Re: Question about non-compete clauses

["Terrence Wood" <terry_wood@prodigy.net>]

Gee Dan, I think that just by the reason they are there covering the
politician, that they inadvertantly lobby them.
Now, they are constituents as well as the rest of us, and I think we need to
lobby them whenever we see one of them.....God knows their hard to find when
they ain't running for office.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dib9@aol.com>
To: <k4gp@peganet.com>; <laurence@sprintmail.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Question about non-compete clauses


> In a message dated 4/15/00 3:21:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
k4gp@peganet.com
> writes:
>
> << I'd like to hear the legal rationale for that: why are non-competes so
bad
>  in broadcasting but just fine for lawyers, pharmacists, and real estate
>  agents?  How is THAT in the public interest? Maine legislators couldn't
come
>  up with good answers, so we were left to assume the new law is just a sop
to
>  the union crowd to crank up the 'campaign contributions.' >>
>
> It's just politics.  Legislating is not a rational process and such
> inconsistencies are common.
>
> As for the Maine law: campaign contributions were not the reason for the
> interest of Maine legislators.  The leading supporters of the bill were
> legislators with aspirations for higher office and they wanted to get in
the
> good graces of the TV reporters that would be covering their future
> campaigns.  There was one event held where key legislators were invited to
> meet privately with several prominent Maine anchors to discuss the issue.
I
> also heard of some reporters lobbying legislators while at the State House
> covering stories.  Journalists lobbying politicians.  Isn't there
something
> wrong with that?
>
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine