To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
If that is the case then I strongly disagree. Prosecutorial overreach and our broken plea bargaining system is a national issue that desperately needs to be addressed. The wording of the petition may have been very specific, but it still provides an opportunity to address the issue.
Another possible term that applies is this:
You agree to only create petitions consistent with the limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to allow individuals to petition the Administration to take action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue federal government policy or actions.
In that case only the person who created the petition is in violation. The broad interest in signing the petition is a sign that there is an issue that should be looked at. And indeed there is - the undue impact that prosecutorial overreach can have thanks to our broken plea bargaining system.
I also note that 1.5 years to respond does not fit my notion of "timely" that the platform promised us...
(At a guess they waited to respond to a bunch of these until after an election cycle finished and new legislators were signed in. Best way to guarantee of both low publicity and that anyone outraged will forget about it before any future vote.
I don't know what term this is, but We The People has historically refused to respond to petitions about specific individuals as opposed to systemic/generic problems.
I'm curious if the petition would have worked better if it were phrased as, e.g., "Direct federal prosecutors to be extremely cautious in invoking CFAA" instead of "Do something about this one person".
If that's the term then it's unfortunate that the will of many many people now counts as "improper influence", especially in a republic where representation is the result of a democratic process.
The influence of many many people is the most proper influence our representatives can consider.
To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
If that is the case then I strongly disagree. Prosecutorial overreach and our broken plea bargaining system is a national issue that desperately needs to be addressed. The wording of the petition may have been very specific, but it still provides an opportunity to address the issue.
Another possible term that applies is this:
You agree to only create petitions consistent with the limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to allow individuals to petition the Administration to take action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue federal government policy or actions.
In that case only the person who created the petition is in violation. The broad interest in signing the petition is a sign that there is an issue that should be looked at. And indeed there is - the undue impact that prosecutorial overreach can have thanks to our broken plea bargaining system.
I also note that 1.5 years to respond does not fit my notion of "timely" that the platform promised us...
(At a guess they waited to respond to a bunch of these until after an election cycle finished and new legislators were signed in. Best way to guarantee of both low publicity and that anyone outraged will forget about it before any future vote.