I am lobbying for another Amnesty day. A large amount of the immigrants in America are here illegally. However, a lot of them have been living here peacefully, working, and contributing positively in some way to the United States. Though not all illegal immigrants are contributing positively to the US, all illegal immigrants should still be granted citizenship. That way we can crackdown on more of the crimes going on with them because they actually exist in our system. Deportation is always an option as well, but I feel like prejudice is playing a role in this too. It seems as though the government doesn't want anyone else from outside the country to be here. It's already difficult to get into the US legally, so why on Earth would they let illegal immigrants stay?
            I chose this topic for two reasons. The first reason is simply because it's interesting to know that instead of pardoning people for trying to live a better life, they're wasting their lives away trying to find and deport them. Twelve million is a huge number to be trying to get rid of when we have so many other things to worry about in the US. We might as well just give them citizenship. Most of them aren't planning on leaving anyway. The second is reason is because I understand what these illegal immigrants are going through. I have so many family members in Nigeria praying to get their Visa to come over to visit at least. Most of them have been denied. Their intentions are in no way harmful to the US, they are all healthy beings, and can contribute loads of things to the US but for some reason they were all denied. Nigeria is filled with extremely obvious corruption. Though the US is corrupt as well, they're better off here where the corruption is sugarcoated to the max and can still walk the streets without having to see a huge war tank and it’s launcher pointed in their direction. Basically, these people mean no harm. They're not here purposely to break the rules. They're running from something or looking forward to something, that's pretty much it.

The main supporters of my lobbying idea are immigrants. The main opponents of my lobbying idea are the majority of the government (seeing as how they have yet to have another amnesty day). There is a pending legislation dealing with my lobbying idea. It talks about securing the border and granting the immigrant workers legal access to actual jobs.

Unfortunately, President Verna has decided that at the end of her term as City Council President, she will retire.  For this reason, she may not be the most helpful person to lobby.

I think that Democratic Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey would be more helpful.  He has identified helping children as a top priority.  In fact, he used to teach 5th grade, and at one point he coached 8th grade basketball in inner-city Philadelphia with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps.  This tells me that he cares not just for children but for low-income children in particular.  He has also supported funding for education and children's health, especially for low-income children.  On his website, he expresses support for quality healthcare for everyone, "particularly children for whom health care in the earliest years is so critical."  Most notably, he added an amendment to the Senate health care reform bill that would continue full funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through 2019.

Since obesity is a huge problem among low-income children in Philadelphia, I think he'd be very much in favor of healthier school lunches.

No one enjoys going for a walk and then noticing that the streets are littered with trash or people refuse to clean up after their pets. If you were in Center City however this would never happen. There are many things already in place that would lower the chances of you seeing these nuisances. First there are trash cans in Center City virtually on every street corner. Secondly their are "please curb your dog" signs posted up all over every park and trails. These are both due to the face that when tourists come to visit Philadelphia most of the traffic is in the Center City area, which requires us to keep these parts especially clean. 

I would propose that "please curb your dog" and public trash bins be of greater for the other parts of the city also. In most parts of the city outside of Center City there is trash on the streets in great abundance. This is because there aren't public trash cans on the corners of those parts of the city. Also the "please curb you dog" law isn't enforced at all so animal droppings are on people's lawn and on private property. I would very much like to see cleaner streets in Philadelphia. I also want to see tourism not only be mainly concentrated in Center City but in other parts that make up philadelphia as well, and I feel as though cleaning up the streets is a very good place to start.

The main people I can get support from while trying to get these enforced or enacted would be the district representatives of the different parts of the city. They would be the main supporters because they would like the thought of having cleaner streets and improving on tourism. Even though I can get the most support from them they can also give me the most opposition. Placing a trash can on street corners isn't a very cheap tasks. Especially managing the trash pickup. If there isn't room in the budget to pay for this then they may not even consider it. 

Currently there isn't any legislation dealing with my topic. But I would like to see one regarding the enforcement of people not cleaning up after their dogs. There are already laws in place that say that it is illegal to not clean up after your pets but there isn't anything regarding the enforcement of that law. 

Law referencing not cleaning up after animals.

(Amending Chapter 10-100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Animals," by amending Section 10-105, entitled "Animals Committing Nuisances," by expanding the section to include nuisances committed upon the private property of the owner and animal noises which cause unreasonable annoyance, disturbance or discomfort to a person or persons, all under certain terms and conditions.

Legislative File ID   000103-A)

What makes him a good center to my lobbying efforts is his view toward health care and care of young children in general. As treasurer he make daycare and other programs for the younger generations more affordable. Then a senator he focused on assuring CHIP stead in operation and other beneficial health care programs. He seems very rooted in helping the less capable just as the overall health care law was intended. He does seem very generic brand democrat but he does seem to focus a lot more on health care than the usual. 

He is more cautious and thinks further ahead than other senators. The health care law is taking that approach so it's understandable he would support it. For example, he is requesting aid for fema storm aid before we even have had a snowflake. He cares about the individual counties of his state.He fought to save community development. We share values about important to a community togetherness. I think he can take this beyond philadelphia and push my agendas to the national level.

The law has been divided through party lines. With very few oddballs, democrats generally support the bill while republican support it. This stems to from their basic views on government. Since the right advocates for less government involvement in everything, health care isn't any different. Meanwhile, the left sees the law as an opportunity to fix a broken system through regulation. It's still a very heated debate and the laws affects are coming into reality slowly. It's only been a year since the bill became law so there is still time to backtrack and erase the affects of the law after the next round of elections.

I understand there are different views and there are many ways to go about the system but if this law is halted there won't be any to show for the democratic majority of Obama's presidency. It won't be going anywhere as of now but we are seeing the affects and so for I am optimistic. I am able to stay on parents medical insurance for longer than i could have before and the loop in the system seem to getting fixed. Local change will come and I want to see it happen. It won't if opponents have their way, so I find it something worth lobbying for.

                Financial reform on election campaigns has been active since 1907. Over the years, different acts were passed in order to regulate and ban certain lobbyist contributions, and these were all consolidated into the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. However, between 2007 and 2010, there were three cases in which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was taken to court. On the last case, Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that banning contributions from corporations and lobbyists violated their Constitutional right to “political free speech.” This ruling then led to the DISCLOSURE Act. Now, the question is not whether to ban lobbyist contributions, but how should these contributions be regulated? I researched people in politics that directly represent me about their positions on finance reform and regulation on election campaign contributions. Living in Congressional District 1 of Pennsylvania, I am represented by Representative Robert Brady, Senator Robert Casey Jr., and Senator Patrick Toomey.

                Robert Brady was sworn into office for his 8^th term representing Pennsylvania’s First Congressional District on January 5, 2011. He is a Democrat, born and raised in Philadelphia, and graduated from St. Thomas High School. He currently serves as Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, helping to lead the Committee’s oversight of federal elections and budget authorizations for expenses of House committees. He has consistently advocated for legislation that supports the well-being of financially disadvantaged communities. So, how has he voted in the past on financial reform on election campaign contributions? Over the years, he has consistently voted in favor of regulation on lobbyist contributions and soft money. He voted yes on campaign reform banning soft-money contributions and on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, helping to clear up some of secrecy that goes on with campaign contributions. He also supported criminalizing false or deceptive information about elections. This is helpful to me since it seems as though, despite having accepted contributions from several individuals along with corporations and lobbyist groups, Representative Brady is in favor of at least regulating these contributions and making sure they are fair and lawful.

                Robert Casey Jr. is  Democrat, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and  joined the Senate in 2007. Since becoming a Senator, Senator Casey has definitely been focused on the people. He has consistently worked to help turn around the economic crisis, and voted on tax cuts to help businesses hire more employees. He has also worked on several areas of reform such as Health Care reform. And, such as with Rep. Brady, Senator Casey voted yes on requiring more public lobbyist financial disclosure. He has also accepted lobbyist contributions in past and was quoted as saying, “I’ve accepted money from lobbyists. The question is what impact does that money have on our vote. Everyone who knows me knows that I’m very independent. I’ll be focused on needs of Pennsylvanians – not special interests in D.C.” This statement and his vote for more lobbyist disclosure leads me to believe that his position is the same as Rep. Brady in the sense that supports regulation on lobbyist contributions. He believes that the money should not get in the way of what people in government vote and decide on.

                Patrick Toomey serves along side Senator Casey and is a Republican. Unlike Senator Casey and Rep. Brady, Senator Toomey was not born in Pennsylvania, but Rhode Island instead. He just joined the Senate this January, and I can actually remember his several campaign commercials that aired during his election process. He has taken a position in favor of restoring fiscal discipline to Washington and economic opportunity for all Americans and has worked for such position. However, his position of federal election campaign contribution reform has not been as consistent. In September of 1999, he was against banning soft money and issue ads. Then, in July of 2001, he voted yes of banning soft money donations to national political parties. But, voted against just that in February of 2002. So, it is a little hard to tell where Senator Toomey is coming from. He, too, has accepted contributions from corporations and lobbyists, along with my other representatives. Senator Toomey still requires a little more looking into.

                So, based off of this information I have gathered on my three representatives, Rep. Brady and Senator Casey seem to be the ones I should contact and discuss further on regulation on lobbyist contributions in government. Rep. Brady, being from Philadelphia, seems to have the background most in common with myself, though Senator Casey does not seem to be all that much different. I would probably only contact Senator Toomey just to understand his most current position on regulations, though I will not focus a little less on him. All in all, Representative Brady seems to be my closest bet in favor of my lobbying case.