Lobbyists’ Gifts to Legislators

* In response to the editorial, “They Wine and Dine, You Wind Up Fleeced,” May 9:

When an elected official takes a gift from a lobbyist, it is always a bribe. The legislators keep saying that their votes are not influenced by such petty gifts. There is no way to prove or disprove their assertion. What can be proved is that these lobbyists get our legislators’ time and thereby ears. Access is a precious commodity and unfortunately it is for sale. The legislators should be spending their time either working on legislation or listening to their constituents, all of their constituents. Right now they spend on an average three hours a day listening only to their “paying constituents.” It is called fund-raising. The fund donors get to air their point of view to the legislators. The non-donor constituents are ignored. After listening to the donors three hours a day our legislators, human beings that they are, adopt the point of view of their donors. The circle is now complete. The bribe has done its job. The non-paying constituents be damned.

The efforts by Sens. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) to ban free vacations, lavish meals and other gifts is a small step in the right direction. If a government employee accepts gifts from people he is dealing with on his job and gives them preferential treatment he will end up in jail for taking bribes. Our elected senators and congressman do it all the time. Somehow they end up being above the law. It is time to apply some ethical and moral standards to our legislators.

STEVE GUPTA

Glendale

* We may never see the end of political influence-buying by the lobbyists, but if there are votes or considerations to be gained by the financial largess of the lobbyists, let’s suggest a new avenue for that largess to flow: charity. Let the representatives of our governmental bodies choose several charities of choice and inform the lobbyists that if there are monies to be passed around, let them be passed to that representative’s charities.

The lobbyists would still, in an indirect way, be seeking favor from whichever government official they had approached, and the official would be accepting the fact that his/her influence had been sought. It’s still the buying and selling of power, but it would certainly benefit a larger group of people (the charity) than would benefit from Rep. J.Q. Public’s having another $100 dinner or tropical vacation.

Sorry, I must have been dreaming. I thought for a moment we might find altruism, integrity and morality in Washington, Sacramento, etc.

KELLY D. DAVIS

Huntington Beach