Things got outta hand

INTERIOR. A LARGE PARKING GARAGE. NIGHT.

--These are just not very bright guys...Things got outta hand.
--Hunt's come in from the cold. Supposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag...
--Follow the money.
--What do you mean?
--...You tell me what you know....I'll keep you in the right direction, if I can. But that's all.
Just -- follow the money.
[in a voice that's between a murmur and a whisper]
---------------------
Last night, was lifting weights, in my pajamas, in my bedroom, while watching All The President's Men.
The advice, "follow the money" can work, too, when you're looking at ballot issues.

Although the first thing to know about ballot issues is, you're almost always completely safe in voting "No" across the board on all of them. (That saves time!)
Anybody who's out to amend the State Constitution is up to no good.
(Oh, maybe that's too broad and bold a statement, but really in my experience that's the way it is.)
The State Constitution is fine.
People (and groups, organizations) who want amendments often want:
a) publicity
b) to move some money (and it's a safe bet, that will be good for them and bad for somebody else!)
c) both of the above -- or
d) they're indignant that they couldn't get something passed in the Legislature.

------------------
An example: tomorrow's Election Day and we have Constitutional Amendment L to vote on.
"An Amendment...relating to the trust fund created from the proceeds of the state cement enterprise sales." (Follow the money.)
Two things which stand out, to me:
1. This fiscal transfer change is to be conducted "over a four year period."
When it goes over a period of time, then they're doing something wrong -- they're taking someone's money, reducing their funding, raising their taxes, something like that which the people wouldn't support, & the reason for "spreading it out" over a period of time, like that, is to reduce immediate impact, & hopefully avoid some of the wrath from public / taxpayers / and whomever got screwed (pardon my French).

Any proposal which is to be implemented over a period of time is suspect, in my book.

And
2. "The amendment also eliminates a distribution from the trust fund to support education."
Ding! Gotcha! Reducing state funding to education is a back-door way of forcing you to raise your local property taxes. That type of proposal usually comes from groups and coalitions who are pushing a state income tax. That effort (or prospective option) has been hovering about in this state for decades.
And the fact that they need a change in the State Constitution to get it done, tells me it is
not a legitimate proposal that's good for the people -- if it was, they could've got it passed in the Legislature.

And I don't write this from a position of being absolutely anti-state-income-tax.
The thing is if you've got a legitimate, thoughtful proposal that inclues a state income tax, if it's good for the state, and for the people, then you can get that passed.

Proposals such as Amendment L are meant to exert painful leverage on taxpayers, to create eventual crisis. I just don't like those kind of tactics.
If it's a Good Idea, and a Legitimate Proposal, then you'd be able to sell it "above the counter."
-------------------- Follow the money.

-30-