[rayiner]

> criminal defense attorneys

The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys actively lobbies for drug law reform, sentencing reform, and against civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and overcriminalization: https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty. [1] They're on the front lines of trying to reform the justice system, and your proposal would silence them (because you could just as easily say they "benefit" from those reforms because their clients do).

[1] And the bar as a whole is probably way to the left of the average person on criminal justice issues.

[downandout]

Please read my comments more carefully before criticizing them. I said that they should be barred from lobbying for "any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences".

I'd love to see all of these organizations lobby for laws that are likely to result in overall decreases in inmate counts, and/or lower sentences.

[rayiner]

Your proviso is irrelevant to my point: You've concocted this world model that tells you that criminal defense attorneys lobby in favor of stiffer prison sentences because it serves their monetary interests. My point is that your world view is wrong; its not about the merits of your hypothetical ban.

[downandout]

My world view is that anyone that stands to directly profit from laws that are likely to increase the inmate population or average sentence length should not be able to play a part in getting those laws passed.

[mkopinsky]

So the government shouldn't only be deciding who can or can't lobby on a particular issue, but which side of the debate each respective party can or can't be on? "I'm sorry sir, but given your circumstances you may only support these Approved Beliefs."

[downandout]

Again, we're talking about a very specific subset of laws here - criminal laws - that benefit a very small subset of people and businesses in the US.