Lobbyists
- Thread starter KMFJD
- Start date
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Seems a bit unconstitutional at first glance. That aside, lobbyists provide to the Government their clients position. They often write the proposed legislation when they deal with Congress. Usually there are competing sides on issues that lobbyists are paid to present their side to. At times there may be two or more Lobbyists presenting their positions. This is good for America, I think. We, the citizen, may feel strongly about an issue like the environment and would have Congress act to mitigate that whilst the entities affected by such mitigation may show that while the mitigation is needed there are other considerations as well. Lobbyists usually don't lie. They'd lose all respect if they did. They present the other side is all.
The wine buffet and free flights and all the stuff we hear Congresspeople get from Lobbyists is covered by Ethics rules..
I think it is a good thing.
When Reagan took office, there were a few hundred lobbyists. Today, over 35,000 IIRC.
I think it'd be a good thing to make other reforms more than ban lobbyists.
If they're just banned, they find new ways to do the same thing, and all kinds of bad behavior like the 'revolving doors' go on.
We need to create a bigger barrier between serving in the government and the private areas the government can benefit IMO, and limit corporate money in politics
Unless we want a system where democracy is a joke and the corporate interests who stand to make a fortune buy the politicians they want to give them what they want..
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Its sorta like my daddy always told me, that fine print in the contract you are signing is not put there to protect you.
Lobbyist are the same, their interests and the best interests of the American people are two separate and mutually exclusive things.
But because lobbyists fill that squeaky wheel of money is the mother's milk of politics, we get the best government money can buy too damn often.
The answer is concerned citizens, and instead we have a hot bed of apathy.
Lobbyist are the same, their interests and the best interests of the American people are two separate and mutually exclusive things.
But because lobbyists fill that squeaky wheel of money is the mother's milk of politics, we get the best government money can buy too damn often.
The answer is concerned citizens, and instead we have a hot bed of apathy.
I have thought this for years: triple the all of the politicians' salaries and then rigorously enforce corruption and bribery laws already in place. Some would have to go to prison and feel the pain but the message might get through. This is an uphill battle because it's human nature to try to game the system. We've clamped down on other moral crimes, such as murder, so we might as well try something different with special interests rather than act helpless.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are being naive seemingly random, its not the lobbyists directly bribe politicians, and when lobbyists hold the key to raising the 30K plus per day it takes to get reelected, and us citizens only give honest politicians a few bucks, its that lobbyist voice that talks, and public interests walks.
Partly blame SCOTUS, money is free speech.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Sounds unconstitutional to ban them directly. However, I disagree on principle that money constitutes free speech. It is when you put those two together - lobbiests and heaping bagfuls of money - that you have a really bad situation, i.e. exactly the way things are now. :/
First of all it is guaranteed in the first amendment that we can petition the government for redress of grievances, that's pretty much lobbying to the letter. Banning them seems pretty horribly unconstitutional to me.
Secondly, just who is a lobbyist anyway? Whenever you call up your congressman you are technically lobbying him to support whatever position you want him to take. Can you not do this anymore either? I'm not even sure how legislation to ban lobbyists would even work, because it seems that the process of legally identifying someone who was a 'lobbyist' would be almost impossible to do.
Finally, of course they don't represent all Americans. If they did, they probably wouldn't need to be lobbying in the first place.
Secondly, just who is a lobbyist anyway? Whenever you call up your congressman you are technically lobbying him to support whatever position you want him to take. Can you not do this anymore either? I'm not even sure how legislation to ban lobbyists would even work, because it seems that the process of legally identifying someone who was a 'lobbyist' would be almost impossible to do.
Finally, of course they don't represent all Americans. If they did, they probably wouldn't need to be lobbying in the first place.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
There are two or three issues there... Lobbyists, Campaign Reform and Governmental Ethics Reform. Maybe more.
Anyone should be able to lobby for their position or that of their family or their client.
Elected Representatives (State and Federal) should not have to rely on donations from anyone. They should be given a set sum from the general fund(s), Air time equally as an individual and have televised (free of expense) debates.
It should be considered bribery to give any elected official money or in kind emoluments which would be construed to induce a favorable outcome.. quid pro quo and the like... and it is.
But, I really do want the lobbyist to represent their client because I for one hope the decisions made in DC reflect the best judgment possible given the many competing interests.. Big business included.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Accountability and the ability for the common peon to research the money trail. All these laws in place such as you can't write that if you accept payments because of paypal that you will charge an extra 3% over a cash payment. Paypal charges 3% for the transaction and because some senator got an all expense paid trip to hedonism resort in jamaica... I can't charge and extra 3% to cover those fees. It's crazy I tell you.
Stupid crap like this gets buried in some bill that no one reads... the lobbyists spend the $$$ so this happens.
Stupid crap like this gets buried in some bill that no one reads... the lobbyists spend the $$$ so this happens.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
So long as political advertising works, there will always be lobbyists. Just like there are people that respond to spam email for penis enlargement, apparently there are people that respond to millions of television ads for "change you can believe in" and similar drivel (fill in your hated political statement of choice here).
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
That 3$ is the reason Paypal provides the service. It enables commerce to flow. They are the conduit between you and someother entity through which $ must flow.
IF all of Congress went to Jamaica it is fine by me so long as it was a legal transaction.
btw, you can recoup your 3$ or % by increasing your price but if that exceeds your competition, well... Market forces at work.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,562
- 969
- 126
It would be an amazingly good thing. But honestly, I don't think it will ever happen. Our government and politicians wouldn't know what to do without special interest pulling their strings.
It is sad really, because everyone wants a bigger piece of an ever shrinking pie. It's a recipe for failure.
It is sad really, because everyone wants a bigger piece of an ever shrinking pie. It's a recipe for failure.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,562
- 969
- 126
Too bad for you this is not a problem that is endemic to the Democratic party...otherwise your post might actually hold a tiny bit of truth.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.
Lobbying is petitioning your representative. Banning it would take away the ability of the people within a democracy from excercising their right to influence their reps.
You're mixing up two things, lobbyists - the hired guns who use relationships and donations to campaigns to get their sponsors' causes listened to - and advertising they pay for.
There are large reductions to both that we can do and that we ought to do for the health of our nation (literally and figuratively).
There are some challenges - the nonsense about corporate perosnhood is a challenge to reverse - but the main thing is we do what we can, which we're not doing now.
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
No hot bed of apathy, no sir. When concerned citizens get angry and let their views be known, they're labeled as AstroTurf and Nazi's - among other things.
So what's the answer again?
For those that contend that it would be unconstitutional to ban lobbying, there is a big difference between Joe citizen calling his representative to express his views and an individual who is getting paid to express the views of others. Joe citizen cannot walk the halls of Congress and get an appointment with the ease a lobbyist can. The difference is the heat the lobbyist is packing - the good old U.S. Dollar.
The distinction could be made quite easily between these two and the latter could be outlawed. Unfortunately for the people of this country, the very same people that benefit from lobbying are the only people that can change the system.
A *gasp* law would have to be passed to do so and it's quite obvious that's not going to happen.
Shame on those of you here that make arguments because you fear a change to the status quo.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
This.
Apathy of the people is the real problem. Of course, if I could quit my job and be paid full time to bug congressmen about my concerns it would be a different story.
In that sense I kind of admire lobbyists, they get paid to do what many folks want to do without pay but dont have the time.
The reason I dont admire them is they arent concerned about anything except one special interest that probably isnt good for the people as a whole.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
I understand the purpose of the fee. My point is that if you go to the For Sale forum here and ask for a 3% differential.. your thread will get locked. Sure I can raise the price of my for sale item... but can you give me one other reason why I can't charge the 3% for credit transaction other than a credit card lobbyists got this to be a law?
I am using this as an example. There is a lot of other nitpicky crap that congressman get paid a lot of money to put into law. These serve no other purpose than to help a company's bottom line.
Look at the satellite/cable wars. Lobbyists in some states are pushing for extra taxes to be levied on satellite programming. Do you suppose the cable company lobbyists are behind this or some concerned citizen who feels it is simply a good idea?
Elias824
Golden Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,100
- 0
- 76
It can be argued that lobbying is undesirable because it allows people with particular interests which represent a minority to gain special access to law-makers and through contributions and favors have controversial relationships with representatives. This is a danger to democracy as described in Article 22 of the Federalist Papers. Though many see lobbying as a potential corruption to the system, others disagree. Bill Clinton defended his wife's reception of lobbyist money for her campaign by saying:[10]
? Lobbyists are registered, they register with the federal government and can give the same amount of money, $2300, anybody else can. That's not going to influence you. What gives the lobbyists influence is the people who hire them to work for them. It's all the people they represent. So all these people who don't take money from lobbyists, they take money from the lobbyists' spouses, their children, their brothers, their sisters, from all the people they represent. It's a distinction without a difference, I think. There's no significant financial gain, because there are not that many lobbyists. If we're going to take money from the guys who pay the lobbyists, why treat them [the lobbyists] as less than full citizens? ?
Economist Thomas Sowell defends corporate lobbying as simply an example of a group having better knowledge of its interests than the people at large do of theirs.
In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . .
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbying activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Some bits and pieces from Wikipedia, Anybody can lobby just because a few people dont use is resoonsibily is no reason to re-write our govt.
? Lobbyists are registered, they register with the federal government and can give the same amount of money, $2300, anybody else can. That's not going to influence you. What gives the lobbyists influence is the people who hire them to work for them. It's all the people they represent. So all these people who don't take money from lobbyists, they take money from the lobbyists' spouses, their children, their brothers, their sisters, from all the people they represent. It's a distinction without a difference, I think. There's no significant financial gain, because there are not that many lobbyists. If we're going to take money from the guys who pay the lobbyists, why treat them [the lobbyists] as less than full citizens? ?
Economist Thomas Sowell defends corporate lobbying as simply an example of a group having better knowledge of its interests than the people at large do of theirs.
In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . .
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on lobbying activities, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the right to petition government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Some bits and pieces from Wikipedia, Anybody can lobby just because a few people dont use is resoonsibily is no reason to re-write our govt.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter