The original title is noted here [Candidate agreement illegal, and participation potentially illegal] and will be reinstated if anyone can identify specifics that support the claim that the agreement is "potentially illegal." If anyone finds evidence that it is, please let us know immediately.

We want to particularly thank antisoshal for starting the thread and pushing the issue. We have modified the disclaimer at the bottom of the Committment Agreement to cover in case it is determined not to be valid.

We hope this is a good example of the evolutionary nature of the system in process. We do not profess to have all the answers, and are counting on our patriots to help us improve the system.

Please keep the input coming.

one of the few barriers left to prevent the complete corruption of our system. Do you really WANT to open Pandora’s box to allow others to legally bind congress? Exxon starts the “Fair Energy Party”, promises everyone cheap gas, pays a hundred million to get their candidates elected? I don’t really think the sale of congress is what you have planned, but it’s the door you open should you prove that you CAN legally evict and or punish congress? Is your goal to empower a corporate entity to hold congress responsible for what they claim are damages to them as a result of legislation? If this sort of thing was legal, don’t you think it would already be commonplace? Think of our current congress. Think of how many people would like to have them removed for not doing what they said? Think of how many campaign promises meet the criterion of a verbal contract already. Think of how many civil suits we have on our hands of today.

If you have a legal council that’s experience in election and legislative case law, they will know this already.