<span>Direct face-to-face lobbying is "the gold standard" of lobbying. Everything else is done to support the basic form. Face-to-face lobbying is considered to be the most effective because it allows the interest to directly communicate its concerns, needs, and demands directly to those who possess the power to do something politically. The lobbyist and the public official exist in a mutually symbiotic relationship. Each has something the other desperately needs. The interest seeks governmental assistance and the public official seeks political support for future elections or political issue campaigns. The environment for such lobbying discussions is usually the spaces outside the legislative chambers or perhaps the offices of the legislators. The legislative arena has characteristics that facilitate the lobbying process. It is complex and chaotic. Out of the thousands of bills that might be introduced in a legislative session, sometimes fewer than a hundred are actually passed. There is never enough time to complete the work on the agenda—not even a fraction of the work. The political process tends to be a winner-takes-all game—often a zero-sum game given the limited resources available and seemingly endless lists of demands that request some allocation of resources. Everyone in the process desperately needs information and the most frequent (and most useful) source of information is the lobbyist. The exchange is simple: the lobbyist helps out the governmental officials by providing them with information and the government official reciprocates by helping the interests gain their objectives. There is a cycle of every governmental decision-making site. At crucial times in those cycles, the needs of the officials or the lobbyists may dominate. For lobbyists in a legislative site, the crucial moments are as the session goes down to its final hours. For legislators, the closer they are to the next election, the more responsive they are to lobbyists who possess resources that may help.</span>
I don’t really understand your question
Answer:
opposing the collectivization of land
Explanation:
The Kulaks were the peasants that were the most prosperous, that new and put in a lot of effort to develop their land, gain more land, and become wealthier because of it. The Soviets though didn't fancied this, as their policy was that everyone should have the same amount of land, and that collectivization should be done to the land. The Kulaks of course opposed this, as they worked very hard to develop and buy their land and cattle, and now they had to give it up tot he others that were less capable than them just because Stalin ordered so. Stalin was not a man that liked to be opposed, so in order to perform the collectivization without any problem, he ordered the deportation and elimination of the Kulaks. The end result was millions of people ending up dead, which were also the most capable people in the rural areas, and that made a big long-term damage to the agriculture and economy of the Soviet Union.
<span>Good Morning!
</span><span>a. judicial review
</span><span>
To oppose a presidential or legislative act, the judiciary may recover a judicial review, in order to show how such a measure is unconstitutional and, thus, can not be made official.
hugs!</span>