Alright. Honestly the pro-regulating argument made more sense to me than the con-regulating one. The con arguement stated that regulating the lobbyist groups in Washington would basically say what could be said and what couldn't; what politics were good and what weren't. Also, it brought up the first ammendment saying regulation would deny people that right.
I disagree. Regulation to me appears to allow the groups to be heard equally. I don't see how that change would make some of thier arguements good and some bad and some that can't be said and some that can. If regulating 1. 'levels the playing field' and 2. lets the common people see where all this money is going and what is being done with it than i think it's fine. Probably the 2nd part of point number 2 is where people against regulation are jumping. But why spend money to go to save children in africa if it is just going to end up in a schemer's pocket? And if these lobbyists are really doing something for a public good then they have nothing to fear from regulation right?
I still need some information on what the implications are of regulation to make a full assesment of where i stand on this.
Comments please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment