News Stop Washington lobbyists (read legalized corruption)

[jaap de vries]

Dear PF friends,

The number one issue for the new presidential elections should be to put an mediate halt to the legalized corruption that is going on by Washington lobbyists. This is the reason why the US has made so many decisions that is in the absolute worst interest of the general population. IT IS DESTROYING AMERICA!.

 

[turbo]

Congress could stop the practice, but they will not because it's of benefit to them. Lobbyists are in town to exert influence and in DC influence=money! I would go one step farther and cap campaign contributions at an amount that the average citizen can afford and ban any contributions except from individuals - nothing from businesses, special interest groups, etc - just individuals. We the people are supposed to be represented by our elected officials, and as soon as they get to DC, they start filling their pockets and do the bidding of big businesses and special-interest groups that pay them. You can bet that if I could afford to pay my Congressman $20,000 to speak to my wife and myself at breakfast, he'd be giving me a whole lot more attention than he is currently. If these groups and their lobbies were legally forbidden to give money to Congressional members, their influence over our government would dry up.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no constitutional way to eliminate the practice of lobbying. It would require eliminating campaign contributions entirely. Essentially, the lobbyist is the voice of the group making the contributions. So it is entirely legal and Constitutional for a lobbyist to hand a politician an energy policy paper and then a great-big bag of money. Is that legalized bribery? Perhaps...

 

[turbo]

There is no constitutional way to eliminate the practice of lobbying. It would require eliminating campaign contributions entirely. Essentially, the lobbyist is the voice of the group making the contributions. So it is entirely legal and Constitutional for a lobbyist to hand a politician an energy policy paper and then a great-big bag of money. Is that legalized bribery? Perhaps...

Sorry, Russ. The authority granted to our government arises from the will of the populace. The perversion of our government by the robber-barons and businesses has elevated the rights of these entities to the point where they surpass the rights of individuals. Can you find in our Constitution any rights that accrue to businesses or special-interest groups? No.

 

[russ_watters]

What you said there sounds nice but doesn't actually make an argument relevant to the topic, turbo-1. The 'if-it-isn't-explicitly-stated-in-the-constitution-it-doesn't-exist' argument is meaningless. There is a reason why we also need laws.

Lobbying might violate the spirit of what the Constitution is about (which may be what you were really trying to say), but it would be extremely difficult to outlaw it without forming some contradictions to things like the 1st amendment.

 

[MeJennifer]

Dear PF friends,

The number one issue for the new presidential elections should be to put an mediate halt to the legalized corruption that is going on by Washington lobbyists. This is the reason why the US has made so many decisions that is in the absolute worst interest of the general population. IT IS DESTROYING AMERICA!.

Clearly not the America of the lobbyists.

 

[turbo]

What you said there sounds nice but doesn't actually make an argument relevant to the topic, turbo-1. The 'if-it-isn't-explicitly-stated-in-the-constitution-it-doesn't-exist' argument is meaningless. There is a reason why we also need laws.

Lobbying might violate the spirit of what the Constitution is about (which may be what you were really trying to say), but it would be extremely difficult to outlaw it without forming some contradictions to things like the 1st amendment.

Voters must be represented by the people elected to office. In the 1800s and going forward, huge infusions of cash have perverted the inclinations of our law-makers to the detriment of regular citizens. This has created an oligarchy (not too far from a monarchy) in which the rights of the individual can be swamped by the influence of the privileged.

 

[russ_watters]

Again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. You are talking in broad generalities that don't have any tangible link to the actual specifics of the issue. Let me give some hypothetical cases and maybe you can say what you think about them:

Case 1: I'm an adult citizen of moderate means. I send my Congressman a letter arguing that he should vote for a certain bill. At the bottom of the letter, I say "P.S., otherwise you are doing a great job, so here's a check for $10 for your re-election campaign." He votes for the bill. Did I just bribe him and should any/all of that be illegal? (I suspect this very thing happens thousands of times a year)

 

[edward]

Again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. You are talking in broad generalities that don't have any tangible link to the actual specifics of the issue. Let me give some hypothetical cases and maybe you can say what you think about them:

Case 1: I'm an adult citizen of moderate means. I send my Congressman a letter arguing that he should vote for a certain bill. At the bottom of the letter, I say "P.S., otherwise you are doing a great job, so here's a check for $10 for your re-election campaign." He votes for the bill. Did I just bribe him and should any/all of that be illegal? (I suspect this very thing happens thousands of times a year)

Man talk about hypothetical. Now days that is more like a fairy tale.

 

[russ_watters]

? Fairy tale? You don't think such a thing happens several times a day? Heck, I may just do it tomorrow to prove the point!

 

[BobG]

Case 1: I'm an adult citizen of moderate means. I send my Congressman a letter arguing that he should vote for a certain bill. At the bottom of the letter, I say "P.S., otherwise you are doing a great job, so here's a check for $10 for your re-election campaign." He votes for the bill. Did I just bribe him and should any/all of that be illegal? (I suspect this very thing happens thousands of times a year)

Man talk about hypothetical. Now days that is more like a fairy tale.

I received a survey from the Republican National Committee just about a week ago asking me my opinions about things such as:

"If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?"

At the end of the survey, I'm given the opportunity to contribute $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, or other to the RNC to help get candidates elected that support issues that Republican voters believe in.

People in the US band together all the time to provide both vocal support and economic support for the issues they believe in and helping get candidates that will further those goals elected is just a logical extension - and a Constitutional right.

I agree that corporations are able to band together to give a lot stronger support to their pet issue than the average citizens, but finding a practical way to ban one without banning the other is the tricky part.

 

[jaap de vries]

I am from the Netherlands arguably one of the most liberal countries of the world. I was surprised to find out that there are several Dutch companies that financially support bills/candidates which could not be more opposed to our view. When we rely on corporations to set our moral standards we are in deep deep trouble
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/~ftpnewyork/docs/donatiesrompstuk.pdf" In Dutch but bottom chart is self explanatory

 

[russ_watters]

A company is a group of people - does that group of people have the right to express their opinion and support a candidate?

 

[jaap de vries]

In a political action committee PAC the employee is not always aware which candidate they are actually supporting. I know it is a hard thing to outlaw Russ however, I am just throwing out there that horrible decisions are being made because of this.

 

[MeJennifer]

A company is a group of people - does that group of people have the right to express their opinion and support a candidate?

A company is not a group of people, instead it is a legal entity separate from its owners.

Actually I see nothing good coming from allowing such entities to donate money to political institutions, but that is just me.

 

[edward]

I received a survey from the Republican National Committee just about a week ago asking me my opinions about things such as:

"If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?"

At the end of the survey, I'm given the opportunity to contribute $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, or other to the RNC to help get candidates elected that support issues that Republican voters believe in.

People in the US band together all the time to provide both vocal support and economic support for the issues they believe in and helping get candidates that will further those goals elected is just a logical extension - and a Constitutional right.

I agree that corporations are able to band together to give a lot stronger support to their pet issue than the average citizens, but finding a practical way to ban one without banning the other is the tricky part.

Bob
I didn't mention banning anything, but surely there must be a better way than what this system has evolved into.

Our system has become totally corrupted compared to the original intent of the laws regarding access to federal law makers.. And it isn't just on the federal level anymore, "the lobby trickle down theory" ( if it works in DC it must be good) has brought problems of undue influence to State and local governments.

This has always been true to a certain extent, but when PAC money starts to use push polls for instance, it is time to re-evaluate our priorities.

BTW many of the surveys such as the one you mention are carefully crafted by P.R firm psychologists to intentionally and almost subconsciously influence ones thinking. A lot of us can see through that like a pane of glass, but a lot of Americans can't. For that matter far too many Americans can't even read the blasted surveys.

As for the particular survey question you mentioned, I am sure you realize that it is all about money. They don't give a hoot what you think. All surveys of that nature include the infamous "protect the security Americans" phrase.

 

[russ_watters]

In a political action committee PAC the employee is not always aware which candidate they are actually supporting.

The employee chose to be a part of the group. Ignorance or desperation is not an excuse for doing things you don't believe in.

 

[russ_watters]

A company is not a group of people, instead it is a legal entity separate from its owners.

Actually I see nothing good coming from allowing such entities to donate money to political institutions, but that is just me.

I think you are missing my point. A company is defined as a legal entity to partially insulate the owners from personal liability for the company's actions and to provide a path for governing/legislating the actions of companies (including legal recourse for breaking the law). That is necessary for companyies to be able to function.

But that does not change the fact that a "company" doesn't make decisions on its own, the people in the company make the decisions (colectively or through representatives).

So could you put your opinion into practical terms: what exactly would you outlaw? Would you outlaw the contribution to a political party/politician by all but individuals? Ie, outlaw the grouping-together of money/influence?

 

[edward]

But that does not change the fact that a "company" doesn't make decisions on its own, the people in the company make the decisions (colectively or through representatives).

If "people in the company" includes shareholders, Enron would not be a good example of this representation.

It seems that we are getting more and more large conglomerates that are as distanced from their shareholders as I am from my Congressman.

If I send my congressman a letter I get a standard form letter as a response.
The letter states that my concerns will be directed to the appropriate person.

If I e-mail my congressman I receive an electronically generated e-mail which states that the congressman receives so many emails that his office can not respond. The reply does ,however, thank me for sending the e-mail.

If I call, I get the congressman's local office who's employees haven't seen the guy since sometime last March. They claim that they will forward my issue to the proper office.

On the other hand, the Lobbyist of a large out of state corporation which has donated heavily to the congressman or his party, is going to get to have lunch or perhaps a game of golf with my congressman.

 

[russ_watters]

If "people in the company" includes shareholders, Enron would not be a good example of this representation.

Uh, that would fall under the "through representatives" part... The shareholders select/elect the board and CEO.

It seems that we are getting more and more large conglomerates that are as distanced from their shareholders as I am from my Congressman.

Apathy is not a reasonable excuse for inaction. In Enron's case, the shareholders and employees were actually defrauded (and the leadership appropriately punished), but if by apathy or bad decision making they select a ceo with a bad vision who runs the company into the ground, too bad.

If I send my congressman a letter I get a standard form letter as a response.
The letter states that my concerns will be directed to the appropriate person.

If I e-mail my congressman I receive an electronically generated e-mail which states that the congressman receives so many emails that his office can not respond. The reply does ,however, thank me for sending the e-mail.

If I call, I get the congressman's local office who's employees haven't seen the guy since sometime last March. They claim that they will forward my issue to the proper office.

On the other hand, the Lobbyist of a large out of state corporation which has donated heavily to the congressman or his party, is going to get to have lunch or perhaps a game of golf with my congressman.

So then you agree that you would be better-off if you formed a club of some sort and pooled your resources to get a better response...?

 

[edward]

So then you agree that you would be better-off if you formed a club of some sort and pooled your resources to get a better response...?

Is there any other choice? Joining an organization is the only way now days. But organizations can't get individual help for an individual having a problem with a specific government agency.

Many years ago when my father-in -law was having a problem with obtaining Veterans Administration health care, I wrote a letter to Congressman Mo Udall. There was an immediated response and after experiencing months of frustration Pop's problem was resolved within a week.

The weeek after that I then received a follow-up letter double checking to make sure that the problem was taken care of.

We will never see those days again. Mo took care of business for his people.

 

[ray b]

A company is not a group of people, instead it is a legal entity separate from its owners.

Actually I see nothing good coming from allowing such entities to donate money to political institutions, but that is just me.

local city laws limit donations both from CORP and total amts from each person
so bosses give out checks to the workers
with instructions on who they are to ''donate'' to
there by skirting the law and limit

we are not a free society
but a very expensive one
government costs are high
how much government do you want to buy

 

[daveb]

Hey, we do have the best politicians money can buy.

 

[jdlaughead@gm]

It is time to turn K-Street, into a DEAD-END Street! Stop Legalized Bribery! Edwards and Obama, have said, they would put the brakes on it!

The dirt, these Lawless Law firms are doing now, is that the lobbist lawyer goes into the senator or congressman's office, and gives him the CASH, and not the Lobbist, in that way, they can't question the Lawyer about his client, due to the confidentity between Lawyer and Client.

It might be time where are Congressmen are elected by LOT! That would end Bribery to congressmen.

 

[Evo]

It is time to turn K-Street, into a DEAD-END Street! Stop Legalized Bribery! Edwards and Obama, have said, they would put the brakes on it!

If believing that makes you happy...

It might be time where are Congressmen are elected by LOT! That would end Bribery to congressmen.

You're going to have to explain how you think that will stop bribery. Once they become a Congressman, they are open to the same bribery as any other official.

 

[jdlaughead@gm]

The difference is they can't be re-elected again, as they are elected by lot, and anybody who is a American Citizen can run for office, The word BAL-LOT,is how Democracy started.

 

[Evo]

A company is not a group of people, instead it is a legal entity separate from its owners.

I think you meant "corporation" not company. A corporation is established to protect the owners/officers of a company from personal legal liability (although now with Sarbanes-Oxley, officers of a company can be held personally liable for failure to adhere to certain financial and accounting procedures).

It does not prevent the people that run the company from acting on their personal beliefs through the corporation.

 

[jdlaughead@gm]

SORTITION is a legal way to elect Representatives, according to the Constitution,

 

[Evo]

The difference is they can't be re-elected again, as they are elected by lot, and anybody who is a American Citizen can run for office, The word BAL-LOT,is how Democracy started.

So, for 2 years they can take as many bribes as possible if they know that's all the time they have. Also, how do you consider being elected by lot will put qualified people into office?

But, then you would argue qualified people aren't being voted into office anyway.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

With a name like Gleeful Nihilism do you really need to guess my views on the matter?

I'd go into detail, but I just got off of a ban and should keep it down to a dull roar for a while.

 

[Yonoz]

So back to the disputed point:
I too think professional lobbying is counter-democratic. I agree that the problem is to put that ideal into practice. The question I see therefor is: by what criteria can professional lobbyism be distinguished from healthy democratic practices?

 

[hubertg]

If you read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins it should scare the hell out of you. Our Republic remains in name only. We are now in the grips of a corporatocracy. This has focused all our foriegn policy upon American Empire building based on "Manifest Destiny"...the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets, and you will understand why people fly airplanes into our buildings. hg

 

[Evo]

you will understand why people fly airplanes into our buildings. hg

The murder of thousands of innocent people can never be justified. That you would suggest that this kind of behavior is understandable based on lobbying is quite preposterous.

 

[mheslep]

The only way to significantly reduce the impact of lobbying in a democracy with 1st amendment protections is to reduce the economic size of the government.

 

[turbo]

The only way to significantly reduce the impact of lobbying in a democracy with 1st amendment protections is to reduce the economic size of the government.

There is another way. Outlaw bribery in the form of gifts, trips, hiring relatives for do-nothing jobs, and lavish speaking fees. I can't afford to pay my senators $20,000 to talk to me at breakfast, so I get form letters and lobbyists get face-time.

Our constitution was written to protect the rights of individuals, not to allow corporations and wealthy special interest groups to hijack our government by bribing our representatives. Some of the early retirements being announced by congressmen and senators seem to aimed at avoiding the 2-year wait that will soon be imposed on them if they want to join lobbying firms. If they retire before the end of the year, they only have to wait 1 year before collecting their paybacks.

 

[mheslep]

There is another way. Outlaw bribery in the form of gifts, trips, hiring relatives for do-nothing jobs, and lavish speaking fees. I can't afford to pay my senators $20,000 to talk to me at breakfast, so I get form letters and lobbyists get face-time.

Our constitution was written to protect the rights of individuals, not to allow corporations and wealthy special interest groups to hijack our government by bribing our representatives. Some of the early retirements being announced by congressmen and senators seem to aimed at avoiding the 2-year wait that will soon be imposed on them if they want to join lobbying firms. If they retire before the end of the year, they only have to wait 1 year before collecting their paybacks.

A worthy goal, but I don't see these suggestions accomplishing it. Lobbying is a sophisticated business. If you cut off direct contribution to politicians then ancillary parties start collecting more cash (Repub Party, Dem. Party) and they become powerful. Recall the 19th century Boss systems. Lobbyists also have what they call 'grass roots' campaigns in which a special interest will directly fund operations in the districts, not in DC, with employers, unions, etc. which need have no contact with official political organizations at all (they do, but need not). If you have cut off all funding to your politician, then he/she doesn't have the means to counter that in their districts. Mr Smith Goes to Washington is an illustrative dramatization. The general point is that given a large government big money sees it to be in its interest to manipulate the govt. process as much as possible.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Lobbyist are professional constituents; they happen to devote their time and effort toward the business of their client inorder to serve a district(s).