Lobbyists pissed off at Obama. Change we can believe in

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Is therre any way Obama can force the lobbyist out of Congress's reach?

You can't just be spending TRILLIONS of dollars every year and not expect there be lobbyists. Corruption follows money like water follows gravity. If you want to shrink the number of lobbyists, shrink the size and scope of the gov't.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I would like to see lobbyists out of Washington. But, I feel they need to exist in their own neck of the woods. They do represent a demographic of constituents. As a Pennsylvanian, I think lobbyists for the coal industry absolutely need to meet with the Senators/Representatives of PA. But that is it, plead their cases, and lobby for the cause, but nothing further. No kickbacks, no bribes, no money nothing. Talk and that is it.

Now, do I think it can be regulated to that, sure, just as I feel there should be a public understanding that torture is illegal. But we all know what will go on behind closed doors.

 

[PingSpike]

"They don't go into a meeting and ask, 'Are you a felon, are you a child molester, are you a terrorist?'" says Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists. "But they will ask if you're a lobbyist, and ask you to leave."

When those individuals attain the level of scuminess that lobbyists have attained, the law can be modified to exclude them as well!

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Was there a statement that he would accept NO lobbyists in his admin; yet he hired 2 or 3.

The day after Obama was sworn in, he signed an executive order that sharply restricts lobbyists' job prospects in the administration. Under the order, an agency can't hire a lobbyist to work in his or her area of expertise unless the White House grants a waiver. So far, it has granted four.

Seems reasonable to me.

He originally stated NONE would be allowed.

He's hired almost no lobbyists but he has hired some, you are right about that. In all honesty I'm glad he compromised on that one though, because that sort of strict ideological position is something that Obama tends to be against, and he was probably screwing himself out of some good employees because of it.

He appears to have sharply restricted their influence, but is willing to compromise for people he feels are important. I'm pretty okay with that.

Oh, OK, I see now. It's OK to lie and do something other than what you specifically said you would do in order to get elected. Lying is now called "compromise" when it's done by the dear leader?

Lets face it, I think we can all agree that fewer lobbyists and less lobbyist influence if probably a good thing. If Obama really succeeds in accomplishing that, then I'll be the first to say "well done!". What he's done so far though is simply window dressing to pretend to do something. I have not seen anything yet that would indicate less lobbying influence anywhere in DC.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

He's hired almost no lobbyists but he has hired some, you are right about that. In all honesty I'm glad he compromised on that one though, because that sort of strict ideological position is something that Obama tends to be against, and he was probably screwing himself out of some good employees because of it.

He appears to have sharply restricted their influence, but is willing to compromise for people he feels are important. I'm pretty okay with that.

Oh, OK, I see now. It's OK to lie and do something other than what you specifically said you would do in order to get elected. Lying is now called "compromise" when it's done by the dear leader?

Jesus christ people, no. If someone promises to do something you think is a bad idea, shouldn't you be glad that they don't end up doing it?

Obama will break many more campaign promises over the next 4 years in the same way that every other president throughout the history of campaign promises has. Some I get angry at him over. The fact that he massively reduced but did not eliminate lobbyists when he pledged to eliminate them is something that I'm having a lot of trouble getting worked up over.

 

[Fern]

Why is this part way down in the bottom of the article?

The top 10 recipients, including Citigroup and General Motors, together spent nearly $10 million to lobby Congress and the administration in the first quarter of 2009.

Looks like 1st quarter lobbying has been more effective than ever.

This part makes no sense:

And finally, in memos following passage of the economic stimulus package, the White House says registered lobbyists can advocate for specific stimulus projects only in letters to be posted online.

Limiting lobbying AFTER the bill has already passed is the very definition of 'closng the barn door after the horses have already left'. Not impressive at all.

Anyway since the WH had nothing to do with drafting the Stimulus bill, any talk of lobbyists influencing the WH as regards the Stim bill is ridiculous. The lobbying would have taken place with the House of Reps (who drafted it) and at the state level where lists of projects were put together and then submitted to the House.

Obama said no lobbyists working for the WH, then quickly hired 4. Hard to see how that's laudable. I'm not sure why lobbyists would necessarily want the paycut anyway. What they want is access, not a reduced W-2.

Then we have:

Wenhold says the policy has resonated through the administration, and lobbyists have been frozen out of meetings that have nothing to do with stimulus spending. He argues that registered lobbyists ? unlike others who ask for stimulus funds ? are legally bound to disclose their activities. He says the Obama team has its logic backward.

So lobbyists aren't alowed in some public meeetings? I don't see how that's a big deal.

THis article looks to me a strenuous effort to spin a pretty weak set of facts (then the burying of one important one at the bottom) into some kind of pro-Obama message.

Look, we're barley 100 days into his admin and they've been shoveling money to corporations at a record setting and mind-boggling rate.

I'll just finish by saying it's a bit premature to celebrate the reduced influence of lobbying (and I feel that's a d@mn generous attitude given what's occured).

Angst and embittered frustration by some lefties at the lack of 'Obama love' expressed by the so-called 'right-wing' over this (fluff) article is utterly baseless. (Also, I don't think we have 20 regular right-wing posters in P&N anyway).

Fern

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


One of those things is a war crime, one is a campaign promise. Even you should be able to figure out the difference.

What's interesting to me is that you have to be 13 to sign up for these forums. Assuming you didn't lie about your age when you did it, you have to be at a minimum 19 now. It's amazing to me that someone who is at least around 20 behaves like you do.

Oh this is rich.

Was someone almost convicted of war crimes?

What's interesting to me is that you spend so much time thinking about me(it makes me uncomfortable), if you spent half that time evaluating the decisions and policies of our president you might not be a radical leftist liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy


One of those things is a war crime, one is a campaign promise. Even you should be able to figure out the difference.

What's interesting to me is that you have to be 13 to sign up for these forums. Assuming you didn't lie about your age when you did it, you have to be at a minimum 19 now. It's amazing to me that someone who is at least around 20 behaves like you do.

Oh this is rich.

Was someone almost convicted of war crimes?

What's interesting to me is that you spend so much time thinking about me(it makes me uncomfortable), if you spent half that time evaluating the decisions and policies of our president you might not be a radical leftist liberal.

Your post doesn't make much sense. You were trying to establish equivalence between two things that are not even remotely so, and so I had to teach you the difference.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy


One of those things is a war crime, one is a campaign promise. Even you should be able to figure out the difference.

What's interesting to me is that you have to be 13 to sign up for these forums. Assuming you didn't lie about your age when you did it, you have to be at a minimum 19 now. It's amazing to me that someone who is at least around 20 behaves like you do.

Oh this is rich.

Was someone almost convicted of war crimes?

What's interesting to me is that you spend so much time thinking about me(it makes me uncomfortable), if you spent half that time evaluating the decisions and policies of our president you might not be a radical leftist liberal.

Your post doesn't make much sense. You were trying to establish equivalence between two things that are not even remotely so, and so I had to teach you the difference.

I have a feeling that I have not convinced you to use your critical thinking skills to evaluate our president, you would rather follow blindly, sheep are like that.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
If lobbyists are mad, somebody's doing something right.

I think ALL income outside of the federal salary should be permanently banned, and that furthermore, each congressman or senator should only receive the average income for his or her state on a yearly basis, or alternatively, what an army recruit earns in his first year. Punishment for taking bribes (PAC $ is bribes, any other assertions are excuses) should be a mandatory 25-year federal imprisonment in a maximum security facility with rapists and murderers. Campaign finance should be severely limited, to perhaps $10k total, which comes directly out of the candidate's own pockets.

I'm sick and tired of politics being a lifetime, insider, get-rich scheme. If the conditions were very harsh, only the most dedicated public servant would want to persevere through to do a great duty for our nation.

you'd have to be independently wealthy to run for office, then

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Arkaign
If lobbyists are mad, somebody's doing something right.

I think ALL income outside of the federal salary should be permanently banned, and that furthermore, each congressman or senator should only receive the average income for his or her state on a yearly basis, or alternatively, what an army recruit earns in his first year. Punishment for taking bribes (PAC $ is bribes, any other assertions are excuses) should be a mandatory 25-year federal imprisonment in a maximum security facility with rapists and murderers. Campaign finance should be severely limited, to perhaps $10k total, which comes directly out of the candidate's own pockets.

I'm sick and tired of politics being a lifetime, insider, get-rich scheme. If the conditions were very harsh, only the most dedicated public servant would want to persevere through to do a great duty for our nation.

you'd have to be independently wealthy to run for office, then

That is pretty much already the case.

The answer is we need more reps to at least dilute the money it takes to get elected.