Bill: Vote Ads Reform Act

[EmeraldGuuy]

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

REFORM THE /AD COMMAND



​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:


PART I — PRELIMINARIES

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Ad Reform Act'

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Senator Stanley582.

(4) This Act has been sponsored by EmeraldGuuy.

(5) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator Stanley582 and Speaker HatManMC.

(6) This Act amends the following acts:

(a) Taxation Act

2 - Reasons and Intent
(1) The /ad command has no charge to it.

(2) The /ad command is limited to every person can do a successful ad every 10 minutes, 15 seconds in between, however this can be sold off.

(3) This Act makes it slightly harder to do such, and generate money toward helping the deficit.

(4) This Act sets a 25 dollar fee on said command.

PART II - AMENDMENTS

3 - Amendments to the Taxation Act
(1) Part IV of the Taxation Act shall be amended as follows:

15. Ad Fee

(1) An ad fee shall be charged each time a player successfully uses the /ad command.

(2) The ad fee shall be $25, which shall be deducted from the balance of the player who uses the command.

(3) All revenue generated from ad fees shall be deposited into the DCGovernment account.

(4) If a player does not have sufficient funds to pay the ad fee, the advertisement shall not be sent.

(2) Subsequent sections shall be renumbered appropriately.

 

[EmeraldGuuy]

- money

 

[lovepurplepoodle]

COI

 

[HatManMC]

Votes before H-29/40

 

[HatManMC]

You know, I've reflected on this one a lot. And after my meditation on it, I think I've come to a decision. Though I've argued for this one a lot over the past few hours, and though I've stated publically that I'll always support raising taxes over cutting spending, I think I'm actually going to nay this bill.

The reason for it stems way back into my first term as Representative, back in July. I was in coalition talks over a tax plan to "fix the deficit". And the taxes presented horrifically punished the poor. And that day, I decided I was done taking orders, and that I would stick with my morals and what I ran on - not punishing the poor. I wrote back a lengthy address, but I concluded it with this:

"This is another situation where I must act in the way I promised myself.

No more half measures, and no more compromises of my morals.

I cannot and will not vote on anything punishing poor people."

I've had to run a lot of fiscal responsibility, some of which has adversely affected the poor (like the chestshop tax). But I've always been able to stand by those past decisions because they've affected rich companies more, for the most part, and actually done a big impact on the deficit.

Looking at this, I just can't compel myself to feel the same way. This doesn't affect the rich nearly at all, as the ad companies aren't the ones being targeted. It'll have the same effect, if not less, as compared to the chestshop tax, with even more a predatory affect on the lower class.

A lot of justification for my often unpopular actions as a Representative stems from my belief that I'm here to do what's right, not necessarily what's wanted. But upon my meditation, I have come to realize that this isn't right. This isn't just.

I conclude this with the same promise I made to myself when I was younger and less jaded by months of politicking - I cannot and will not vote for anything punishing poor people.

 

[UntitledSteve]

changing my vote to

 

[HatManMC]

Votes before the tie & revote, pursuant to s9(3)(d) of the Legislative Standards Act.