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.
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.