The "if they knew what we know" part or the you can (kind of) buy policy part? If the latter is shocking to you, I have some very bad news for you. (The process would have been more difficult and more expensive if the law wasn't genuinely benefiting the people, but still possible.)
The part that bothers me is how hastily the "compromise" was drafted, without any public debate. I don't like the idea of an individual holding the legislative process hostage.
There are limits on campaign contributions, perhaps there should be limits on individual contributions for these signature drives, which are essentially just large marketing efforts.
And just because this guy got x number of signatures, I don't see why he should now have the power to make compromise deals with the government.
This isn't my area of expertise so I may be missing something here.
