Geez, I just did. OK, I'll repeat it and try not to use big words.
It's a poor analogy because unions are quite unlike lobbyists. Unions are a
special interest group who employ lobbyists. Lobbying is not a special interest group, but a
method of gaining close access to elected officials. Opposition to
lobbyists does not constitute opposition to the special interest group that employs them. Boy Scouts, remember?
It misses the point because you responded by suggesting that I must despise unions because I oppose special influence groups, as if the two were synonymous. I have no objection to special interests groups, just about their s
pecial access to
our politicians, through lobbying.
Lobby's shouldn't exist because there is nothing in the Constitution that give special interest groups any right to permanently work in the Capitol, wine and dine officials, contribute money to them, and other wise try to influence their policy. These elected official are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents,
not special interests. I've stated all this previously.
I've just made my case. Challenge it with anything you want. What makes you think lobbiests have any right to do what they do? Do you like it that that your senator can go against your wishes because the Sierra Club donated bucks to him? :huh: He's supposed to be working for you.
I think you are just addicted to dispute. martin would have liked you. :hihi:
Click to expand...
