In fact, if my cause were just, I'd certainly want as many people as possible to know what and why I'm petitioning my representative. On the other hand if I'm trying to pull a fast one, the present system is better.
That's utter bullsh**. Lots of what goes on between Congressional representatives and their constituents is expression of small, minor, personal concerns that would expose or embarrass little people enough so as to not express it if they thought it might become a news story. You are absolutely wrong on that topic, and unfettered disclosure will chill speech in our representative democracy, to the disproportionate detriment of the "little people."
As to communications with representatives other than yours, how are you going to administer -- in the real world -- disclosure of communications between a Congressional representative's "own" constituents and others?
Please consider when formulating your answer, that many "constituents" have diverse interests and multiple geographic locations. Like a "snowbird" from Michigan, or a New Yorker who winters in Florida, and has property and other interests in both places. Or a company with offices and/or production facilities in 23 states. Or a company like General Electric with interests in dozens of different industries and all 50 states, as well as abroad. Shouldn't any of these "constituents" be able to voice their views to government -- redress their grievances -- without fear of backlash for simply doing so? I fear (not) that there's a Constitutional right to do so.
Your internal corporate hypothetical is lost on me, because the principles are entirely different. One has to do with our government, Constitution, and Republic, and the other with internal corporate management and governance. The difference is like that between night and day, for good reason. |
