Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
In the US, the reason corporations hire lobbyists is that it has a ROI that is bigger than most of their main businesses.
And that return comes from tax revenue. So it is much more expensive for us to allow lobbyists.
That "expertise" angle used to make some sense, before we created long distance communication. But today, politicians have staff, and the staff have access to the internet and telephones. If they need an expert, they can just call one.
Again, it would be much cheaper to hire researchers for politicians than to allow lobbying to continue.
I see no reason why anyone who isn't a constituent should have easy access to a politician.