RE: Flood Control Scandal or Business as Usual?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
That bit about a 30 million campaign check from a contractor whose firm later bagged a fifth of flood control work says more than any speech about public service. It reads less like scandal and more like the user guide of the system. If only rivers flowed with audit trails, we might actually see where the money goes. Which fix would bite hardest in your view, real time donor disclosure with low caps or a ban on contractor donations for officials who vote on their budgets?
0
0
0.000
I would rather see this bill made into a law to make all public funds traceable, transparent, auditable, and accessible in real time. But skeptics say, "No chance, only in dreams."
Same here, that bill is the north star. If they will not pass it whole, why not push a pilot on flood control projects with real-time disbursements, change orders, and contractor payments so everyone can see the money flow. Pair it with live donor disclosures during the campaign period to close the loop. What’s the smallest first win you think is doable this year, a pilot ledger at DPWH or donor data in real time?
Between the two, I prefer the second one, though I still have second thoughts as to its reliability.
Same here. If by the second you mean traceable public funds with live budget data, the big worry is who controls the data and whether entries can be changed. Would an independent audit trail with time stamps plus a public read only mirror make it feel reliable, or is there another check you think is missing?
I have no idea. Blockchain is the only technology I know that will make these people accountable.
!PIZZA !ALIVE