<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>
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Like virtually all rulers throughout history, African rulers invoked both religious claims and their role as lawgivers or law enforcers to bolster their political legitimacy. For example, the ambassadors’ description of King Zara Yacob indicates that he sought to project and advertise his power in these terms as well.
The Buffalo picture represents number four on the map I’m pretty sure
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although you did not attach any context to the above-mentioned quotation or further references, we are going to assume that you are referring to Solidarity, the social moment in Poland that turned into a worker union that opposed the Communist government.
I have to say that a don't agree with the statement ‘Solidarity died as quickly as it started, having achieved nothing."
I consider that the Solidarity movement in Poland accomplished many things. Indeed, the strike of August 14, 1980, changed the political scenario in Eastern Europe.
The leader of the movement was Lech Walesa. Years later he won the presidential election of Poland. His victory and Vacláv Havel’s victory to become President of Czechoslovakia signified the transformation of Eastern Europe from dominance by the Soviet Union to new democracies.
So what started as a union movement in Communist time in Poland, ended up being a political party that got to power when Lech Walesa became the President of Poland in December 1990.
Answer: explanation below
Explanation: they believed their country was superior and received many benefits from their colonies.
