No.
You continue to try pushing your single-minded insistence on ‘all-or-nothing’.
I’m not adding anything to my point.
Well regardless of if you do not want me to add it to the sum, I am and I will include it.
You seem to forget that as a politician they are all corrupt, and regardless of what we want, they make allot of money from lobbying, it makes it cheap for them to retain office, they also get to pocket allot of money, so trying to convince someone who racks in on a cash cow while refusing to make it simple and lawful to do so, would require them to both give up that large funding of money, but also to invest considerable time and money of their own to investigate the lawfulness and create that legislation to do so.
While you choose to refuse to do anything else. Refuse to want anything to be beside it, it will remain integrated into bad behavior and to be properly defined, under a enhanced restriction which abides by both the constitutional law and other legal frameworks.
Fact: These subjects are already by default integrated and are integral functions of the separation of corporate and political through which violations of that separation will be considered bad behavior, through which the ability to hold office will be revoked.
Just walking into congress and says “lobbying is bad mkay” is not going to do anything, its been said for 50 years now if not more.
You’re missing the point.
The point is that you’re refusing to allow discussion surrounding lobbying to be its own topic; you’re insisting that discussing lobbying should only be allowed as part of your own “bad behavior” amendment.
By extension, you’re insisting that any discussion of solving lobbying should only be allowed in the context of “We should pass an amendment defining “bad behavior” and banning what we constitutionally define as ‘bad behavior’ (of which lobbying just so happens to be a smaller part of the larger whole).”
I never refused you the ability to discuss it, but your welcome to only see what you want too, that is your choice.
You face many hurdles, all of which you are not addressing, none of which you are creating a solution for, so run with “lobbying is bad mkay” and when it falls on deaf ears in congress come on back and we can try it together.
This very call for merging the issue of lobbying with your larger amendment proposal is, in fact, an attempt to refuse people the ability to talk about lobbying as its own issue.
It could be even argued that your entire “Bad Behavior” amendment is itself arguably bad behavior since runs contrary to the idea of ‘single issue bills’ which is a big issue in and of itself, what with omnibus bills that cover a bunch of assorted things being a problem rather than discussing and voting on each of the individual items separately.
You can wander around the subject if you want, what I stated before stands.
What does that even mean?