[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

The answer should be a simple and resounding no.

The first evidence was verification that the organization had sold baby body parts for a profit. Alone, that stunning news should have prompted supporters to become opponents.

To Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, it was enough, though she had a pro-life stance already. As columnist Frank Bruni wrote, “Even if she had said nothing else at the CNN debate, Fiorina would have stood out for her gut-punch of a statement about the horror of the guerrilla Planned Parenthood videos capturing the ghoulish organ harvesting that is an important side business of the organization (the main business, of course, is aborting babies).”

The second evidence against Planned Parenthood emerged in media coverage of the organization’s first appearance before a Congressional committee, the House Oversight Committee. The leader of the committee said that the Planned Parenthood had engaged in huge amounts of spending on entertainment and travel.

Here is an excerpt from a story that appeared in the newsletter, The Hill:

‘The head of the House Oversight Committee is accusing Planned Parenthood of misspending more than $40 million in federal dollars on “lavish” travel, theme parties and a costly Manhattan office.

“Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Tuesday accused the organization of racking up “exorbitant travel expenses,” including first-class flights, charter travel and entertainment costs that included $622,706 on “blowout parties” with celebrity guests.

Some of the themed parties had names such as “Gathering of Goddesses and Gods,” “Chocolate Champagne” and “Murder Mystery,” according to a report released by the committee during the hearing Tuesday.

“’That’s money that’s not going to women’s healthcare,’” Chaffetz said.

“The Oversight report details Planned Parenthood’s total of $5,109,997 on travel in 2013, which averaged approximately $14,000 a day.

“The committee’s report also noted Planned Parenthood’s real estate holdings, including $34.8 million for its corporate office space near Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2011. In 2015, it sold a 72,000 square-foot condominium to Brookfield Property Partners for $69.6 million.“

Again, even these revelations didn’t prompt Democrats to change their views. Consider this quote from The Hill about comments from the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee:
“’I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said. “I’ve never seen a witness beaten up and questioned…’”

From the standpoint of general government spending, there should be no question but that Planned Parenthood should lose its place at the trough.

Add to that the heinous selling of baby parts and the action is even more clear – kill the funding.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

The answer should be a simple and resounding no.

The first evidence was verification that the organization had sold baby body parts for a profit. Alone, that stunning news should have prompted supporters to become opponents.

To Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, it was enough, though she had a pro-life stance already. As columnist Frank Bruni wrote, “Even if she had said nothing else at the CNN debate, Fiorina would have stood out for her gut-punch of a statement about the horror of the guerrilla Planned Parenthood videos capturing the ghoulish organ harvesting that is an important side business of the organization (the main business, of course, is aborting babies).”

The second evidence against Planned Parenthood emerged in media coverage of the organization’s first appearance before a Congressional committee, the House Oversight Committee. The leader of the committee said that the Planned Parenthood had engaged in huge amounts of spending on entertainment and travel.

Here is an excerpt from a story that appeared in the newsletter, The Hill:

‘The head of the House Oversight Committee is accusing Planned Parenthood of misspending more than $40 million in federal dollars on “lavish” travel, theme parties and a costly Manhattan office.

“Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Tuesday accused the organization of racking up “exorbitant travel expenses,” including first-class flights, charter travel and entertainment costs that included $622,706 on “blowout parties” with celebrity guests.

Some of the themed parties had names such as “Gathering of Goddesses and Gods,” “Chocolate Champagne” and “Murder Mystery,” according to a report released by the committee during the hearing Tuesday.

“’That’s money that’s not going to women’s healthcare,’” Chaffetz said.

“The Oversight report details Planned Parenthood’s total of $5,109,997 on travel in 2013, which averaged approximately $14,000 a day.

“The committee’s report also noted Planned Parenthood’s real estate holdings, including $34.8 million for its corporate office space near Madison Square Garden in New York City in 2011. In 2015, it sold a 72,000 square-foot condominium to Brookfield Property Partners for $69.6 million.“

Again, even these revelations didn’t prompt Democrats to change their views. Consider this quote from The Hill about comments from the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee:
“’I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said. “I’ve never seen a witness beaten up and questioned…’”

From the standpoint of general government spending, there should be no question but that Planned Parenthood should lose its place at the trough.

Add to that the heinous selling of baby parts and the action is even more clear – kill the funding.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

I am one of those who has been hoping that, as voters, we would be able to consider real people who would propose real solutions to the real problems we face.

Color me disappointed.

On both sides – Republicans and Democrats – we have terrible choices that tear at the fabric of representative government.

On the D side, we have a leading contender, Hillary Clinton, who is nothing but a crook if only based on her attempts to avoid transparency in her apparently intentional creation of an e-mail account beyond anyone’s review. Who knows what she would do if she was really elected president?

On the R side, we have the unbelievable leader in a blowhard who believes he knows everything and criticizes anyone and everyone who dares wonder whether he has the public policy chops to be president. I am not even sure he knows what public policy is!

One of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, put it very well last weekend in a column headlined, “The Double-Suicide Presidential Campaign.” Here is an excerpt:

“Meanwhile, on the Democrat side:

“– They are running a presidential campaign decrying wage stagnation, income inequality and widespread economic malaise — as if they’ve not been in office for the past seven years.

“– Their leading presidential candidate is 27 points underwater on the question of honesty and is under FBI investigation for possible mishandling of classified information.

“– Her chief challenger is a 74-year-old socialist with a near-spotless record of invisibility in 25 years in Congress. The other three candidates can hardly be found at all.

“– The only plausible alternative challenger, Joe Biden, has run and failed twice and, before tragedy struck (to which he has responded, one must say, with admirable restraint and courage), was for years a running national joke for his endless gaucheries and verbal pratfalls.

“For the GOP, this has all been a godsend, an opportunity to amplify the case being made every day by the Democrats themselves against their own stewardship. Instead, the Republicans spent the summer attacking each other — the festival of ad hominems interrupted only by spectacular attempts to alienate major parts of the citizenry.

“The latest example is Ben Carson, the mild-mannered, highly personable neurosurgeon and one of two highest-polling GOP candidates. He said on Sunday that a Muslim should not be president of the United States. His reason is that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution. On the contrary. Carson is incompatible with a Constitution that explicitly commands that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

“Carson is not one to cynically pander. Nor do I doubt that his statement about a Muslim president was sincerely felt. But it remains morally outrageous. And, in a general election, politically poisonous. It is certainly damaging to any party when one of its two front-runners denigrates, however thoughtlessly, the nation’s entire Muslim American community.

“Particularly when it follows the yeoman work done by the other leading GOP candidate to alienate other large chunks of the citizenry. Three minutes into his campaign, Donald Trump called Mexican-American immigrants rapists who come bringing drugs and crime. He followed that by advocating the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants. And sealed the deal by chastising Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish in answer to a question posed in Spanish.

“Trump’s contretemps with women enjoy even more renown — his attacks on Megyn Kelly (including a re-tweet calling her a bimbo) and his insulting Carly Fiorina for her looks.

“Muslims, Hispanics, women. What next? Who’s left?

“It’s a crazy time. One party is knowingly lurching toward disaster, marching inexorably to the coronation of a weak and deeply wounded presidential candidate. Meanwhile, the other party is flamboyantly shooting at itself and gratuitously alienating one significant electoral constituency after another. And it’s only September. Of 2015.”

Krauthammer has it all right. If nothing changes by the time election rolls around next year, I won’t vote for either the crook or the blowhard. I’ll cast my ballot for someone like the late Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield who, to me, personified the ideals of integrity, clarity and ethics in politics.

God bless the late senator. We need more like him in politics today.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

That was the theme of a sermon last Sunday from the lead pastor, Steve Fowler, at the church we have attended for more than 30 years in Salem.

His point: On the hand, the time may be right for those who attend church to function as “renters” when they are just visiting or learning about a church they might attend over the longer. But, on the other hand, once someone has found a church home, it is better for that person to function as an “owner.”

That way, they’ll have a sense of responsibility to share in the functioning of a church and to help people find their way toward God.

There are a number of spiritual implications of Mr. Fowler’s point and I know he hoped those who heard him would focus on those implications.

Let me say I did, but after church, my thoughts also went to renters and owners as those terms might apply to the lobbying business where I made my career for about 40 years.

My point: It is better to own an issue you are lobbying than simply to rent it – or borrow it – for a period of time.

If you own an issue as a lobbyist, you will work doubly hard on behalf of your client to achieve the objective, or in the art of politics, to find a workable compromise

If you just rent the issue, you won’t care as deeply about it – or work as hard as you should to achieve the objective.

In summary, what are some of the characteristics of those who own a lobbying issue?

• You would care for the issue like you would the house or car or any other possessions you own.

• You would take responsibility to make it is ready to be viewed by guests.

• When the time is right to sell the issue you own, you would work hard to make it presentable to potential buyers.

So, permit me to emphasize this secular perspective from a spiritual point – as a lobbyist it is better to own an issue than rent it.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

It used to be that anyone running for office would worry about his or her reputation.

• Was there some past misdeed that would come back to haunt the candidate?

• Could the candidate avoid the gaffe that would put him or her under fire for weeks?

• Could a candidate concentrate on being for something without engaging in personal attacks?

Well, for those enamored with Donald Trump, the very nature of politics has changed.

Go no farther than considering this description of Trump authored by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in a piece about Trump’s supposed appeal to parts of the so-called “religious right:”

“Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?”

In the past, some of those in politics have acted as if any mention of their name in the media, even in a negative story, was better than not being mentioned at all. For Trump, he has taken this to an entirely new level.

As someone who values a positive reputation and an ability to engage in respectful political discourse, Trump’s run for the Republican nomination for president leaves me cold. It also raises the specter that political campaigns have changed – and for the worse.

In a Wall Street Journal piece a week ago, author Andy Kessler provided the following summary of Trump’s success, which he called “Trumponomics in 10 Easy Steps:”

1. Be born rich.
2. Own politicians.
3. Get tax breaks.
4. Monetize addiction. “Protected cash flow from apartments and office space is nice, and the Trump name attracts tenants willing to blow cash. But there must be another way to extract money from people. Fortunately, gambling became legal in New Jersey in 1976. Voilà: Harrah’s at Trump Plaza opened in 1984 and quickly shortened its name to Trump Plaza (hey, it was the ’80s, and the name said classy to high rollers).”
5. Go in debt up to our eyeballs.
6. Stick banks and bondholders with disasters, (as Trump has done by declaring bankruptcy more than once).
7. Churn out books. “Pop business books are often like tomes from Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle or other gurus. You read them in a flash, feel inspired for 24 hours and then days later can’t recall a single worthwhile syllable. Mr. Trump mastered this art: “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire” (2004); “Trump 101: The Way to Success” (2006); “Midas Touch” (2011). It’s hard to find anyone who profited from these books, other than the guy with the I’m-a-serious-thinker expression on the cover.”
8. Franchise your name.
9. Channel your inner Kim Kardashian. “With so many Trump properties and golf courses and “The Apprentice” television show, it’s hard for most people to remember how Donald Trump got so rich in the first place. In the Kardashian and Nicky Hilton tradition, Mr. Trump is now famous because he is famous.”
10. Run for office. His presidential aspirations seem to be a vanity run gone wild.

All of this sickens me, as does Trump. He is a buffoon who has no business running for office with his sordid reputation, his pandering approach to women, and his outsize ego where he is always the most important person in the room no matter what he says or does.

My view is that no one should pay any attention to him. We need real people, with real pasts who will run for office with a real approach to recommend how to solve real problems.

Not Trump.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

I was struck the other day by reading opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal that compared two competing “theologies,” if that word even applies in one case.

One piece – hard to affix the label “theology” — dealt with Donald Trump and his apparent appeal to some have called the “religious right.”

The second dealt with former President Jimmy Carter and his incredible, personal and theologically-based approach to the reality that he now faces a cancer fight, at 90 years of age, for his life.

Let me put it simply: There is much to admire about Carter’s approach; there is much to disdain about Trump’s.

Consider this opening paragraph from columnist Frank Bruni as he wrote about the “theology of Donald Trump:”

“Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?”

Then, for contrast, look only to a piece by another columnist, Leonard Pitts, who knows real Christianity when he sees it.

Pitts wrote: “You did not hear much about faith last week when Jimmy Carter held a press conference to reveal that he has four spots of cancer on his brain. The 39th president made only a few references to it in the nearly 40 minutes he spoke, and they were all in response to reporter’s questions. Yet, you would be hard-pressed to find a more compelling statement of belief in things not seen.

“Unsentimental, poised and lit from within by an amazing grace, Carter discussed the fight now looming ahead of him, the radiation treatments he will undergo, the need to finally cut back on his whirlwind schedule. He smiled often. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said, in such a way that you believed him without question. And it was impossible to feel sorry for him.”

Okay, Mr. Carter is not for running for president this time around, but, if he were, I would vote for him in a nanosecond compared with Trump (and notice that I don’t convey respect for Trump by using the title Mr.).

He is a terrible candidate for president when what this country needs is real people who will propose real solutions to real problems and, all the while, exhibit real faith.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of the headaches for those who hope golf, as a sport, can claim a larger audience is the fact that the game can be so slow.

That, plus the hours it takes to get in 18 holes – often four hours, if not more – makes it difficult to attract new devotees.

With this background, I was interested to read a piece by James Achenbach, who is retiring after many years as a writer for Golf Week magazine.

“Show play is one of golf’s biggest enemies,” he wrote, “but two club pros in the western United States deserve mention for leading the campaign to rid it from golf as if it were a malignant weed.”

Achenbach proceeded to highlight the efforts of the two club pros. One, Dick Hyland, head professional at The Country Club in DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Arizona, says fast golf is a way of life. He likes to play an 18-hole round each week with a different member of his club. As a twosome, they ride, are the first out on a given day and get around 18 holes in under two hours.

The other club pro, J.D. Ebersberger, co-founder of The Palms Golf Club in La Quinta, California, established three hours and 15 minutes as the target time for completing 18 holes.

As these two stories indicate, there are a number of ways to speed up golf, even if, as I do, you often walk 18 holes, which translates into about five miles. Always be ready to play when it is your turn. Figure out your yardage before it is your turn. When you get over your ball, take no more 15 seconds to hit a shot.

All of this argues against mimicking golf on the PGA Tour where players take much longer to play than they should. Slow play can become pattern for new players. Of course, the pros are playing for a lot of money, but, still, their example is not one to follow.

Golf can be a pastime for a lifetime, as it is for me. Good to be outdoors, getting exercise and playing a game that can tax your physical and mental strength. Just play faster.

And this footnote: It also is possible play golf too fast, thus ignoring the beauty of the surroundings and the pace of the game played well. To use a hackneyed phrase, stop and smell the roses.

In sum, play at a good pace, neither too slow nor too fast and enjoy the pastime that has captured the imagination of players for the ages.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of the headaches for those who hope golf, as a sport, can claim a larger audience is the fact that the game can be so slow.

That, plus the hours it takes to get in 18 holes – often four hours, if not more – makes it difficult to attract new devotees.

With this background, I was interested to read a piece by James Achenbach, who is retiring after many years as a writer for Golf Week magazine.

“Show play is one of golf’s biggest enemies,” he wrote, “but two club pros in the western United States deserve mention for leading the campaign to rid it from golf as if it were a malignant weed.”

Achenbach proceeded to highlight the efforts of the two club pros. One, Dick Hyland, head professional at The Country Club in DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Arizona, says fast golf is a way of life. He likes to play an 18-hole round each week with a different member of his club. As a twosome, they ride, are the first out on a given day and get around 18 holes in under two hours.

The other club pro, J.D. Ebersberger, co-founder of The Palms Golf Club in La Quinta, California, established three hours and 15 minutes as the target time for completing 18 holes.

As these two stories indicate, there are a number of ways to speed up golf, even if, as I do, you often walk 18 holes, which translates into about five miles. Always be ready to play when it is your turn. Figure out your yardage before it is your turn. When you get over your ball, take no more 15 seconds to hit a shot.

All of this argues against mimicking golf on the PGA Tour where players take much longer to play than they should. Slow play can become pattern for new players. Of course, the pros are playing for a lot of money, but, still, their example is not one to follow.

Golf can be a pastime for a lifetime, as it is for me. Good to be outdoors, getting exercise and playing a game that can tax your physical and mental strength. Just play faster.

And this footnote: It also is possible play golf too fast, thus ignoring the beauty of the surroundings and the pace of the game played well. To use a hackneyed phrase, stop and smell the roses.

In sum, play at a good pace, neither too slow or too fast and enjoy the pastime that has captured the imagination of players for the ages.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

One of my old teachers used the phrase “best fact first” when it came to writing. So, it may not be wise to start with the bad news because the approach can leave that news intact before getting to the better news. But so be it. In this post, I start with the negative.

The title lobbyist often conjures up negative images these days and I have nearly 40 years of experience hearing all of the bad stuff, not to mention media coverage that suggests all lobbyists are out to fleece the public.

Here are some fables about what all lobbyists do:

• They carry around a bag of money and use the paper to buy results.

• They have no respect for accuracy and resort only to overstatement and threats.

• They plays fast and loose with facts to get their way on matters that should be related to the public interest, not private gain.

Well, that is not my experience. I functioned as a private sector lobbyist for almost 25 years and that experience came on top of another 15 years for government agencies where one of the my responsibilities was to relate to elected officials.

I was able to do this job, not perfectly of course, but with fealty to honesty and integrity. To get my way, I never lied or created false information.

I represented my clients, keeping their best interests in mind, with an eye, at the same time, to the public interest.

One credential was patently clear to me after 40 years in the business: Your word is your bond. If that was not true, you were in trouble, your credibility was at stake and so was the reputation of your clients.

When I told my mother about what I did for a living, I often resorted to three descriptions. First, I said, I was like an attorney; I had a client, had a contract to represent that client and my “courtroom” was the Capitol where I would meet with legislators.

Second, I said I was like a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. Figuratively speaking, I had to yell to get an elected official’s attention with a lot of competitors.

Third, I was like a salesperson. I was not selling a car, a home or a widget. I was selling ideas – a perspective from client that would be affected by passage or failure of a specific piece of legislation.

So, take it from me, even with my bias, lobbying is an honorable profession. F course, there are those who don’t act in an honest and forthright fashion. But, most lobbyists act with a “your word is your bond” ethic and, thus, deserve respect as key players in the process of making public policy.