Both of these seek to influence state legislators, and the evidence is right there in the article.
Where is the evidence of Lyft's lobbying?
I'd like to counter your question with a question: why shouldn't a mayor be speaking up to influence state legislators if they believe legislative issues could have an impact on their city? This is literally one of the primary duties of being an elected leader at the city level.
I'm sorry, taking into context the comment I quoted from the chain it resides in, from the way the person I'm responding to initially reacted to this post, it looked otherwise at a glance.
They absolutely do have that right, and should be encouraged to write their state legislators if they are motivated to. but since the letter in the article was written by a mayor, from the perspective of a mayor, my response here is directly about the perspective of said mayor. I was attempting to keep my comment congruent with the context of the post.
Ok, and the context of this post is that the mayor in question is complaining about other people exercising the same exact right that he is exercising.
That's the point. The mayor's opinion on the matter is ridiculous. Both the mayor, and other people, have the same right to express their opinion on legislative matters.
I don't quite follow your last statement, perhaps I've read an improper context than what you intend. If both the mayor and other people have the same right to express their opinion on legislative matters, what about the mayor's opinion is substantively different that it rises to the description of 'ridiculous'-as you put it?
His interest slightly preempts (pardon the phrase, given the context) that of the "other people" here in that he and the members of his city council-as elected officials-and appointed committee members have the express charge and duty of setting and guiding the direction of policy in their city. When state action has the result of affecting municipal policy, mayoral opinion matters along with that of local residents wouldn't you say?
> If both the mayor and other people have the same right to express their opinion on legislative matters
His opinion is apparently that it is not OK for Lyft to do the exact same thing he is doing.
Yes, both Lyft, and the Mayor, have the right to express their opinions on political matters. And apparently the opinion that the Mayor is expressing, is that it is not OK for Lyft to exercise this same right that he is expressing.
Ie, he is condemning the fact that someone else is doing the same thing he is doing.
To use an analogy, imagine that 2 people are arguing about the hypothetical concept of free speech. Both person 1, and person 2, have the right to use free speech, to discuss the concept of free speech, but if person 2 is arguing against the idea of free speech, then I am going to call his opinion ridiculous.
The point is to show hypocrisy. Both entities should have the ability to express their opinions on legislative matters, and it is ridiculous that apparently the mayor disagrees with this concept.
Surely you see the difference between someone who is speaking in an official capacity as a public official and someone speaking in a business capacity to influence legislation for competitive business advantages.
You cannot be so blind to the differences here, can you?
The point is to show hypocrisy. Both entities should have the ability to express their opinions on legislative matters, and it is ridiculous that apparently the mayor disagrees with this concept.
The mayor doesn't disagree with the concept of free speech, the mayor simply disagrees with what the speech is and how it, and the actions of legislative preemption at the behest of these companies can potentially impact his city. Which isn't hypocrisy, it is his express prerogative as a city leader! It is what the people of Portland elected him to do.
If you'd READ the letter in full, you'll see the Mayor isn't trying to curtail Lyft's speech, or saying they shouldn't be allowed to Lobby, but instead he's pointing to specific things and agenda items Lyft is Lobbynig for, and pointing to those specific items as things that could harm his city.
There's a lot of difference between pointing out something someone said that you disagree with, and positing that they shouldn't say it at all or be allowed to speak period. If that distinction is lost here, or for whatever reason being willfully left out of your responses, I think this is as good as any of a point to retire from the discussion because we'll be here forever.
