Replies to post #278 on TOWN MEETING (Selecting Our Leaders) (TOWNM)

[Koikaze]

Hi, Raz

It seems to me that we (humans) tend to do the best we can. If voting were a mandatory obligation, I believe we'd put more thought into our choices. Our current method rewards those who can inflame our passions which renders us, essentially, mindless. That aspect won't change magically or go away. The difference is that if voting were mandatory it would bring in people who can resist the deceit and sloganeering that currently characterize our political process.

I absolutely agree on campaign contributions. The kind of lobbying you refer to is effective because lobbyists are able to establish long-term relationships with the political parties. Then, the parties act as a funnel. The parties, by demanding "loyalty", are able to "deliver" votes. As long as that's the case, the lobbyists will be able to "buy" the votes they need to attain their ends. If the lobbyists tried to suborn each public official individually, they would not be as effective as they are now.

The idea that concepts need spokesmen (i.e., lobbyists) is not inherently bad. Someone needs to present "cases" to lawmakers; to find out what the lawmaker's concerns are and to present the lobbyist's side of the story. The congress holds hearings for this purpose.

I lobbied against the Transportation Act of 1958. That was when Washington was still a small town. I spent most of the summer of '57 meeting with the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee, finding out what issues were involved, and ultimately wrote the testimony which the president of my company presented at the hearing. I believe the function I performed was valid and valuable, but it was strictly informational. It did not include buying votes. (Others may laugh at my naivete, particularly since the law was passed, but I make no apology for participating in the process to the best of my ability.)

Would I support severe restrictions on lobbyists? Yes, I would, because the current situation is darned near out of hand. But, I don't believe the restrictions would work. I remember when the issue of "lobbying" was a cause celebre which led to the passage of several "controls" on the practice. The result was that lobbying became more effective. It is now a dirty, sub rosa business and I doubt that it can be curtailed without closing the funnel that enables it.

Fred