j.r. leonard

Sure. There's also a thing called moral intuition, which sometimes leads to snap judgments. But upon reflection, there are lobbyists who don't have time to wait in line and people who don't have any higher paid employment options. Who's better off if we ended that practice?

Eeeeeeeeeveryone.

I'm with @J_RtheWriter on the notion that if the only change you make is to prevent lobbyists from hiring homeless people and don't change anything else, then you've greatly improved the optics while leaving everything that isn't optics worse off

Oh, I agree with that part. It's the "and also don't criticize it or even show it and in fact maybe do show it and praise it" part that makes me dubious.

There is this notion, near-universal among people who are political junkies, that is totally divorced from reality: that TERRIBLE optics on your side mean nothing and if you just explain to people your intellect will win them over and there will be no price to pay down the road.

That’s a real problem, but it’s also a problem if our response is to just fix the optics no matter what even if it exacerbates the underlying problem. And this is a case where I am more concerned about the latter than the former

In this case the cause and the optics are related: people don't actually think about/care about the homeless - even when they are at a hearing for the homeless. Also, I think the "ignore horrible looking things so they don't get band *and* hidden" is a weird strategy.

Never mind the optics; it's lobbyists gaming the system. If there are going to be paid seats, charge what the market will bear and donate that to the homeless.