A moratorium wouldn’t make a bit of difference. After all, look at Tom Daschle. According to him, he wasn’t a lobbyist at all.

Where’s the infraction? What public interest exists to have this ban? None. As the article says, it’s all perception.

That is why we have the problems we have today. Politicians are too busy creating “perceived” problems and then “solving” them.

Whether you feel it would make a difference or not, it is a baby step in
the right direction. Politicians keep saying they’re going to do something about intense lobbying which unduly interferes with government business, but end up doing nothing. This at least would be something.

Why not just elect politicians who can say no instead of being so easily swayed? I think there are some of them there already. If you don’t think the elected officials are not doing what they need to do, vote them out.

We don’t need more laws because people are too lazy to find out who they are voting for at the ballot box.

Jackson - You’re forgetting an important point: A politician who can say no is dogmatic and reactionary. While the Post, and much of the public, may rail against lobbyists, they sure love their goodies.

I say yes!

Used to be that when legislators left to General Assembly and became lobbyist they didn’t do so of their free will - leave that is - and while good guys - weren’t the highest quality. Now - with term limits - even the best ones are out - raising the quality level.

what will the blunt family do now?