Undue, Unwanted And Unnecessary Influence

Advertisement

Editor:

Organizations like the National Rifle Association, the Goldwater Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee all exert an unearned influence on the politics and policies of our country and state.

It seems like too many of our lawmakers are like lemmings to the sea in that they follow the dictates and/or mandates from these organizations rather than the desires and needs of the people that elected them. Independent voters would do well to study the candidates, the issues, and these organizations before casting their ballots. What seems to be good for these organizations is not necessarily good for our country and/or state.

The only way it seems that we, the electorate, can neutralize the undue influence exerted by the organizations mentioned above is to be informed, vigilant, and savvy when voting for or against certain candidates and issues.

The Preamble of the Constitution says, “We, the people of the United States” — not We, the organizations of the United States.

Richard K. Meszar

Comments

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr. Meszar, The NRA's primary purpose is no different than what every one of our elected politicians took an oath to do, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". In the NRA's case, it's focus is on the 2nd Amendment. That 4+ million members and untold numbers of others are dependent upon that organization to protect our rights from those very elected politicians says volumes about the condition our political process has degenerated to. You may be willing to forego any representation by the NRA as regards your 2nd Amendement rights, but please do not propose to dictate that choice to others, thank you very much.

1

Dan Haapala 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr. Meszar I respect your right to express your dissatifaction with the organizations that you have mentioned. That right comes from the 1st Ammendment. The problem you are concerned with seems to deny others their 1st Ammendment rights. You see each of the organizations you mentions may not be one that (we) agree with, it is their right to have someone express what they believe in. I, for one, do not agree with about half of the groups you point out, and I will work to do what I can to make sure they don't trample on my rights but please don't advocate that we silence or ignore them because they disagree. We make the change at the ballot box and it behooves us all to go there and vote.

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 10 months ago

You all read a lot more in to Mr. Meszar's letter than what he said. Based on my reading of his letter, all he seems to want is for people to do their due diligence before making up their minds on an issue.

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 10 months ago

Folks tend to read things through the distortions of rose colored lenses. Meaning they see and hear what they want to hear.

Besides the due diligence he speaks of, and that you see, he also was ripping the associations folks (Both democratic and Conservative) join to bolster their voices. This is a first amendment right, and specifically what the first amendment was created to protect. It Mr. Meszar's desire is to "neutralize" those organizations; and is mustering others to do just that.

Meaning, he is attempting to stifle their first amendment rights, if they exercise those rights through various organizations, of whatever persuasion.

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 10 months ago

Nowhere in his letter does he "rip" any association he lists. He states the obvious - each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations - each organization puts forth its' agenda or views in order to influence others, whether it is a church, Scouts, political party, Olympic Committee or the Math Club at a H.S. He says, "What seems to be good for these organizations is not necessarily good for our country and/or state." "Not necessarily" means - to me - that some organizations may not give a hoot about what the majority of other people think or want, but other orgs do. On the other hand, I think he missed a bit by stating that "independent voters" should do their homework before voting, because ALL voters, regardless of party affiliation, should do so before they vote. IMO anyway.

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 10 months ago

He calls their influence "undue". That means that those groups take unfair advantage, does it not?

On the one hand, you defend this man's attempt to reduce the "undue Influence", and in the next breath say "each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations" wherein you acknowledge the rightful position that such organizations play.

When he says " we, the electorate, can neutralize the undue influence exerted by the organizations mentioned above" he isn't saying just a few of them. (If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)

And, yes, we should all do our homework. We should also be ready to defend our First Amendment rights, whenever well intentioned folk, (Like Mr. Meszar) make statements that sound great, until you see the damage that type of thinking can have on the First Amendment rights we hold so dear.

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 10 months ago

He uses "unearned" as a descriptor also - different than undue? I don't think it means the same as taking advantage. You said: "(If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)" Maybe you know him personally, I do not. I have no idea which orgs he likes or doesn't like, or if he even cited any he likes or doesn't like...that wasn't his point or mine! Bottom line - only in MY opinion, of course - is that he wants people to think for themselves. And wouldn't that be a good thing for our world!? I find it hard to dissect each little nuance in a written letter or post. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort and I don't have the time. How do you do it?!

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 9 months ago

Frankly, I think you are exactly right in that last post. And, I don't have the time. I signed on today to tell someone in a roundup blog that I was having to bow out for awhile due to time constraints. I'm out of state right now, and holding down two jobs for some indefinite time.

So, first, I'm short of time, and second, if I'm not in the vicinity, why should I continue to post here? When I get back, that will be a different thing. (:-))

God bless and hope to be back soon.

Allan

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.