I think it was Ohio and Texas. But anyway. I see what you are trying to do but I am not sure this gets us there. Parochialism would be a concern, no?
On 11/6/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dana wrote: > > limiting individual access to members of congress doesn.t limit free > speech? > > > > No, not under if the rules are sound. I'm not going to go into it, > but basically you'd limit the access to constituents which would > logged and overseen by a non-partisan watchdog group. > > For example with the Abrams corruption you've had a Chicago(?) house > member pushing for an Arizona(?) Indian casino? Uh ... why? What > does that have to do with is district? > > Put another way, if you wanted access to your Senator, make an > appointment. If I want access I can request it there's going to be a > threshold of need I have to cross and then that meeting is going to be > reviewed. > > Obviously there'd be exceptions and you'd need to prevent abuse, but > it could be done. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:180037 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
