Leni, 2 solutions to town hall meetings being taken over by astroturfing radicals...
1. Though a change, would it be too controversial to limit attendance at these town hall meetings to in-district constituents?
2. If too extreme to limit participants to constituents, at least limit questioners to in-district attendees?
Neither of these screening methods strike me as extremely controversial as I cannot contact many of the Reps and Senators through their website comment sections as they screen for zip codes of constituents in their districts.
3. My Rep does what he calls a “telephone” town hall meetings...He has a phone call go out to constituents (I am not sure if listing is all constituents or those who signed up at his website). Upon answering, the person has the choice to hangup or listen in and ask questions. He takes one question at a time. This is what Judy Biggert used to do and he continued her telephone town hall tradition.
If the meetings are held in public buildings it may be against rental policy. Also, there would undoubtedly be prior big messes and brouhahas at entrance-ways when attempting to card everyone entering, including those with fake addresses who want to get in to perform their mini-riots.
Solution # 2...."limit questioners to in-district attendees?"
See above comment. Also, no one thinks that you can keep in-district or out-of-district plants and disruptors from rising to ask questions or make comments with or without permission from the dais. They WILL be heard despite any attempt to gavel them down.
I don't know the answer to the spread of infiltrated town hall meetings yet. Each individual elected office-holder sponsoring the town meeting has to make his/her own decision whether to continue the practice based on the tenor of the district, his/her ability and desire to handle the disruptions, screeching, cat-calling and sign-waving...and, of course, his/her own personal internal fortitude.
Leni