| The following article is for use on Soviet Federation pages only. DO NOT delete this template or the pages that use it...
Please do not edit or alter this article in any way while this template is active. All unauthorized edits may be reverted on the author discretion.
Written by longtime Vanguard councillor Green, the Political Disclosure Act was introduced in 3546 as a way of controlling party affiliation and increasing transparency. The CDU Counterproprosal was passed by the council in a 3-2 vote.
Text of Act
Whereas party membership is a key element of democracy in the Soviet Federation:
Any political party may be founded in the federation if it meets the minimum standard or two members who swear loyalty to their affiliation.
These affidavits will be taken in writing and documents are to be managed by the supreme court. These documents must be made public in the interest of transparency.
Validation of these documents must occur before every election. This will ensure that party membership is accounted for and that any changes are noted to voters.
In practice, only registered members of a political party are entitled to make decisions around party leadership or policy directions. Misconduct is to be reported to the supreme court for investigation.
This act gives authority to the supreme court to hand out levies to any party found in contravention of this law including, but not limited to, suspension of a party or ineligibility of a member to vote.
After the release of the bill, Mike of the CDU released a response:
I have some major concerns about the Political Disclosure Act. Why should party membership be so formalized? In fact, our constitution does not recognize such organizations. Parties are informal political bodies, whose membership help one another in elections. Furthermore, I often ask independents and non-CDU members, but CDU leaning members, for their thoughts on strategy and legislation. If passed. this law will hinder those advice gathering messages and minimize the role of non-partisan people. I respect many independents, and I really do ask them for their thoughts on matters. We should not be banning these informal advice-gathering activities, because they will hinder an independent's voice and ability to shape federal policies.