[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about non-compete clauses
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 -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
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,
> << I'd like to hear the legal rationale for that: why are non-competes so
> in broadcasting but just fine for lawyers, pharmacists, and real estate
> agents? How is THAT in the public interest? Maine legislators couldn't
> up with good answers, so we were left to assume the new law is just a sop
> 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
> 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.
> also heard of some reporters lobbying legislators while at the State House
> covering stories. Journalists lobbying politicians. Isn't there
> wrong with that?
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine