RE: Lobbying, initiative, recall

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

I'm against term limits - they are not only a brain drain but terms are the voters' prerogative.

I'm against initiative at the federal and state levels because it by-passes our representatives, it leaves no one accountable for the laws enacted,  it often results in chaos, and is an open invitation to big money groups to take over legislative duties.

There are "lobbyists" and then there are "LOBBYISTS".   Every time I call or fax my legislator, I'm lobbying - and I'm doing it in private.  If I see her at a meeting or party, I may corner her and lobby some more, also privately.  If private lobbying was illegal, would I have to call a public meeting every time I wanted to let my legislator know what I felt about something?  If I couldn't lobby, I wouldn't be living in a representative form of government since there would be no way for my representative to know what I wanted her to represent.

A "LOBBYIST" is an employee paid to influence legislation.  There is nothing the matter with that either.  Bird-dogging legislation through committee after committee, hearing after hearing, house after senate and then maybe back to committee again, is not for the faint at heart or the amateur - it's a full time job for the very savvy.

However, when a LOBBYISTS uses gifts (bribes) to influence legislators, or when legislators decide their votes in anticipation of landing a cushy lobbying job after they leave public service, then it is time to step in with some restrictions.  I wouldn't be uncomfortable with a 5 year "cooling-off" period for legislators before they could be employed as paid lobbyists - 1 year is too short.  I would also like to see a total restriction on LOBBYISTS' gifts to legislators with the exception of informational material. 

Restrictions on LOBBYISTS along with the McCain/Feingold bill (unamended) would be a big step in the right direction of cleaning up politics - nothing will be perfect because there will always be corruptible people, politicians included. 

 I think nothing needs to be done about the multi-millionaires using their own money. They have an advantage now and probably would in the future, even with reform.  However, with the playing field leveled more in general, there will be more and better candidates to compete with the millionaires and I think that will be enough.  I can't imagine how you could legally restrict a person from spending their own money on their own campaign unless they were also taking public funding.

Speaking of lobbying (with a small l), I hope those interested in McCain/Feingold are keeping an eye on the attempt to add a poison pill, non-severability clause that would negate the entire bill if any small part of it was found unconstitutional by the court. 

Ellen Russak