RE: Citizen Initiatives

[Ken Diamond <kenken5001@yahoo.com>]

"· This choice attacks lobbyists, but democracy couldn't run effectively without these professionals who speak on behalf of all segments of society." This argument against choice 2 was echoed by an earlier writer who called them valuable experts. Well they are professionals and sometimes experts but their purpose is not to impart information in a neutral manner. It is to get what their clients want. 

For years I have been a fan of the professional beauracracies charged with analysing issues and legislation. I spend a good deal of time at the California Legislative Analyst's site, the CBO, the Congressional Research Service, etc. There's a plenitude of academic research both at universities and  non-partisan think tanks that make their work freely available. There's no problem for legislator to summon excellent resources. But they don't bring money and votes.

Energy economists in California have been trying to get the ear of policy makers. But instead of them, what you have is a frenzy of lobbying going on contributing to one of the worst examples of imcompetence costing Californians billion of dollars.

If a juror or a judge were to have private, "ex parte" communications with an interested party or his representative the  proceeding would be voided. Yet this type of event happens constantly in lawmaking often accompanied by the currencies of politics, money and the promise of votes. 

If lobbyists want to make a case for their client, it should be done in open forums, on the record so what is said is rebuttable.
What is more difficult is to stop the flow of political currencies without the type of regulations in choice 1.