RE: Choice 1: Checking our learning

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

Denise writes: "From some I have learned that their view is that our elected officials would serve their constituents better if they were to stay in their home states, and communicate with each other and do the work of legislating via sophisticated electronic communications. This would take Washington Lobbyists and PACs totally out of the equation. This is something I had never really thought about. But it was something that seemed possible, and could, in fact, save our government a huge amount of money, and reduce corporate and Lobby influence over our elected officials."

Logistically this might be possible but but very unwieldy since legislators spend a great deal of time button-holing each other in hall ways trying to make compromises on legislation.  Nor would it take  Lobbyists and PACs totally out of the equation.  In fact, I would see them proliferating as they spread out to each state.  It would be a paid lobbyist bonanza (perhaps more expensive for the corporations wanting to influence legislation but also more expensive for small NGO's who could be priced out of the market).

I can see the big money interests becoming more influential as the individual NGO's promoting federal health care reform, environmental protection, United Nations support, etc. can no longer compete for legislators' ears with the many new state-based congressional paid lobbyists - they have a hard enough time being heard now.

Ellen Russak