The title says it all. Can you write a bill in such a way that those who vote against it will not benefit from it if it should pass anyway?
The title says it all. Can you write a bill in such a way that those who vote against it will not benefit from it if it should pass anyway?
I mean if they’re welcoming the money in the sense that they’re using it to improve infrastructure… Thats kinda their job, even if they voted against that allowance of funds. What are they gonna do, be given a budget to improve infrastructure and then just not do anything with it…? If theyre using it innapropriately obviously thats an issue, and personally I disagree with their choice to vote against the bill, but like… Obviously if it passes and the money is given to them to improimprove infrastructure then they should use that money for its purpose? There’s a fine line between making sure people aren’t credited with policies that they opposed, and just being vindictive and making our political system even more like a bunch of petty children…
Maybe I’m missing something, I dunno. I’d be curious to hear other perspectives.
What I mean is that if they vote against it, they don’t get it.
They shouldn’t be able to campaign ahead of time against it in order to keep their base happy, and after they’ve lost, claim they are bringing home the bacon.