. No plan would be subject to no criticism.
There would be criticism that there was no plan. We're a pretty negative society. It's easier to criticize than it is to come up with an idea.
that lobbies have more impact on legislation then is particularly healthy. .... 1st amendment protections.
You're making a statement that implies that 1st amendment guarantees that the legislative process must be unhealthy. Do you want to do that?
At what in the wealth scale do you lose freedom of speech? $50 bil? $5 bil? $100?
I think the Court has recently ruled that you can set $ limits and that is not an infringement of free speech.
Assuming that we were within the district. Suppose you or I were to try to schedule a meeting with Dennis Hastert [or his staff]to discuss gun related legislation. Do you think that we would be afforded the same amount of time [access] or consideration that the NRA would get? [I'll be a bit surprised if you say Unequivically, yes]. If not, would my 1st amendment rights be infringed by being denied access?
And among those lobbies with vested interests are AARP, NEA, Sierra Club,.....Shall they be shut up too?
I don't believe that you'll find any words in my post that said to shut anyone up. Undue influence is an issue, access is an issue. Is quid pro quo for legislation a first amendment protected principle?
In secret from all those vested interests? I doubt it.
Not in secret from the vested interests; in secret with the vested interests. Vested interests bring in draft legislation on floppy disks that magically become HRs and SBs. A little disclosure of that might be appropriate. There's the Cheney approach, it's protected by the Right of privacy.
Apparently Bush wants me to be a Democrat.
You can't please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes you have to take a headcount and/or weigh who gives the largest campaign donations. Tough decisions to be made at the top.
That would be an excellent British import!
Tangent. I heard one network anchor, can't remember which one right now, when asked of a reason why electorate turn out was so poor in the US threw out the thought: It had to do with the amount of coverage that is dumped on the electorate. By the time election day comes, too many people feel it's already over and there's no point in voting. There was a statistical correlation between when coverage started [marked by creeping primaries] and voter turnout. The earlier primaries moved forward, the lower the election day turnout. One partial solution then would be to convince the States to move the primary dates closer to November. I'll let that be your mission for next week. Should you choose to accept that mission, the tape will self destruct...
jttmab |
