Really? They have heard not one objection to gun control proposals from anyone in the state? Or do they really mean they've heard no objections from their district? Of course, why state a realistic scope when you can obfuscate and imply the entire state agrees with you in abstract.
I bring this up because it provides an interesting scoping challenge when it's time to contact your reps. Who are your reps? Well, there are literally assigned reps for your district, but there are also reps that are not assigned to your district that make decisions that impact your life. While it may not count for as much, I contact reps assigned to my district and neighboring districts for the following reasons:
- It's easy. Dom Costa's primary office is a trivial bike ride from my house. I am not in his district, but it costs me nothing to walk into his office and make a statement. I can pump out a letter as long as this post in about 15 minutes. Calling is even easier; I do that in less time than it takes me to bicycle to the office. If reps will represent me in sweeping remarks I can raise my voice even if the impact is tiny (marginal gains are meaningful in aggregate!).
- Reps and their staff are paid for by my tax dollars even if they aren't assigned to my district. Many of them couldn't function if they were dependent solely on revenue from their own districts. I don't feel bad about taking up a few minutes of their time because I paid for it.
- Sometimes my representative doesn't get a say. My assigned representative is not on the judiciary committee. In this particular case, the judiciary committee closed themselves to public comment (I wonder why!). How else will my voice be heard by the committee?
No comments:
Post a Comment