Wednesday, January 16, 2013


Should We All Have Court-Appointed Lobbyists?
   I'll go back to what bothers me as much as anything about Swallowgate. Why did John Swallow refer Jeremy Johnson to a lobbyist? What are lobbyists even doing in this picture?
  Why is this an acceptable thing, to pay lobbyists to use their influence to get a person out of legal troubles? Yes, we pay lawyers, but lawyers use arguments of law to help their clients. What reasoning skills does a lobbyist have that a lawyer does not? What can a lobbyist do that a lawyer cannot? Why would you refer someone to a lobbyist and not to a good lawyer? If you are going to the FTC and asking it to not charge someone with a crime, how is it that being a lobbyist will make the FTC listen to you? Why would the FTC even grant you an appointment? 
   So, why-oh-why should Swallow have been referring Johnson to a lobbyist, in the first place? 
   Do we have a legal system where those who have enough money to hire lobbyists might make cases against them go away? Hmm, I'm wondering, can those too poor to hire their own, get a court-appointed lobbyist?
    Justice swayed and decided by the amount of money you throw forward is not my idea of justice. So, if you are telling me that this is a normal part of our legal system, no, I am not pleased, at all.

No comments:

Post a Comment