> Dana wrote: > 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? >
Well, you'd have to noodle that one over to come up with a good policy, but my thought is, why should my Senator need to hear from anyone beside his constituents unless it's part of his committee work? Of course there'd exceptions, but couldn't those be overseen? But yeah, the idea is to take the profit out of lobbying and provide more transparency to the legislative process. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:180040 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
