Hal, Are You Guys There?

[TedK]

It's times like this that makes one almost nostalgic for the day when effective lobbying could be concluded with hookers and booze.

(Which is how Atlanta became an airmail route hub and Birmingham didn't...note the difference in airport size and traffic today)

That seems to be a better solution because it is only a momentary transgression limited to the parties at hand, whereas giving congress critters money to line their pockets is like giving someone their first crack or heroin. That can lead to a lifetime addiction that is corrosive to society.

I think we we would get a much more representative House if we selected Congresspersons by lottery from sitting Juries for one term only. If you are qualified to sit a jury on a capital case then IMO you are qualified to spend two years at the Capitol.

I have much more faith that my interests align with the common man or woman than someone who is forced by the system to become a professional vote panderer.

It would reduce lobbying to presenting the merits of the case vice the current system of influence by campaign contribution. Frankly, I wonder why our current system of contribution for influence can't be prosecuted as conspiracy.

[Frank Giger]

The problem with your thesis is that the sorts of people who wind up on jury duty are the types of people not smart enough to know how to get out of it.



Swapping Congressmen out every two years regardless of quality would be a train wreck....by the time one educates the legislator on the topic they're out of office. It's actually easier to sway the ignorant than it is the corrupt, and not always for the better end.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ted and Frank, please if you want to slam Congress, which is a bit like kicking a stray dog, please do it on your own topic on another site.

This topic is my effort to get our folks to take some action to help private gen aviation. as suggested by our EAA chairman.

Maybe you could write a letter to the magazine about how bad Congress is if you think that is productive.

Thanks

And have you guys sent the letter this time in support of the 2nd Pilot Rights Bill?

[TedK]

Bill- I am not slamming Congress, I am commenting and suggesting constructive criticism on the situation our congress folks are placed into. it is difficult for our lobbying to be effective when the reality of the situation is that money talks.

To your other point, I have written letters to my Senators and Rep and engaged others to do the same, but it is hard to reinforce our lobbying when they do so (or at least I think they are doing so) but without informing us. I suspect they leave a publication behind at each contact. If they shared that publication with us, and let us know what concerned that Member, we the people of the EAA in that district or State could respond to our Member. As it is now, EAA (and AOPA) lobby stealthily without the discrete reinforcement of their membership.

It appears to me they are saying "trust us to deliver the goods...but we don't want your help other than to say there are many of us."

Personal Aviation does not have the deep pockets and clout to buy the Influence we need, therefore we need a lobbying strategy that recognizes that and brings other tools, such as the personal engagement of our membership to bear in a manner that overcomes the monied influence.

Ted

ps hyperbole and humor got you to engage.

[rwanttaja]

It appears to me they are saying "trust us to deliver the goods...but we don't want your help other than to say there are many of us."

Yes, but... I suspect lobbying is something that is done better behind the scenes, with as little publicity as possible. Come election time, you don't want your opponent to be claiming you're in "XXXX's" pocket, or claiming you're knuckling under to a high-visibility pressure group.

Got a good friend who's been a DC lobbyist for 20+ years. Almost never talks about it, other than mentioning that he was at such-and-such hearing. The only "insider" stories he's told have been good ones (where he's been impressed by a person's sincerity, smarts, and integrity).

Personal Aviation does not have the deep pockets and clout to buy the Influence we need, therefore we need a lobbying strategy that recognizes that and brings other tools, such as the personal engagement of our membership to bear in a manner that overcomes the monied influence.

Our problem is we DO have deep pockets, just not enough pockets. The element of GA with truly deep pockets (business aviation) doesn't get involved with our grassroots issues. Medical and aircraft certification reform doesn't affect them, so they don't put their political and financial clout behind those issues.

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Relax, Bill, we're just having some Internet with our message board. Since the question was answered by the source I figured the heat was off.

Yep, letters sent, and I met with our candidates for Congress before the primary (when they were campaigning), figuring I'd best get my pitch in to whomever won when they were most likely to listen to a five minute talk. I even played the Alabama patriot card, reminding them that the Wright brothers set up their flight school not up North, but down in Montgomery, and that aviation and Alabama runs from them right up through Outer Space, and keeping it alive is a duty for them.

I don't knock Congress; it does what it's built to do, and in the main the membership is there to do their jobs as representatives. The whole thing was intentionally designed to be inefficient and slow to keep from making hasty laws. The beaurocracy, naturally, does what it does because of its nature. I view it kind of like a dancing bear when things happen in systems like that - it's not how well the bear dances that's the thing, but that it can dance at all.

[TedK]

Yes, but... I suspect lobbying is something that is done better behind the scenes, with as little publicity as possible. Come election time, you don't want your opponent to be claiming you're in "XXXX's" pocket, or claiming you're knuckling under to a high-visibility pressure group.

Got a good friend who's been a DC lobbyist for 20+ years. Almost never talks about it, other than mentioning that he was at such-and-such hearing. The only "insider" stories he's told have been good ones (where he's been impressed by a person's sincerity, smarts, and integrity).



Our problem is we DO have deep pockets, just not enough pockets. The element of GA with truly deep pockets (business aviation) doesn't get involved with our grassroots issues. Medical and aircraft certification reform doesn't affect them, so they don't put their political and financial clout behind those issues.

Ron Wanttaja

Which is why I use the term Personal Aviation to describe us. Business Aviation doesn't give a hoot about us. They have deep pockets and clout. We, the part of GA that cares about Third Class Med and Part 23 reform, don't.

And to your comment about your Lobbyist Friend operating in the shadows, Yep, that the way the Influence Buyers do it. We can't buy what we want, and because we don't have a bankroll that we are trying discretely to wave, have no reason to stay in the shadows.

I do have a little experience and success walking the halls of Congress as a David among the Goliaths. I was able to be successful by shining lights in corners, speaking in the open and on the record, not bringing a nickel of money, being persuasive on the merits of the arguments. If we think we are going to out-PAC the AMA, we need to be grounded for being as crazy a certain notorious Airbus copilot.

[Byron J. Covey]

It's times like this that makes one almost nostalgic for the day when effective lobbying could be concluded with hookers and booze.

(Which is how Atlanta became an airmail route hub and Birmingham didn't...note the difference in airport size and traffic today)

Are you conceding the fact that Georgia has better hookers and booze than Alabama?


BJC

[Frank Giger]

No, I'm saying that Atlanta's officials who were in charge of showing the "best of the city" to the post office selection committee knew where to find both for them.

Can't say I blame them. The committee went to Birmingham first (because it actually was a better rail hub) and were treated to a tour of churches, the theater, and all manner of wholesome highlights to show off how decent the city was. They were invited to stay in the homes of the City Elders.

Then they went to Atlanta where they were given a tour of whatever the proto Gold Club was called back then and then given suites in the finest hotels with "personal maid service."

Atlanta got the air mail hub, which meant the air carriers based there to carry said mail.

I write this not to derail the thread, but to highlight the fact that whatever we think is new in politics isn't. There was no Golden Age of legislation in this country. And yes, it's been waaayyy more polarized and unfriendly between parties. Just look at the Lincoln administration - now that's obstruction of an executive agenda.

[rwanttaja]

Then they went to Atlanta where they were given a tour of whatever the proto Gold Club was called back then and then given suites in the finest hotels with "personal maid service."

That kind of reminds me of the Congressional hearings against Howard Hughes after WWII. He was accused of providing food, liquor, and Ladies of Negotiable Virtue to the various military officers involved in source selection and production contracts. He admitted it freely, stated it was standard industry practice, and that there was (at that time) no laws against it.

Those of us working Government contracts know how things have changed... we can't supply coffee and doughnuts anymore without notifying the Government folks what the cost is and how to pay.

Ron Wanttaja