Re "Vote delay sounds good -- but isn't" (Viewpoints, Feb. 2): Political strategist Steve Maviglio says it's too cumbersome for bills before the Legislature to be in print three days before being voted on. It invites special interests to research and oppose a bill. He cites the movie "Lincoln" to say it was better that President Abraham Lincoln bribed opposition legislators with jobs following an upcoming election before anyone found out why they voted for the 13th Amendment.
Does he hear what he's saying? I'm sorry that reading a bill before voting on it allows opposition forces to be heard. Shouldn't the opposition be heard before finalizing a bill? He implies they could never have a good point to make.
Perhaps he thinks that passing bills is an objective in itself. Why do we need laws that won't stand up to public scrutiny?
-- Bob Schroeder, Lincoln