2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'm listening to the evening rerun and someone posted the concern that this proposal would deny lawmakers the experience of engaging with opposing views, or would deny access to the lawmakers at the seat of government.

However, I feel that the opposing views can be found in their own district, and if the lawmaker is in their own district more (most?) of the time, their own consistuents with opposing views would have better access, and the lawmakers would have poorer excuses for limiting access to their office.

It would require lobbyists to run around the state for their face time, but that is what they are paid to do, and I don't see the change as being a bad thing.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context