Well Meaning, But Without Understanding

Ah, wah? Seriously? The other guy is coming to the fight with a gun, and piles of money, and you'd like the average citizen to just pretend that doesn't happen, and so they shouldn't talk to anyone except their congressman?

(Or, frankly, to follow the logic at the end of the post, they shouldn't talk to any congresspeople, even their own?)

I've got to agree. Members of Congress hear pitches from companies, interest groups, lawyers, and lobbyists on issues that are before their committees, without regard to where the speaker lives. I really doubt Senator Inouye or Rep. Dingell would be disinterested in what the Chairman of Verizon or a representative of Public Knowledge have to say about Net Neutrality, just because neither they nor their lobbyists or attorneys hail from Hawaii or Detroit, for example. Why, then, should they be uninterested in what affected members of the public have to say? Especially if the caller's senators and representative are not on the committee marking up the bill and thus have effectively no voice!

I agree that members of Congress should be especially solicitous to callers from their states or districts, but they don't only represent those people.

Oh, I'm interested by your reactions. I think I'm describing how it is (having worked in House and Senate personal offices and House and Senate Committee offices). My post was mostly descriptive, not normative.

There are three reasons why Members of Congress are willing to hear from lobbyists: 1) because they have useful information; 2) because they have money; 3) because they represent an interest tied to the Member's district (i.e. because they have voters/votes). [Mike, I'm sure you know telecom CEO's and lobbyists generally have all three.]

An ordinary individual, calling from outside a Member's district, has none of these things. For the caller and the Member, it's just a waste of time. Members will do what they can to refuse these calls, or at least make them short and sweet. (I've done the screening!) Those efforts will tend to interfere with their actual constituents (whom they are interested in hearing from - 1 vote!) getting through.

If you would like it to be different, that's fine, but that's also another question. I wouldn't be comfortable with Members of Congress and Senators having "national" constituencies. They are supposed to look out for their home districts' and states' interests. That's why there are districts, and that's why there are two Senators from each state. If you wanna change up the design of the constitution, you wanna give it some real thought.

It's nice to imagine that Members of Congress and Senators are looking out for "the best interests of the nation," and they sometimes are - whatever it is - but most of the time they are fighting tooth and nail for parochial interests.

Sorry if I'm blowing the magic "public interest" dust off the political process, but that's representative government, which is less bad than most alternatives.

(BTW, Luis, it's much more complex than "lobbyists vs. the rest of us." Almost every interest is represented directly or indirectly by a lobbyist. Your school has a lobbyist, for example. Got student loans? Lobbyists brought you your federal subsidy. Read books? Book-sellers have a lobby. Etc. etc. That doesn't mean all lobbyists are good. I'm particularly skeptical of having to subsidize your loans, bro!)