How It Works About Us Media Inquiries Contact Terms of Service Privacy Supporters Our Blog

Candidate Requirements: Disclosures not Secrets Facts not Lies

California > Voting, Elections & Civic Engagement
F98101e5a193d4bf7b47bf3e7422a789?d=mm Ronald Paulinski

Proposed Aug. 2, 2018


This proposal provides voters with comprehensive certified information about political candidates’ health exams and background checks. When enacted, candidates for President, Vice President, Governor and Lt Governor would have to comply with disclosure laws before they could have their name put on a ballot. Currently voters get no certified information about candidates. Yet we blindly vote without the comprehensive vetting required for hundreds of thousands of other jobs in the US. Airline pilots submit to mental and physical health exams every 6 months. Boards of Directors require deep vetting of candidates before they vote for a new CEO or CFO. Getting a President’s office-keys back after they’re elected is a laborious checks-and-balances process that can leave a dangerously unreliable politician at the controls of Government for an intolerable amount of time. Voters are the employers, and political candidates are the applicants. More than any employer we need to know the facts before we give candidates the keys to the most powerful offices in the world. Thomas Paine explained our negligence when he opined, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” It’s wrong to allow politicians to use a self-fabricated privacy-shield, and it’s irresponsibly dangerous. The CDC states that 10% of Americans over the age of 65 have dementia. That climbs to 44% with age. The FBI states that public corruption now poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. Politicians are not immune, not even more resistant, to illness or corruption. California’s Assembly Member Monique Limón and State Senator Hanna-Beth Jackson were given copies of this proposal. We talked, and they  commented, “I would vote for your proposal.” and “We need this (proposal).”  More details & arguments & rebuttals @ http://files.ofile.com:/ofile/?controller=Share&action=shareFile&key=ca14cd6c279d15639a51915b4b7917bc


There are no amendments yet.

Amend & Discuss

Be the first to comment!

Sign in to comment

Jurisdiction: California

Supporters in Jurisdiction is 6
Lock Policies need at least 100 supporters in the location to unlock the dashboard.
Greenlike nonhoverGreenlikeActive likeI SUPPORT Nationally Reddislike nonhoverReddislikeActive dislikeI OPPOSE Nationally

Engage Elected Officials

Advocate for change. For maximum impact, tweet this policy to the elected officials below once it’s achieved 100+ supporters.