In Defense of Lobbying

IN DEFENSE OF LOBBYING
[SOURCE: Washington Post 2/29, AUTHOR: Charles Krauthammer]
[Commentary] Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby? Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. You require the approval of the Federal Communications Commission. Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job. What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome. This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. Which is why what was intended to be an expose turned into a farce
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR200802...
(requires registration)

* McCain Sex Scandal Blonde Missing -- Day 12
[SOURCE: Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Chris Kelley]
[Commentary] So what happened to the missing woman in John McCain's lobbying scandal? It's been twelve days. Where on Earth is Vicki Iseman? We've heard from John McCain: "I'm very disappointed in the New York Times..." And from Cindy McCain: "I'm very, very disappointed in The New York Times..." But what about Vicki Iseman? Isn't she disappointed? Until we hear her speak, how can we ever have closure? It's not just that she's vanished, although that should be enough. And it's not just that she's been tied to a U.S. senator with a very real chance of achieving America's highest office. It's that there are still only three pictures of her on Google. She's been a lobbyist for eighteen years, but she's only been photographed three times. And one of those times was with President Bush. Unless she folds up neatly and fits inside Jack Abramoff's hat, it doesn't make sense. Where's Vicki Iseman and where's the cable news coverage of her disappearance?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/mccain-sex-scandal-blonde_b_89...

* Does John McCain need the Fairness Doctrine?
[SOURCE: allvoices.com, AUTHOR: Matthew Lasar]
[Commentary] Is it only a matter of time before Limbaugh returns to falsely accusing McCain of having admitted that torture worked on the Senator during his five year ordeal in Vietnam? Or gleefully predicting that if Mike Huckabee wins any more victories, McCain will go "psycho?" . . . reduced to sitting "in a rocking chair wearing his mother's wig sitting above the Bates Hotel!" ? Say, shouldn't the Republican contender be allowed to respond to all this at its source? Could it be that McCain needs the Fairness Doctrine?
http://www.allvoices.com/user/blog/628