Foundational Freedoms                   

Please see Companion Initiatives Fare Pay & Fare Learning for important synergistic connections.



     The Foundation of Economic Freedom is Knowing the Answers!


The Method is the Message!

  The Federalist Paper, Number 22, concludes with this truism about the underlying strength of America: “The fabric of the American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of  the Consent of the People.  The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” Final legitimate authority is simply the Consent of the Governed.



Fare Court or Public Forum Debate Reform Initiative Sectional Provisions

Binding Procedures for Electoral  and Elected Authority:


Section 1

  1.   The Electorate, for purposes of Socio/Economic Freedom or any legal reason, shall retain and have full authority to demand or propose administrative action, policy or legislative laws by the initiative and/or referendum process.  Petition requirements of registered voters shall remain at eight percent of the total number voting for governor for initiatives and five percent for referenda — both at the local level governing areas and state wide.  Petition signature requirements shall be proportional to the area voting size for the city, county, district or town in question based upon the same petition signature requirements as stated here and under current law.  Voters shall have Electoral Authority to modify or reinforce this provision.


 2.    After verification of petition signatures established by existing law and stated herein — and related to the governing levels involved within California — what will become permanently known as Fare Court and/or Public Forum Debates  shall be held at least 45 days, but no more the 60 days, prior to election day.  Upon enactment, and according to established and new procedures, the Secretary of State Office and therefore city or county election offices shall have authority to protect and promote the entire Fare Court process.  Public Forum Debate conclusions shall be provided daily, one month prior to elections held in accordance with established dates for general, periodic or special elections by all forms of mass private and public media — meaning: broadcast, online, print or related local media.  Being compelled by this part of this law, any private media outlet shall receive a full tax credit for distribution costs and shall be allowed for any form of taxation.  Voters shall have Electoral Authority to modify or reinforce this provision.


3.  Majority vote of 50% plus one will prevail; a super majority vote shall be 66% and cannot rejected by legislative challenge or veto and can only be revised by Electoral Authority at the next election, or be compelled by an appropriate court of law to be revisited at the next election — legal challenges will of course remain in place all the way to the US Supreme Court if taken to that point.  Electoral initiatives or legislative demands for administrative actions or law resulting from the above process will become effective  and operative on established start dates after confirmed election counts are officially declared  by the appropriate election officials.  If less than a super majority vote, said electoral results must be agreed to or challenged either by a governor’s veto or by legislative super majority vote in both governing houses within sixty days or less.


4.    If less than a super majority vote, it may be delayed by a court of law through decree, stay or verdict based upon current or previous law; however, such decisions shall only postpone for ninety days beyond the date at the beginning of the initial sixty days stated directly above.  Said decisions shall only have power to first refer the matter back to the legislature for majority vote solutions, or be reformed by elective initiative law.  The written judicial decision shall be the guide for any stated resolution methods herein.  If the electoral or legislative follow up method results in a super majority vote, then the initiative or legislative demand must take place and remain in force until revisited through elective initiative or a super majority vote of the legislature.  


5.   Veto of a simple majority by either the governor or both houses of the legislature  shall be in place for any type of socio/economic law enacted through the initiative process.  Elected representatives are just that; it is their responsibility to help govern and therefore to serve — that “leadership” ability must be maintained as the Power of the People has finally expanded to its rightful place as the final arbiter of our freedoms.  But in the event of such a veto, the matter shall be referred back to the Electorate after first giving the opportunity to the legislature to resolve a given issue within sixty days.  Current law  regarding other types of legislation which may be vetoed shall remain in place.



6.    Within this just stated prescribed time, enacted initiatives shall be subjected to existing law only as stated herein. In the event initiative law is changed by the methods also stated herein or negated by those same methods, then this initiative reform shall over rule any such law and all provisions of this process shall be kept place. 


7.   No part of this reform initiative shall be altered, modified, over ruled or vetoed by any court, governing body, elected or non-elected official — it can only be changed by the Electoral Conscience via election majorities through either initiative or legislative demand.  State judicial bodies may not change or reject a passed proposal except to clarify through established law and return it to the subject authority for a conclusive vote after consideration of raised legal questions; a call for a special election may also take place for new issues or to revisit further issues raised by such questions; a special election may be called by a court of law, the governor, a majority vote by the legislature and by the initiative process.


8.    Barring national or public security concerns by the appropriate authorities; and if needed,  a court at the appropriate level: city, county or state may issue a subpoena or subpoenas for court records, legal evidence or any public information confirmed by established standards as acceptable legal evidence under oath.  This informational evidence shall be released in a timely manner — a minimum of 30 days  — before a Public Forum Debate, aka, a Fare Court proceeding and be made available for the inspection of interested parties or the public at large released immediately after the actual debate.


Section 2, Proclamation


1.  Fare Court, aka, Public Forum Debates proclaim the multifaceted, multilevel civil value of legally compelled, intellectually reliable information.  Presented through this Forum of  pro  or con evidence  in consideration of any socio/economic issue, it  shall be required in all candidate, initiative matters and legislative demands brought before the Electorate at any governing level within California — any and all Fare Court Debates shall be no longer than 60 minutes; and, may conclude before then if the balance and fairness of a given debate is maintained.  Initiative, legislative demand and non-legislative plebiscite debates may also be brought as well if ordered by the governor through executive privilege, a legislature or local governing body by majority vote of its members, a court of law decree at the appropriate level of that court’s authority or by initiative means.  Regardless of how they are brought about, all such methods are subject to law as stated herein.


The following regulations and/or rules shall apply by force of state law, as stated in this Initiative, in regard to the mandatory completion of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates:


Section 3, Distribution


1.      All debates shall be recorded for transmission via statewide or local level TV channels and Internet site or sites; audio for Internet and radio transmission shall also be made available along with transcripts for publication in print media and online reading.  In addition, a post card like mailer shall be sent out prior to an election with pro or con bullet points on reverse sides of each card.  In the case where candidates or issues are too numerous for one card then a balanced number shall be mailed to support reliably informed voters.


2.     All transmitted forms of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates shall be placed and repeated weekly beginning immediately after a concluded debate; and, must be done no later than 30 days prior to Election Day. Said dissemination shall be mandatory, without charge, by all the aforementioned media outlets — these outlets may receive a full tax credit over and above any ad or donation revenue for the cost of dissemination.  These outlets shall play or publish at the times of day when listeners, readership or viewership is strongest and/or significant.  Radio and television outlets  may rotate their respective broadcasts among other radio or television outlets on different days of the week at different times of day as long as it played during highest and/or high rating periods; dedicated Internet sites must do so 24/7 — other media outlets may play or publish daily, as opposed to weekly, if they so choose.


3.    Interested private parties may also disseminate pro or con media with donations or at their own expense prior to the pre-debate period if they so choose, as well as during the post-debate, pre-election thirty day period before the actual Election Day — but, during these pre or post-debate periods, all pro or con media shall not be subject to the Fare Court/Public Forum Debate evidence or law and will of course retain their First Amendment Rights.


Section 4, Conduct


1.     During recording, debate participants shall conduct themselves in an orderly manner and they shall be sworn in as in any judicial hearing under the same legally binding oath under penalty of perjury.  It is proclaimed within this Provision that willful disruption shall be potentially prosecuted as a Contempt of Court case and provable Perjury shall be prosecuted under any and all applicable statues and those stated herein. Participants shall provide only truthful answers in their presentations and in answer to questions; also, they shall present only legally legitimate evidence to support their pro or con positions during any part of the debate — except during opening and closing statements which will be speculation through formal or mere opinion based upon the speakers conclusions of pro or con evidence.


2.     There must be an impartial moderator to swear in participants and to keep order. The moderator shall be a retired or sitting judge determined by random draw and by the level of governance effected — the aforementioned may decline, recuse or volunteer but must have no vested interest in the outcome of a given debate. The moderator shall always be addressed as, “Your Honor”.  Also, prior to a given Debate, the moderator shall have authority to accept or reject evidence based only on whether it is supportable in the following ways: conclusions of experts; experimental evidence; past legal decisions; broad based or single subject studies; legal records; or, records either historical or statistical.  Again, during the Debate, cross talk or interruption by Debate participants will not be permitted — the moderator will have authority to overrule a participant for rule violation; and, the moderator shall have authority to stop recording at any time for rule violation, picking up where a participant was stopped.  To further promote integrity and order, no audience shall be present at a Debate as well.  Any problems will be dealt with accordingly by a minimum two member, professional security staff at the direction of the moderator or immediate need.


3.     Since all Fare Court/Public Forum Debates will be recorded through audio/visual media for distribution, time limits shall be strictly enforced: there shall be 6, 3 minute debate turns per each side, pro or con, followed by two alternating 2 minute pro or con closing statements; starting turn and closing shall be determined by an off air coin toss: pro shall be heads, con shall be tails.  To enforce the time limits, there shall be a countdown digital clock plainly visible to all participants; when the ending bell or chime sounds the debater must stop and recording shall stop at the moderator’s direction.  Total time allotments should allow for all of the moderator’s comments and any time overage.  In addition, Fare Court Debate lengths may be adjusted regarding a single initiative and/or include more than one initiative if they are in opposition to one another or are similar yet have differences in administration, funding or scope.  As stated herein, allotted times shall be adjusted accordingly or as needed.  Moderators shall have authority to make said adjustments after consultation with participants, even so,  these actions can be stayed before a ruling by a court of law and/or overridden by the Electoral Conscience at a date certain.


4.     The moderator will issue a neutral opening statement concerning the debate topic or topics germane to the subject or subjects at issue; the moderator shall also be prepared with sufficient foreknowledge of debate subject(s) prior to the actual debate. Each side will have maximum of time as declared in sub-section 3 directly above.  The moderator(s) will conclude with a brief closing neutral statement of their own design to the applicable electorate, basing it upon the honest presentation of the subject(s) and the serious and solemn nature of the voter’s responsibility to, and right for, the whole truth as is humanly possible.  

5.      Candidate Forum Debates — which apply only to federal in-state, local and state elections  –shall be conducted with the authority and rules in the same manner as stated above.  Whether there are only two candidates involved or whether there are more than two, the moderator shall divide time allotments accordingly in such an event.  Since there is a total time limit of  no longer than 60 minutes in a two sided Fare Court/Public Forum Debate, time shares shall be aligned with opening and closing statements for the number of candidates up to a maximum of six participants — if there are more than six, then there shall be more than one Fare Court/Public Forum Debate.  Any number above six will be divided as evenly as possible and shall require an additional debate, or more as needed, where at such time the total number of candidates will have their opportunity for Candidate Forum Debates.  But, in order to qualify for a Candidate Forum Debate, a candidate must have the equivalent of 3% of a given registered electorate either by actual previous vote or by petition at the city, county, district or state level.


6.    This provision shall in no way interfere with candidate promotion outside of Candidate Forum Debates or with any non-Fare Court conforming debate outside the scope of this Initiative. Existing local and state law shall continue to apply regarding candidates running for office unless those laws conflict with Fare Court, in which case this Initiative shall supersede such laws.


Section 5, Funding


1.      Funding for production needs to provide for Fare Court/Public Forum Debates shall be paid by fees equal to one third of any and all political contributions — from any source or type what so ever, including lobbyist gifts or payments to any public servant — and be held in the appropriate public treasury for that purpose alone.  Funds may also be donated voluntarily by for-profit or non-profit operations and given acknowledgment at the beginning and the end of a given debate.  Any excess funds shall be held for the purpose of funding debates alone at some future date as well.  This funding phase shall begin upon enactment of this Initiative Reform, and will be enforced by appropriate local and state authorities.


2.    Payment of designated funds for any kind of salary or stipend shall not be allowed for any candidate or pro or con promoter present or not at any Fare Court/Public Forum Debate.  Expenses for moderators, security, technical, utilities and other costs deemed as absolutely necessary shall be administered on the authority of a city clerk, county assessor or state treasurer depending on the governing level affected and administered  by transparent methods of their own design.  Current laws regarding fraud shall still apply.


3.      Again, only the moderator, a two or more member security staff and a minimum of three media technicians to record the Fare Court/Public Forum Debate for transmission shall be paid.  A minimum of four hours pay for their professional services, in line with their current pay scale, shall be paid in regard to the actual one hour debate — additional professional expenses shall also be reimbursed, but only as determined by the appropriate funding authority  — as soon as possible.  Those taking part in the debate as either candidates or pro or con proponents, shall not be paid expenses or salary in any form or way.


4.     Advertising by private and/or public sponsors for a debate itself shall also be allowed and is even encouraged herein; but since there will be no commercial breaks during the actual debate, such ads can only be at the beginning and/or end of a given debate.   Such private and/or public sponsors may advocate pro or con positions in any media after or before a debate or debates.  In addition to the mandatory funding requirements stated above in sub-section 1, additional charitable contributions of air time, money and print space will be allowed and may be encouraged by the moderators at their discretion in their closing statements.


5.     Because of the over riding importance of Fare Court/Public Forum Debates to an electorate — and as a last resort only — any short fall of funding shall be made up for by local or state funds and will be repaid from future moneys placed in any Fare Court Fund at any level of governance within California.  In any event, strict accounting of all funds will be mandated and such records made available to any interested party; such accounting procedures shall be subject to laws regarding fraud and the penalties thereof.


Section 6, Administrative Authority


1.      A simple majority is herein defined as 50% plus one vote; a super majority is herein defined as 66% or more vote.  In regard to an election result after a Fare Court/Public Forum Debate, a state legislature — only if first vetoed by the governor — may over rule a local or state wide initiative simple majority if they so choose through normal legislative protocol.  But, they can only do so by means of a super majority of both Houses; if so, they must offer an alternative law along the same lines. Only a Federal Circuit Court and/or the State Supreme Court may temporarily stay a local or state wide initiative super majority — this temporary judicial process may only last for  thirty legislative business days and within that time must be addressed with a replacement law that will be valid only by a super majority in both Houses and then signed by the governor.  Until such time, the initiative shall stand.  The governor shall retain the power of veto as allowed by current law but may not supersede a super majority initiative result in any way by executive action alone but may pursue other measures according to existing law, or may propose an opposing initiative or no action at all.  The governor shall maintain the honor and  privilege of, as chief executive, the “Bully Pulpit” to persuade and urge the people he or she serves.


2.      The governor, a mayor or their equivalent and a legislative body, shall have authority to order a proposal be studied by a specific authority, or their delegated agents, then  by the electoral process of Fare Court/Public Forum Debate finally be decided  by an election on a date certain.  All of said actions may be done without petition by elected bodies and the leaders identified herein and legislative authority via majority vote.


3.      Cities, counties and/or legally designated governing districts shall only have authority to order a proposal within their legally binding and stated areas of  purview.  To reinforce that which has been stated herein: private and public groups may promote proposals to be studied and acted upon through petition, meaning: Fare Court/Public Forum Debates resulting in elections for  applicable legislative demand(s) and/or voter initiative proposition(s) at the state or local level.


4.      By simple majority, the state legislature, county or local bodies proportionate to the level concerned – as well as non-elected peer or public groups – may compel a Fare Court/Public Forum Debate to offer  plebiscites on voter opinions on any judicial ruling or law, and may be done quarterly if privately funded or can continue according to initiative law as stated herein. Since such actions are of public opinion only and are not legally binding, regular laws regarding petition rules stated herein shall not apply, but the same rule of law regarding legal evidence and perjury, and, the conduct of the Fare Court/ Public Forum Debates themselves shall still apply.



The Method is the Message!

Site crafted by John Knapp, Web Developer

Amervoice © 2017 · The Way of Real Change · All rights reserved.

The Way of Real Change