About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
You’re shifting the goal. You started at saying that arrests show that you have no right to see your representative, and now you’re talking about how many are concerning. Those are different things.
1 person being arrested for trying to talk to their representative is concerning.
I can’t tell you how many people being arrested for protesting inside the building is concerning because sometimes the objective is to be arrested, so there are just no good numbers.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
Your representative could individually meet with every constituent every year and the petroleum industry association would still be able to offer a lucrative no-work board seat once they got out of office.
About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
Willing to take 10:1 odds that thefolks at the congressional sit-in all attempted to make appointments with their respective congresscritters as well.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
As someone who has gone through the process, it is not trivial at all. I’ve campaigned for Congressmen who have given me maybe an hour of their time over the course of months, and never individually.
I’ve been talked at by Congressmen routinely. I’ve had maybe two actual interactions with my own congressman (both adversarial). I’ve been stood up by a Congressman at some office hours event more than a dozen times. The best shot you have at directly engaging with a Congressman - in my own experience - is by protesting them at one of their fundraising events. Actual civilian lobbying is borderline impossible. So much so that I’ve been solicited by professional lobbyists more times than I’ve been in conversation with a sitting representative.
It is truly asinine to suggest lay voters can speak with their reps through anything that isn’t a megaphone or a daisy chain of professional solicitors.
Alright. It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I’ll readily accept that.
That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?
It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face.
I’m glad we’ve made it this far.
That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
It’s what makes me equate lobbying with corruption. When even basic constituent services are pay walled by professional insiders, the only people who can lobby are the folks that paid the bribes.
Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?
Any amount of Congressional gatekeeping (which is what constituent services ultimately amount to) should be handled by public agencies. But more than that, public services would be fully opt-out automatic such that things like Medicare sign-ups and admittance to officer’s college wouldn’t be predicted on access to a legislator’s office.
But I’d settle for expanding the number of Congressional reps such that they averaged closer to 30k constituents rather than 600k. Then, at least, there is not the practical consideration of a single congressman attempting to service half a million people or more.
Cool. No problems with the majority of that. (I’d question the difference between a public agency and a Congress persons office staff, but it’s kinda irrelevant)
So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?
If that’s not what you’re saying, then I’m not entirely certain why you disagreed with my statement that the problem is “effectively unregulated lobbying”, and not “people generally talking to their reps”.
I’m glad we’ve made it this far.
You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn’t need improvement, right?
So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?
I don’t think I suggested that at all. On the contrary, the 30k Reps rule would make meetings with constituents far easier.
I might move in the other direction and require meetings with constituents on a periodic basis. That, along with a host of other strictures on how a sitting or retired legislator can make money, host/attend events, or otherwise avail themselves of corporate/foreign patrons.
But that means a lot of policing of the legislature and prosecuting of offenders, which affords the executive enormous leverage over individual seats reps. So maybe not.
I think expanding the legislature solves an immediate problem of access to reps and dilutes the power of individual reps relative to their voters. I’ll spot you it isn’t foolproof.
You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn’t need improvement
You came in dismissing the reality of lobbying relative to the idealized view.
You seen much more grounded in the facts as they exist today, now.
I didn’t think you were saying that, as I said in the next sentence. I’m confused because everything you’ve said is just a way of addressing what I was saying, so being so adamantly opposed is just bizarre.
I never dismissed any realities. I think the notion that “lobbying is corruption and should be illegal” is silly because it’s advocating to remove the ideal that should be increased instead of focusing on the corruption.
I disagree that “uncommon” or “difficult” is the same as “not legal”, “pay walled” or “impossible”. I disagree that protesting is the same as lobbying, and that arresting a protester is the same as evidence that lobbying is illegal.
Not the same as dismissing the problems with any of them.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HA/HA27/20251217/118781/HHRG-119-HA27-Wstate-NebloM-20251217-SD001.pdf
About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
You’re shifting the goal. You started at saying that arrests show that you have no right to see your representative, and now you’re talking about how many are concerning. Those are different things.
1 person being arrested for trying to talk to their representative is concerning.
I can’t tell you how many people being arrested for protesting inside the building is concerning because sometimes the objective is to be arrested, so there are just no good numbers.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
Your representative could individually meet with every constituent every year and the petroleum industry association would still be able to offer a lucrative no-work board seat once they got out of office.
Willing to take 10:1 odds that thefolks at the congressional sit-in all attempted to make appointments with their respective congresscritters as well.
As someone who has gone through the process, it is not trivial at all. I’ve campaigned for Congressmen who have given me maybe an hour of their time over the course of months, and never individually.
I’ve been talked at by Congressmen routinely. I’ve had maybe two actual interactions with my own congressman (both adversarial). I’ve been stood up by a Congressman at some office hours event more than a dozen times. The best shot you have at directly engaging with a Congressman - in my own experience - is by protesting them at one of their fundraising events. Actual civilian lobbying is borderline impossible. So much so that I’ve been solicited by professional lobbyists more times than I’ve been in conversation with a sitting representative.
It is truly asinine to suggest lay voters can speak with their reps through anything that isn’t a megaphone or a daisy chain of professional solicitors.
Alright. It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I’ll readily accept that.
That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?
I’m glad we’ve made it this far.
It’s what makes me equate lobbying with corruption. When even basic constituent services are pay walled by professional insiders, the only people who can lobby are the folks that paid the bribes.
Any amount of Congressional gatekeeping (which is what constituent services ultimately amount to) should be handled by public agencies. But more than that, public services would be fully opt-out automatic such that things like Medicare sign-ups and admittance to officer’s college wouldn’t be predicted on access to a legislator’s office.
But I’d settle for expanding the number of Congressional reps such that they averaged closer to 30k constituents rather than 600k. Then, at least, there is not the practical consideration of a single congressman attempting to service half a million people or more.
Cool. No problems with the majority of that. (I’d question the difference between a public agency and a Congress persons office staff, but it’s kinda irrelevant)
So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?
If that’s not what you’re saying, then I’m not entirely certain why you disagreed with my statement that the problem is “effectively unregulated lobbying”, and not “people generally talking to their reps”.
You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn’t need improvement, right?
I don’t think I suggested that at all. On the contrary, the 30k Reps rule would make meetings with constituents far easier.
I might move in the other direction and require meetings with constituents on a periodic basis. That, along with a host of other strictures on how a sitting or retired legislator can make money, host/attend events, or otherwise avail themselves of corporate/foreign patrons.
But that means a lot of policing of the legislature and prosecuting of offenders, which affords the executive enormous leverage over individual seats reps. So maybe not.
I think expanding the legislature solves an immediate problem of access to reps and dilutes the power of individual reps relative to their voters. I’ll spot you it isn’t foolproof.
You came in dismissing the reality of lobbying relative to the idealized view.
You seen much more grounded in the facts as they exist today, now.
I didn’t think you were saying that, as I said in the next sentence. I’m confused because everything you’ve said is just a way of addressing what I was saying, so being so adamantly opposed is just bizarre.
I never dismissed any realities. I think the notion that “lobbying is corruption and should be illegal” is silly because it’s advocating to remove the ideal that should be increased instead of focusing on the corruption.
I disagree that “uncommon” or “difficult” is the same as “not legal”, “pay walled” or “impossible”. I disagree that protesting is the same as lobbying, and that arresting a protester is the same as evidence that lobbying is illegal.
Not the same as dismissing the problems with any of them.