gt r Cngss 2 tweet
Sign the petition.
| Permalink | technorati
« The immunity hysteria | Main | for the first time in history: Congress' single digit job rating »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2238
Lessig Blog by Lawrence Lessig is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Comments (7)
Does the Internet enable an elected representative to interact with all Americans, equally? If an elected representative is bound to be responsive to her constituents, is she, by virtue of the Internet, bound in the same way to be responsive to all Americans?
If an elected representative is about to vote on a piece of legislation, is the elected representative bound by virtue of the Internet to respond equally to both corporate lobbyists and individuals, regardless of where they live?
Does an elected representative have a duty to listen to, and respond to a regional telco lobbyist on an issue important to her constituents? If so, whether out of courtesy, greed, or whatever, does that then impose a responsibility on the elected representative to also respond to individuals outside of the elected representative's district?
The issue then, is whether the elected representative can censor who contacts her. Does the Internet change how elected representatives operate on a day-to-day basis regarding communications from the public.
Sigh ... I know this doesn't do any good. I know at best I'm just venting, and at worst taking unnecessary reputation-hits. But ...
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY GETTING USED!.
This campaign is some combination fiction, blithering nonsense, and raw red-meat baiting.
And oh, look, there's the Sunlight Foundation once again giving loads and loads of attention to right-wing demagogues as those political hacks hate-hate-hate Democrats. How could anyone doubt the ultimate effects of their actions?
Quote: "That’s just wrong."
Debunking:
The Politics of the Twitter Dome Scandal
Oh, Larry. C'mon. You're cheapening yourself.
I've gotta agree with the guys above. This is hardly worth the carbon toe-print it takes to push the electrons around the net.
I propose that we set age limits on congressmen. 18 max. Then at least we'll know up front they're adolescents.
At this point the matter is seen as bipartisan following some earlier posturing. Bureaucracy abhors a policy-vacuum, so they're seeking to shape policy via the bipartisan Franking Commission. Pelosi and Culberson appear to be coming together on this.
Rather than be dismissive, I think we netizens ought to keep a close eye on how this develops and offer advice where congress needs it.
More here...
I do agree with aboves guys