Amazon.com Widgets

Would chronic care benefit from Super PAC lobbyists championing it instead of LGBT rights?

  • Yes, chronic care would benefit from Super PAC lobbyists.

    I definitely think that chronic care would benefit from Super PAC lobbyists championing it instead of LGBT rights. I think that chronic care is more important to the community than something that only supports a minority of the community. I think that chronic care is something that is important to everybody.

  • Lobbyists are always good.

    Yes, chronic care would benefit from Super PACs lobbying it championing it instead of LGBT rights, because it is always good to have a lobbyist in your corner. If the Super PACs would take up the issue, the legislators would become more aware of the needs that chronic care patients have.

  • No, and this is a false dichotomy.

    Why can't both be championed. I do not think that chronic care would benefit more of Super PAC lobbyists championed it instead of LGBT rights. I think that it would benefits if it was championed by the lobbyists, period. There is no reason to choose one or the other in this case.

  • LGBT Have less of a known political gain.

    Even though the LGBT has a political pull toward the left and an obvious agenda to swing voters in that favor, as a group they are still less likely to have a publicly known pursuit of a political agenda. The Super PAC is, for most all obvious fixtures , a 100% political entity with political gain known in the public eye to be their goal.A more neutral party, in my belief, will hold more ground while lobbying for chronic care.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.