<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in In Defense of Lobbyists</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://themoderatevoice.disqus.com/in_defense_of_lobbyists_87/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 01:44:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: In Defense of Lobbyists</title><link>http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19811/in-defense-of-lobbyists/#comment-508525</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's not the lobbyists that cause the problem per se.  It's the  suspicions aroused  about what they get in return for giving  time, advice  or money to an election campaign.  Suspicions may be totally groundless, as you point out, but they can't be easlly assuaged.  That's why the appearenace of impropriety is often stressed nearly as much as actual mpropritety.  when a code of conduct is being  developed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's not about being fair or unfair to certain individuals. It's about preserving the honor of an office, or, like in this case, trust in  elections and politics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">runasim</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 01:44:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>