On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



...I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank