Getting money out of politics - it's a oft-heard battle cry, and many direct democracy activists argue that it should be left out of the process as much as possible.
But attitudes towards the nuances of that question differ among parts of the world. Paul Jacob of the United States, for example, finds that some funding is needed for direct democracy to work properly, such as for those who gather signatures.
"I think it’s fine if people are paid to collect signatures," he said. "If someone is collecting signatures all day, at night they have to eat too."
Overall, he still feels that "one of the benefits of direct democracy is that money isn’t as powerful as it is in candidate elections."
But across the Atlantic in Iceland, Salvör Nordal says that paying people to gather signatures probably wouldn't work out and would send a bad signal about direct democracy.
"I don’t think we would agree wth people being paid, because it’s a smaller country and I also think we need to have limited money [involved]," she said, adding that strict laws about political funding came about after the 2008 financial crisis.
In the end, though, both Jacob and Nordal agree direct democracy has to lead to results.
"It undermines democracy if we are trying to engage the public and things don’t happen," Nordal said.