Anyone think large companies

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

1st amendment

Where does the 1st amendment state "thou shalt be able to purchase and write legislation provided you have the deepest pockets. Govt is for sale."

You exercise your 1st amendment rights when you vote, not when you buy off the system.

1st amendment grants one the right to petition their legislator for grievances.
This includes lobbyists.

This is wrong. Large sums are basically *required* to get elected, and the huge concentration of wealth in our nation gives the power to spend that money to a very few people.

Not at all, if you think getting rid of lobbyists will somehow change voter apathy good luck.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

1st amendment

Where does the 1st amendment state "thou shalt be able to purchase and write legislation provided you have the deepest pockets. Govt is for sale."

You exercise your 1st amendment rights when you vote, not when you buy off the system.

1st amendment grants one the right to petition their legislator for grievances.
This includes lobbyists.

This is wrong. Large sums are basically *required* to get elected, and the huge concentration of wealth in our nation gives the power to spend that money to a very few people.

Not at all, if you think getting rid of lobbyists will somehow change voter apathy good luck.

Not with bribes, gifts, or free rides on the company jets. This is the problem.

 

[fitzov]

1st amendment grants one the right to petition their legislator for grievances.This includes lobbyists.

Sorry, that's a bit like saying corporations are people too: lobbyists represent interests, it's true, but the influence of those interests are proportional to the amount of money that is given. Everyone has free speech, not the most wealthy interests.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: fitzov

1st amendment grants one the right to petition their legislator for grievances.This includes lobbyists.

Sorry, that's a bit like saying corporations are people too: lobbyists represent interests, it's true, but the influence of those interests are proportional to the amount of money that is given. Everyone has free speech, not the most wealthy interests.

As I said, they have the right to speech; we need to remove the corporate money from the system that makes the politicians have to give far more attention to lobbyists than citizens.

Correct the law so that corporations are legal non-person entities, and do not have the same rights as citizens to spend in the political system. The rest will work out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
1st amendment grants one the right to petition their legislator for grievances.

This includes lobbyists.

How much are you getting paid?

 

[TheAdvocate]

GenX is inventing his version of the first amendment.

It not only doesn't say that corps have the right to buy and write legislation (which is what occurs and what I am discussing), it doesn't say that individuals have the right to contribute money to buy legislation either. The Supreme Court rerroneously ruled the latter is the case, but they blew it. It is time for reform.

Your vote = your voice. That is when you exercise your 1st amendment rights.

Allowing financial contributions upsets the carefully established equal representation structure of our govt. Much like our corrupt justice system, it is available to the highest bidder.

BTW, no need to reply GenX - i dont need any more idealogue talking points from you. You can't even reply without them, just as every other thread where I've run into your inane babble.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Another option is to fund all elections from tax dollars, which effectively removes the impact of the lobbies. The just $6 organization is an interesting approach. I'm not a big fan of taxes, but this is one issue where tax revenues would have meaningful impact and preserve the integrity of our political system.

 

[Craig234]

Your vote = your voice. That is when you exercise your 1st amendment rights.

TheAdvocate, while we're on the same side on corporate money in politics, you are incorrect in the statement above.

The right to free speech is seperate from the right to vote (which, surprisingly, the constitutiondoes *not* provide to citizens for presidential elections).

The right to free speech is designed to allow citizens the right to influence public opinion and therefore votes. It is not designed to allow the government to limit the free speech of citizens on political issues and to merely allow them to express their views while voting, absent the benefit of the exchanges of information and opinion before the election.

I suspect you know this and miswrote the above.

 

[nageov3t]

just look at copyright laws.

the original laws set an expiration date, at which point something enters the public domain... thanks to lobbying by the entertainment industries, the copyright expiration date keeps getting pushed back, to the point where it's effectively endless today.