To clarify, we were actually trying to get the lawmakers themselves to come outside and talk to us about why we're "angry", rather than sit inside and listen to a corporate consultant tell them why.

When our demonstration was hindered by the hotel staff lowering the windowshades all the way, that's when we turned to the street.

It's beyond ironic that 68 corporations would donate to hold a plenary session on why voters are angry when the voters who care about this conference are angry that corporations are spending so much money to get close to lawmakers. We're angry that in the current system, golf outings, fireworks, a crab feast, networking buffets and much more are considered standard, all meant to influence these lawmakers into playing nice with the corporations.

Meanwhile, those of us who aren't millionaires were asked to leave.

This demonstration was also coordinated by Fair and Clean Elections - Maryland. If you'd like more info about either organization you can find us on Facebook or http://www.fairandcleanmd.org.

Coffee Party protesters? All 6 of them?

Six isn't bad for a Friday morning demonstration that was conceived on Wednesday afternoon.

For the record, FACE-MD's first event, a rally outside the state house, was publicized well in advance and drew 100 people in the driving winter rain. THAT is how much people care about this issue.

Also for the record, my name is Jessica Sharp and I'm not afraid to put that in print.

What I am flabbergasted by is the underlying concept behind the "coffee party" is - that it is an oxymoron. To be protesting the process when you are in CHARGE of it is like President Obama "going to stick it to the man" when he is the man. Or fans of the LA Lakers protesting how unfair the NBA is to their team and there were "robbed" when the won the championship or how Congressional Democratic leaders complain that they can't get legislation through Congress when they have the largest margins in seats in decades. There is a lack of perspective and common sense to those protest. The "coffee party" strikes me as sore winners that don't know when to shut up declare victory and go home. You won. It shows. All the bad legislation produced from Annapolis and DC demonstrates how impractical your philosophical outlook on the world works. That is why the tea party will prevail. You are not mad at Speaker Busch and he is the HOST? What? Do you really think the voters are that idiotic? The coffee party sound like a bunch of kids complaining that are jealous that someone else has something going on. Take your thumb out of your mouth, and take a nap on your blankie.

I can't actually speak to those points you raise, Raymond, because I'm not technically part of the Coffee Party. My organization, Fair and Clean Elections Maryland, holds legislators' feet to the fire across and despite party lines, and I believe the same is true for the Coffee Party, which helped organize this. If you talk to anyone in TCP, they'll tell you they're only trying to bring civility in our political discourse back to palatable levels, not be shills for this party or that.

To suggest the Coffee Party is only an arm of the Democratic Party is like suggesting the Tea Party is only an arm of the GOP. Since you are part of it, don't you consider yourself more than that? We're voters, not policymakers. We don't want "only Democrats, all the time." Again, I can only speak for my organization, FACE-MD, but we want good policy and good legislators, and to eventually change the system to ensure those two things. And not all Democrats are good Democrats and not all policy is good policy.

It's hard to single out Speaker Busch, because unfortunately, this is just the way things are done. It's the system that sucks, not him personally. He's actually been a pretty good ally for campaign finance reform in the state house -- something I think everyone, from the Tea Party to the Coffee Party and beyond -- can agree is needed. That's why we were protesting the system and not specifically Speaker Busch. (In extended interviews which were edited out, we called on him to continue his leadership role on the issue of campaign finance and begin to extricate himself and MD from this pay-to-play mega mall of corporate influence.)

Since corporate influence is the problem, and according to polls most voters seem to think so regardless of their party affiliation or beverage choice, shouldn't we be working together? Let's talk, not trade barbs.

Speaker Michael Busch is basically a good guy who supported a proposed bill for public financing of elections in MD. But it was good that he got put on the spot, squirming and looking defensive, saying that everyone does it.

It's true, but it's just as inappropriate when the National Governors' Association's annual meeting is funded by corporations seeking favors and influence. Meetings of public servants should be publicly funded.

They like to say that "none of this was paid for with taxpayer money" like that was a good thing. Well - the only alternative is generous corporations, who threw in a "swanky" hotel, guided tours, cruises, feasts and golf-outings as part of the 'investment' for this particular "conference."

Remember the congressman that went to jail because he was the recipient of Jack Abramoff's illegal corporate-funded golf junket to Scotland? That was illegal.

You have to ask yourself: why do we have laws limiting corporate contributions to legislators in the first place? (Because it buys inappropriate influence i.e. corruption).

And also ask yourself - WHY do corporations (with business before the legislatures) spend half-a-million-dollars wining, dining and buying face-time with legislators? (duhhh - pretty obvious, but everyone pretends that they do it because they're generous).

Did Micheal Busch ever consider that . . . maybe . . . they thought they were Getting Something for their Investment?

Calling it a "conference" doesn't hide the real purpose. The "conference" exists because the Sponsors PAID for it. They made it happen. It exists because the sponsors wanted to buy influence. This is about as obvious as it gets.

What do you think of corporate funding for the annual meeting of The National Association of Secretaries of States' (the group in charge of monitoring elections). That meeting is generously underwritten by election machine vendors (Diebold and friends, - a few companies who control almost all of the voting machines in the U.S., whose touch-screen machines cannot be audited. How do they get away with it???? - in part, by generously providing *a lot* of money to the people in charge who claim to be representing us.

So, isn't it great that legislators' conferences and conventions are completely funded by generous corporations? What a bargain, huh?