misterman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,913
- Reaction score
- 2,096
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lobbying/attempting to influence members of the govt is not limited exclusively words. Mere words aren't really the issue. I am not sure how re-explain that in another way. I have already pointed out more than once what problems arise from our current system which [among several things] allows small groups to garner exclusive benefits with diffuse costs borne by the many. This is done in a manner that is not open and easily accessible to the electorate. The law makers make decisions based on their own concerns which are being met by various lobbyists. This is not what is intended nor what is desirable for a representative government. I am more than willing to link back to my previous posts which discuss this and a couple of other associated flaws if you like.
You asked for definitions and I gave them, and I think they're best.
That would be freaking awesome. I'm glad you're starting to come around.
Great! Then stop trying to suppress speech. Glad you're starting to come around.
It's totally not about "the people can't handle speech." It's about the people not being allowed to "hear" the "speech". The "speech" takes place between lobbyists and elected officials--the people are being excluded. That's the point where it all starts to get weird.
We're talking about different things here - which is why you need to stop using definitions willy nilly, like I said.
I was talking about independent ads. What are you referring to here?
You're railing against something other than what I am talking about.
Right - so stop mixing up definitions, like I asked you to.
Take the sugar industry example posted earlier. Did the public discuss the issue and form an opinion that they would like to give an extra $5 apiece to the Fanul family? No. The Fanjul family didn't talk to the electorate about it. I suspect that upwards of 90% of the US electorate has no idea about it.
And why is that? And how would you change that?
The electorate doesn't care about that. Not enough to do much about it. Few people will go visit their congressmen about it. Yet the public might pay a few cents each to join a group that hires a LOBBYIST to work against sugar subsidies on their behalf.
I am very much for the Fanjul family making their case and being heard. I am so totally for it that I want them to take their case out of the seclusion of only having to discuss it with Congresscritters and have them announce aloud to the nation and let the electorate hear it.
Anyone is free to bring up the subject at any time, and even ask the congress member about it.