RE: Lobbying

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Why be concerned about Lobbying? Because money + gifts = votes and favorable legislation. Money + gifts = influence over our public officials, and when they respond to the influence of Lobbyists, and the more responsive they are, WE, the citizens, their constituents, are left out of the process. And no one is left to hear our voices, address our concerns, and pass legislation that is in the interest of everyday Americans.

There may be some lobbies that are benign, where "citizens come together to make their concerns known" without attempting to "buy" someone's vote. But I think it'd be naiive to believe that many or most of them operate for "altruistic" purposes. Probably MOST of them INTEND, through the use of money and gifts, to "bribe", to secure a vote for this or that bill, or against this or that bill, or to KILL certain legislation.

Of course there are certain Lobbies, that reflect my personal political idealogies, which I would HATE to see go. Because I feel that their main function is a good one, the Sierra Club has good and worthwhile goals for our enviornment, our parks and wilderness areas. NARAL upholds a woman's right to choice, and these are 2 examples of Lobbying groups that I personally would hate to see go. But this is an issue where there is no gray. It's all black or white. You can't eliminate SOME PACS and some LOBBIES. It's all or nothing. Otherwise, we just get into a "wiggle room" situation, like we talked about in Choice 1. There are ALREADY too many lobbies out there, with euphamistic and misleading names, usually beginning with the words, "Citizens For...", which usually sound like they are promoting something that EVERYONE can find common ground about, and most would be inclined to support. But often, it turns out that the intent of this group is to lobby AGAINST the very thing they seem, on the surface to promote. I think if we tried to allow certain KINDS of Lobby groups to continue, and eliminated others, we'd just see a proliferation of more of these "sham" lobbies, with the misleading names.

As difficult as it may be for me to imagine a world WITHOUT Sierra Club and NARAL, etc., yes, I would be willing to eliminate ALL special interest groups, because that IS the only way to insure that the influence of soft money is out of Washington.

Factors to consider would be: have we gotten them (the special interessts) ALL? Have we allowed ANY loopholes thru which money can STILL be funneled? Have we inadvertently, given one party an unfair advantage, by protecting the sources of it's money, while "drying up" the source of the other party's money? The approach must be fair and equitable, across the board, with no "winners," and no "losers." Each and every elected official must equally share in the pain. Only then will America gain.