Article on lobbyists in the state legislative process

[Craig234]

This is a good article by the San Jose Mercury News on the California State legislature and the role lobbyists have.

It has some statistics on how many bills have 'sponsors' versus the ones you read about in civics about legislatures raising issues for citizens - and how they're passed more.

This is not a partisan issues, money has made both sides guilty. Only one legislator (a Republican) did not introduce bills this session from a 'sponsor'.

On a side note, that widely approved Republican ran for Governor this year against self-funded billionare Meg Whitman, and lost badly to her money.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15452125

Read the article, and then ask what fixes are - including public financing that can make legislators less beholden.

A couple years ago, I reported on a survey of first-time CA legislators, who were asked their top concern with the system - they said having to raise funds all day.

This is not really democracy. We have some of that - there are bills they pass 'for the good of the people' but much if not most of their activity is now 'paid for'.

'Throw the bums out', term limits (which we have) solutions are not helpful - they do nothing to prevent the same problems happening again. It's not the people.

 

[Craig234]

Did anyone read this? The lack of posts suggests people are less interested in real issues than in threads about nothing but shiny fluff like Palin.

If this topic gets so little attention, it's little surprise how the people with money to gain from lobbying are defeating the public interests so well.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is a good article by the San Jose Mercury News on the California State legislature and the role lobbyists have.

It has some statistics on how many bills have 'sponsors' versus the ones you read about in civics about legislatures raising issues for citizens - and how they're passed more.

This is not a partisan issues, money has made both sides guilty. Only one legislator (a Republican) did not introduce bills this session from a 'sponsor'.

On a side note, that widely approved Republican ran for Governor this year against self-funded billionare Meg Whitman, and lost badly to her money.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15452125

Read the article, and then ask what fixes are - including public financing that can make legislators less beholden.

A couple years ago, I reported on a survey of first-time CA legislators, who were asked their top concern with the system - they said having to raise funds all day.

This is not really democracy. We have some of that - there are bills they pass 'for the good of the people' but much if not most of their activity is now 'paid for'.

'Throw the bums out', term limits (which we have) solutions are not helpful - they do nothing to prevent the same problems happening again. It's not the people.

It is the people. They're voting for representatives who are easily swayed by the corporations, so the people are at fault.

Not only that, the people can change their state's Constitution, to limit the power of the state government, but they choose not to.

If we were under a more limited government, the corporations would have no power. Things like having an executive branch, major centralization of governmental power, the interstate commerce clause, implied powers, and having no Constitutional limits on our military is helping the corporations.

 

[sandorski]

It is the people. They're voting for representatives who are easily swayed by the corporations, so the people are at fault.

Not only that, the people can change their state's Constitution, to limit the power of the state government, but they choose not to.

If we were under a more limited government, the corporations would have no power. Things like having an executive branch, major centralization of governmental power, the interstate commerce clause, implied powers, and having no Constitutional limits on our military is helping the corporations.

When Corporations are the only way to get the funding to afford Campaigning, it is more than "Easy" to be swayed by Corporations.

 

[Udgnim]

politicians voting for their campaign fund instead of for their constituents is nothing new

 

[waggy]

yeah. its getting bad when business are writing the laws. the CPSIA is proof its a bad idea. have Hasbro sponsor a law that is really bad but then make themselves except from the law. The real kicker is hasbro is the reason that people wanted that type of law (lead and such in childrens toy's)

 

[StageLeft]

Lobbyists are IMO the primary and most dangerous problem facing this country and I mean it. It is vote buying by any other name, legalized corruption. Politics in the US are more and more a fvcking sham every year.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is a good article by the San Jose Mercury News on the California State legislature and the role lobbyists have.

It has some statistics on how many bills have 'sponsors' versus the ones you read about in civics about legislatures raising issues for citizens - and how they're passed more.

This is not a partisan issues, money has made both sides guilty. Only one legislator (a Republican) did not introduce bills this session from a 'sponsor'.

On a side note, that widely approved Republican ran for Governor this year against self-funded billionare Meg Whitman, and lost badly to her money.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15452125

Read the article, and then ask what fixes are - including public financing that can make legislators less beholden.

A couple years ago, I reported on a survey of first-time CA legislators, who were asked their top concern with the system - they said having to raise funds all day.

This is not really democracy. We have some of that - there are bills they pass 'for the good of the people' but much if not most of their activity is now 'paid for'.

'Throw the bums out', term limits (which we have) solutions are not helpful - they do nothing to prevent the same problems happening again. It's not the people.

Great expose piece from the Mercury. I think most Californians know that this sort of thing goes on, but few know just how prevelant it actually is.

Any discussion of the issue is of course useless without solutions.

For starters, I suggest 100% transparancy of all bill sponsorships and all campaign contributions and other favors. There should be a non-partisan agency, sort of like the CBO, who assembles all the information and updates it constantly on the Web for the public to see.

For there, we have to work on ethics rules pertaining to lobbyists and campaign finance limits.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

It is the people. They're voting for representatives who are easily swayed by the corporations, so the people are at fault.

Not only that, the people can change their state's Constitution, to limit the power of the state government, but they choose not to.

If we were under a more limited government, the corporations would have no power. Things like having an executive branch, major centralization of governmental power, the interstate commerce clause, implied powers, and having no Constitutional limits on our military is helping the corporations.

Those who continue to suggest that the problems in our government are all about "bad politicians" and not something systemic in our political culture, our broader culture, and our inadequate ethics rules just boggle my mind. Your solution isn't any solution at all. Politicians didn't just suddenly become bad...just because. They are corrupted by the system.

- wolf

 

[StageLeft]

BTW I think the only way this will change is if a good person raises up to high if not the very highest office in this country and then back-stabs every lobbyist who gave him money and tries to pass a bill to outright ban it, no more fvcking corporate money to any politician, period, ever. This is corruption, let's stop pretending it's not.

This is your damned government, America, what the hell is wrong with you? http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/washington-lobbying-grew-to-32.html

 

[kranky]

It IS the people. If they would 1% as much time into researching candidates as they do watching reality shows, money and name recogition would not determine elections.

 

[StageLeft]

It IS the people. If they would 1% as much time into researching candidates as they do watching reality shows, money and name recogition would not determine elections.

I still believe that without lobbying legislation would be catered far more to actual people than corporations.

 

[Circlenaut]

Fuck I didn't realize it was this bad. Someone needs to rise up and ban campaign contributions in favor of a public campaign funding.

 

[hal2kilo]

It IS the people. If they would 1% as much time into researching candidates as they do watching reality shows, money and name recogition would not determine elections.

This. We have the government we deserve.