Candidates Vie to be Anti-First Amendment?

 Candidates have recently done much to distance themselves from lobbyists: the DNC announced its decision to ban lobbyist contributions and McCain has established strict rules for lobbyists working on his campaign that have caused several of his volunteers to resign.

Sure, we all know the term lobbyist is an easy word to throw around. It’s like “Halliburton” or “bureaucrats” – highly recognized as a bogyman term, yet vaguely understood. The tainted lobbyist name is painful, but an example of a few bad actors tarnishing the image of a respectable profession.

Many other professions have received a good share of criticism. The teaching profession has been criticized for our troubled youth, doctors for driving up health costs and lawyers for creating any situation where extra paper work is required.

As we all know, stereotypes are easily accepted because they are a creation of the mainstream. It takes time to disagree with the majority, so many—the American voter included—choose to accept and reiterate popular opinion.

“Obama is a Muslim!” False, but easy to spread.
“Hillary should have left Bill.” None of your business, but everyone talks about it.
“McCain is too old.” Why?

For many voters, one-liners are the basis of their votes. Unless someone corrects their validity, one-liners remain viable. The demonization of lobbyists is no different. Candidates use the term “lobbyist” as a cheap applause line but they, along with all those who accept this term as derogatory, ignore the purpose of lobbying: to exercise every citizen’s right to free speech in our government’s corridors.

And let’s face it, everybody lobbies. Our kids advocate for a play date or sleepover; we approach our spouses at the right time to address tricky subjects; and any citizen who has written their Congressman, advocating for, against or in agreement of a particular issue is a lobbyist. As a matter of fact, lobbying began in order to guarantee every citizen (all citizens) the right to petition his or her (their) government. Is this what the presidential candidates are running against? Our ability to rightfully petition our government?

It is a very simple line to draw. However, as the complexity of the government has increased, so has the challenge of reaching our decision- makers. It should be enough for each of us to independently send a letter or make a phone call, but we all know it takes much more to bring your issue, among the thousands dealt with every day, to the forefront.

It would be a difficult day for the candidates if they would no longer have lobbyists to blame for everything, but chances are they would find another industry to ridicule because stereotyped professions provide nice fodder for a self-gratifying applause line.

Marcus Dunn

In Your Opinion

If you would like to respond, please use the form below. 

Selected responses will be posted on the 'In My Opinion' section of our web site.