Or bad idea? It would force government workers to DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH on issues and READ LEGISLATION before they sign it into law. Pros? Cons? What do you think?
2007-12-12 12:24:15 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I love the idea. I have long argued that the Constitution provides for freedom of individual speech. As such, the SCOTUS rulings on lobbying and group financing of politics wrongly merged the freedoms of speech and assembly.
Of course, if we turned elected offices back into part-time jobs, much of our problems would go away.
2007-12-12 12:31:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Great idea!
It would be nice if public servants actually served the public instead of groups who influence their vote by creating "political debt" that must be paid during the elected official's term. That debt constitutes a conflict of interest in practice with the losers being the general public.
2007-12-12 13:02:49 · answer #2 · answered by TJTB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
“corrupt baby-kisser” ? what do you advise? First attempt to learn him then decide . i'm not an American, in basic terms an Iranian journalist who works on the US Election 08, yet Mccain is each and every difficulty yet a liar. He stands for his concepts. in basic terms look at wiki , and decide for the respond of this query . Why didn’t he settle for to left detention center in Vietnam? “ McCain exchange into provided of undertaking to return homestead early: he North Vietnamese needed a worldwide propaganda coup by way of appearing merciful, and likewise had to coach different POWs that elites like McCain have been prepared to be taken care of preferentially. McCain became down the furnish of repatriation, with the aid of Code of habit thought of "first in, first out": he might in basic terms settle for the furnish if each and every guy taken in earlier him exchange into released as nicely. McCain's refusal to be released exchange into even remarked upon by way of North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman throughout the time of the persevered Paris Peace Talks.” desire it helps.
2016-12-17 16:23:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lobbyists have every right to present their views to Congress.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, **and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.**
2007-12-12 12:34:41 · answer #4 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Personally I think it is a good idea.
Having said that, since Washington D.C. is controlled by lobbyists, I don't think it is going to happen.
2007-12-12 12:28:18 · answer #5 · answered by Bubba 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
GREAT idea!
the very definition of a lobbyist is a person who's trying to get the people's representatives to do less for them and more for a wealthy special interest group.
2007-12-12 12:27:53 · answer #6 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Think we need lobbyists for the working, taxpaying citizens. As things stand we have no representation, Rep/Dem.
2007-12-12 12:32:52 · answer #7 · answered by Dave M 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Bad idea.
Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment
2007-12-12 12:38:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Isn't there an anti-lobby lobby you can support? Good luck doing away with the AARP and NEA.
2007-12-12 12:30:11 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Unconstitutional.
2007-12-12 12:27:30 · answer #10 · answered by TC 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋