If you were in Congress, what would you do if...

[Indy Texas]

You are traveling to your home district for the weekend and have a very tight schedule. One of your aides tells you that you have just enough time to schedule one more meeting.

Two constituents have requested meetings with you. You only have time to meet with one.

One is the head of a trade group whose members include several companies with operations in your district. This group gave $20,000 to your campaign PAC in the last election and has hinted at future donations of similar magnitude. He is interested in discussing a regulatory bill that could raise the costs of his business, and some federal contracts that other members of the group want to bid on.

The other is a single mother whose child has a very rare illness and must take a pharmaceutical drug that costs her hundreds of dollars a month. The drug can be found much cheaper in Canada and Europe, but the US doesn't allow the importation of the drug. This woman has never made a donation to your campaign but wants to draw your attention to the benefits of allowing Americans to purchase drugs for less money from abroad.

Do you:

Option 1 - Meet with the trade association representative.
Option 2 - Meet with the woman with the ill child.

Would you choose differently if neither person had donated any money to your campaign?
Would you choose differently if the businessman had not made a contribution but the mother had donated $20,000?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

While the second is the moral thing to do, I would probably value reelection over my own conscience.

[RogueBeaver]

I'd choose option 2 and speak by phone to the trade group, promise them a meeting next time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Meet with the woman at the office and change flights and meet the PAC people at the airport.

[Deus Naturae]

I'd meet with the first guy, but I'd still sponsor/co-sponsor a bill allowing Americans to purchase drugs from abroad.

[Donerail]

On the face of it, it's the less moral option, but I'd go with option 1. I have little expertise in complex business regulations or government contracting and I'd certainly value the input of an educated constituent on that issue. I sympathize more with the single mother, but I already support allowing pharmaceutical purchases from places like Canada and Europe - she'd just be reenforcing what I already know about and believe in. In the end, I'd probably meet with the business group and write a letter to the mother expressing my regrets for not being able to meet with her, wishing her the best of luck and noting that I'm now co-sponsoring legislation to do what she wanted.

[Dereich]

On the face of it, option one would seem to be the better policy/reelection option, but congressional office aides specialize in areas specifically so they can learn the hard stuff for you and give you the one page summary.

I say take the meeting with the sick kid and use it as a photo op and have your aide meet with the trade group while personally reassuring them that you'll be an eager co-sponsor to (insert legislation here).

[Hatman 🍁]

I'd be wondering why a trade PAC would give me money in the first place, considering the kind of campaign I'd wage.

[Dr. Cynic]

Option 2 would be a boon for publicity and goodwill. If it got out that I skipped meeting a mother and child for some rich assholes, it'd kill my campaign.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 2, which is why I'd never be a successful politician.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I'd choose option 2 and speak by phone to the trade group, promise them a meeting next time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Option 1.  I don't believe that grey market importation of pharmaceuticals is a viable long-term solution to the problem of excessive drug costs, so since I don't agree with the mother, why should I give her a photo-op that makes it appear I do?  Also, as touching as her story is, it's one person, and the trade group represents several companies in my district.

Who gave money to my campaign wouldn't affect this particular decision, since I would only want to meet with one of them even if I had the time.  If I did want to meet with both of them, option 2, since the trade group should find it easier to meet with me at another time, and they likely would be more understanding that I only have so much time.

[Zioneer]

Option 2 would be a boon for publicity and goodwill. If it got out that I skipped meeting a mother and child for some rich assholes, it'd kill my campaign.

[DC Al Fine]

Option 1: My assistant does my scheduling and I never heard of the woman.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 1: My assistant does my scheduling and I never heard of the woman.

This would be the likely case, but it would be better both morally and politically to meet with the woman.

[JerryArkansas]

Option Two.

I would fly the man up to washington under option one to meet with him.

[Randy Bobandy]

Option 2, and I would likely tell the man from Option 1 to bugger off.

[BaconBacon96]

I'd go to Option 2, get some publicity off it and hope to get $20,000 in donations from healthcare reform supporters.

Schedule a meeting with the trade man later.

[Supersonic]

I'd meet with the first guy, but I'd still sponsor/co-sponsor a bill allowing Americans to purchase drugs from abroad.

Yeah something along these lines.

[NewYorkExpress]

Find out some way to meet both... (This would clearly be a perfect situation for human cloning)

[Potatoe]

Option 2, and I would likely tell the man from Option 1 to bugger off.

[Niemeyerite]

Option 2, which is why I'd never be a successful politician.

[Frodo]

Definitely option 2 -do you seriously think the press won't get wind of it if I chose to meet with a trade group over a desperate mother and a sick child?  Besides, I can always reschedule the former meeting at any time.  I doubt they'd mind all that much if I explained to them why. 

[Repub242]

Second option, I'll find out something with the trade representative

[Mechaman]

Option 2.

I would phone my aides and tell them to meet with the rich fat cats and explain to them that I need to meet with the woman for a nice photo-op.  And since I happen to have the political positioning that conveniently agrees withe everyone who ever lived and that I have previously sponsored legislation that said as much, everybody would be A-OKay with it and I would put on my movie star glasses and cruise to a landslide re-election.

[/totally expected Atlas answer]