I caught this tidbit that some US Reps are charging constituents to talk to them. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/16/7386242-first-thoughts-did-perry-go-too-far *** Pay-per-view representatives? If members of Congress’ approval ratings weren’t low enough, how’s this going to go over? Several members of Congress are charging constituents to ask questions, Politico reports. For Paul Ryan (R-WI), who took lots of criticism for his budget which would partially privatize Medicare, it’ll cost you $15; Chip Cravaack (R-MN) $10; Ben Quayle (R-AZ) $35. They’re not holding face-to-face town halls during their August recess. “By outsourcing the events to third parties that charge an entry fee to raise money, members of Congress can eliminate most of the riffraff while still – in some cases – allowing in reporters and TV cameras for a positive local news story,” Politico writes. The fees go to event organizers, who provide refreshments. Sure, they say they’re holding “office hours,” but seriously, this is democracy? Running from questions from the people who put you in office, unless they pay a fee?
They are not charging enough. The only people they are interested in can pay way more than that. They should charge at least $500 per visit.
Just from reading that little article, it sounds like a misrepresentation of the situation. They're charging an entrance fee for a town hall event to cover the costs of hosting it (plus a profit for the event organizer). I'm sure there are other channels of communication where you can still 'ask a question' for free. I don't think it's a great idea to charge at the door, but it's a bit disingenuous to imply that they're trying to keep out the riff-raff, profit from their position, institutionalize bribery, or sell-out to monied interests (well, maybe the last one is true). I think they are mostly trying to figure out a way to do town hall events without recording the cost in their overhead.
Really? I doubt that. I've never heard of a campaign that said it was in financial trouble due to the cost of town hall meetings. Yet it's at these town hall meetings where people ask troubling questions of the candidates like was done to Romney recently, to Paul Ryan before that, and the list goes on and on. Each of those disruptions made the news, and gave the candidate bad publicity each of the many times the clips were shown on the news. I think it's naive to believe that they aren't doing this to keep pesky opponents from attending.
I was thinking these were town hall events that were normally funded by the Rep's congressional budget. Does this article actually refer to campaign events? If it would have been funded from a congressman's budget: it wouldn't look good for a small-government Republican to have a big footprint of operating expenses for maintaining his official duties. So, he saves some taxpayer money at the expense of committed constituents and to public access. If it would have been funded from campaign contributions: then it is a partisan event anyway. They could even check party-registration at the door and it wouldn't bother me. If Paul Ryan thinks that charging $15 at the door is going to keep someone from showing up and embarassing him, I have some bad news for him. The only people the expense will deter will be passive onlookers. Those who really want to take the opportunity to say something publicly to Paul Ryan are going to be able to find $15. If anything, it'll amp up the conflict at the event by eliminating the quiet people.
The article says they are not holding face to face townhall events so it sounds like they are holding these events with cover charges in lieu of townhall events.
