That’s patently untrue, and why the distinction matters between what we have, which is lobbying where corporate entities can create a quid-pro-quo situation rather easily, and what any reasonable person would support: people telling their represtitives their interests and how best to represent them.
Sending a letter is lobbying. A phone call or email is lobbying.
You’re not upset that lobbying is legal, you’re upset that people with the ability to offer things more valuable than their personal vote as an individual aren’t stopped from doing it.
So again, how do you envision people asking for things from their represtitives that isn’t just “properly regulated lobbying” rephrased?
Again, you’re reducing not being able to protest inside a specific office building to not being able to communicate with them, see them, or protest them.
Considering you seem to be basing this off of, generously, a few instances of people being arrested for protesting inside congressional offices with no context for how many people do communicate with their representative, and you’re arguing against “people should be able to talk to their representative, and the problem is people with more influence than their individual vote”, I’m honestly not sure what your point is. It doesn’t seem like you disagree with what the word means.
About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
You’re shifting the goal. You started at saying that arrests show that you have no right to see your representative, and now you’re talking about how many are concerning. Those are different things.
1 person being arrested for trying to talk to their representative is concerning.
I can’t tell you how many people being arrested for protesting inside the building is concerning because sometimes the objective is to be arrested, so there are just no good numbers.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
Your representative could individually meet with every constituent every year and the petroleum industry association would still be able to offer a lucrative no-work board seat once they got out of office.
About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
Willing to take 10:1 odds that thefolks at the congressional sit-in all attempted to make appointments with their respective congresscritters as well.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
As someone who has gone through the process, it is not trivial at all. I’ve campaigned for Congressmen who have given me maybe an hour of their time over the course of months, and never individually.
I’ve been talked at by Congressmen routinely. I’ve had maybe two actual interactions with my own congressman (both adversarial). I’ve been stood up by a Congressman at some office hours event more than a dozen times. The best shot you have at directly engaging with a Congressman - in my own experience - is by protesting them at one of their fundraising events. Actual civilian lobbying is borderline impossible. So much so that I’ve been solicited by professional lobbyists more times than I’ve been in conversation with a sitting representative.
It is truly asinine to suggest lay voters can speak with their reps through anything that isn’t a megaphone or a daisy chain of professional solicitors.
Alright. It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I’ll readily accept that.
That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-13-5/ALDE_00013494/
That’s patently untrue, and why the distinction matters between what we have, which is lobbying where corporate entities can create a quid-pro-quo situation rather easily, and what any reasonable person would support: people telling their represtitives their interests and how best to represent them.
Sending a letter is lobbying. A phone call or email is lobbying.
You’re not upset that lobbying is legal, you’re upset that people with the ability to offer things more valuable than their personal vote as an individual aren’t stopped from doing it.
So again, how do you envision people asking for things from their represtitives that isn’t just “properly regulated lobbying” rephrased?
It is evidenced by constituent lobbyists being dragged out of Congress in handcuffs
Yes, because “can’t hold a demonstration in one office building” is precisely the same as “no citizen right to petition their representative”.
Are you just picking bits you think you can argue against and ignoring everything else? What’s the point of that?
When you’re locked out from your rep, you have no legal mechanism to get their attention
Again, you’re reducing not being able to protest inside a specific office building to not being able to communicate with them, see them, or protest them.
Considering you seem to be basing this off of, generously, a few instances of people being arrested for protesting inside congressional offices with no context for how many people do communicate with their representative, and you’re arguing against “people should be able to talk to their representative, and the problem is people with more influence than their individual vote”, I’m honestly not sure what your point is. It doesn’t seem like you disagree with what the word means.
In response to representatives ignoring their constituents, yes
What is the minimum number of arrests necessary to justify concern? Show your work.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HA/HA27/20251217/118781/HHRG-119-HA27-Wstate-NebloM-20251217-SD001.pdf
About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.
You’re shifting the goal. You started at saying that arrests show that you have no right to see your representative, and now you’re talking about how many are concerning. Those are different things.
1 person being arrested for trying to talk to their representative is concerning.
I can’t tell you how many people being arrested for protesting inside the building is concerning because sometimes the objective is to be arrested, so there are just no good numbers.
That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.
Your representative could individually meet with every constituent every year and the petroleum industry association would still be able to offer a lucrative no-work board seat once they got out of office.
Willing to take 10:1 odds that thefolks at the congressional sit-in all attempted to make appointments with their respective congresscritters as well.
As someone who has gone through the process, it is not trivial at all. I’ve campaigned for Congressmen who have given me maybe an hour of their time over the course of months, and never individually.
I’ve been talked at by Congressmen routinely. I’ve had maybe two actual interactions with my own congressman (both adversarial). I’ve been stood up by a Congressman at some office hours event more than a dozen times. The best shot you have at directly engaging with a Congressman - in my own experience - is by protesting them at one of their fundraising events. Actual civilian lobbying is borderline impossible. So much so that I’ve been solicited by professional lobbyists more times than I’ve been in conversation with a sitting representative.
It is truly asinine to suggest lay voters can speak with their reps through anything that isn’t a megaphone or a daisy chain of professional solicitors.
Alright. It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I’ll readily accept that.
That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?
Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?