On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.

As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama
and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
candidacies.

Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!

The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
curtail political speech.

George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure

What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the wealthiest
individual, not the best person wins the election. Not many low income
senators these days. In addition, you have media scrutiny that makes the
purest person hesitant to step into the public eye. If you ever copped a
cheap feel of Mary Jane in the eight grade, it will be on the news the day
after you announced your candidacy for office.

Such small potatoes don't seem to matter much to the Rangel caucus.