on LobbyingFollow

Just so we're crystal clear on this...

"Lobbyists" are those that give extravegant ammounts of money(ect.) to politians in order to influence their policies and actions.

and this has been going on for 130 years, a fact that seems to be the main defense of it.


While I am aware that if I felt so inclined I might go out and join or support a lobbying group if I so wished to really have a say in waht's going on, I doubt that a majority of the population is up for this nor even aware of it.


I understand that if some sort of outlaw on this lobbying practice we to be established, that it would take away alot of the glamour and prestige of being a modern politian, and thus perhaps allowing those jobs to begin to fan out into a more equal base of a standard of society. God forbid that happens, right? The last thing we need is for the average citizen actually have some influence with the way the government is run.

FYI, lobbying has existed pretty much as long as politics. It happened when people were paid to whisper in the ear of various kings, it happened in Rome and it happens all over the world today.

That doesn't make it any more "right." Just a lot more established.

Lobbying will always exist. If clear limits can be set on what can be done, then the collateral damage of corruption can at least be minimized.

On a related note, I've always said that politicians' annual salary should never exceed the median income of their respective precinct or consituency. I think that would directly and dramatically improve the face of politics.

Of course, that'll never happen as long as there are only career politicians around to keep an eye on their ever-fattening wallets.

This country was created and ran by corporations. And you expect lobbying to be available to your average schmoe?

I wonder when they're going to nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Bullsh[u][/u]it gbaji.

Go support the Phillip Morris lobby group. I'm sure you'll fit in very well with those guys.

Edited, Thu Jan 19 01:32:22 2006 by Meeko

Not that I'm particularly against lobbying/special interest groups per se, but...I'm not interested enough at 1am to go looking into the validity of this statement but exactly what was keeping the virtuous Republicans from adopting and maintaining their own standards for accepting money, gifts and the like? They're unable to refuse free vacations and bankrolls unless there's legislation prohibiting it?

Nothing at all. But is that everything involved in "lobbying"?

That's why I asked folks to define what they were talking about. Recieving gifts, trips, and whatnot is totally different from recieving campaign donations from a lobying group.

And even the trip issue is questionable as well. In the business world, it's not unusual at all for a vendor to spend money on a client. They pay to have them come out to see a new product. They take people out to lunch/dinner. They provide freebies (t-shirts and whatnot). Is that illegal? At what point is it illegal? If I'm lobbying for saving a particular forest from logging, should I require that the politician I'm lobbying pay his own way to come out to see the damage? Or can I pay for it? Is it *wrong* for me to do this?

It's a far more complex issue then simply calling for a ban on lobbying, don't you agree?


I'm specifically talking about campaign finance reform. While everyone loves to talk about the freebies handed out, the largest amounts of money are in the campaign donations (and arguably those have the largest effect on politics). That's the whole deal with Abramoff right now. That's also the whole deal with the Delay case. And interstingly enough, in both cases, at least from the politician's perspectives, nothing was done that was any different from what is done by thousands of lobbying groups across the country every day. My issue here is that it really seems as though the targets of these things are very carefully chosen to be those lobbying groups most heavily involved with Republican politicians. Meanwhile ignoring the fact that everyone uses the exact same processes. It just seems pretty hypocritical to me.


And the rhetoric with Abramoff is ridiculous. We've got politicans on both sides of the fense handing back campaign donations, not because there's anything "wrong" with having taken it but merely because the perception of having taken his money is harmful. But notice that he's the only person they're handing the money back to. What about all the other organizations and individuals? What determines wrongdoing here? It seems as though it's ok to take money from anyone as long as there isn't a big stink raised in the public eye about any particular lobbying group. Then you hand that guys money back and disassociate yourself from him, but keep accepting money from everyone else.

Is that really reform? Is that really fixing any problem? Or is that just scapegoating a few politicians and a few lobbyists in order to make it look like you're doing something? I just don't see that as a fix for anything except maybe flagging Democrat votes.

"Lobbyists" are those that give extravegant ammounts of money(ect.) to politians in order to influence their policies and actions.
---------------------------------------------------

not quite.

lobbying is a good thing. it is a group of people with a like minded purpose tryying to accomplish something by making a case before a politician. groups of people have come together, like "mothers against drunk driving" for example and passed some really good laws because of it.

the crime. influencing a politician with money as opposed to an ideal. greed. buying a law.

making it PERSONALLY profitable for a politician to pass or support something that may not be in the best interest of the people or the country by using MONEY.

like for example, when you stop payment on a check, there is a law in florida that lets the person you gave the check to have you ARESTED for kiting a check WITHOUT having to prove you did it maliciously. putting the burdon of proof on the consumer to PROVE it was just as opposed to haveing to prove he is guilty FIRST before arresting him. lobbiest in action.

another example. when a towing company takes a vehical they are entitiles to put a lein on any vehical the person who it is regestered to WITHOUT having to prove the regestered owner is at fault. personally, i traded in a vehical to a dodge dealer. apparently, they auctioned it off because it was a POS. well, it ended up in an impound yard, and a towing company put a lein on my current vehical so i could not even renew the tags.

i had PROOF it did not belong to me at the time it was towed. but the law is worded where it does not matter. it allows the towing company to recover its loss from whomever it is regestered to. it allows the towing company to EXTORT money from ME, and puts the burdon on ME to recover it from the Dodge dealer....LEGALLY. lobbiest in action.

luckily for me, i lease. ROFL, just traded it in for another for a couple years till they gave up. but you get my point.

using CASH to get politicians to pass or support laws that are not necessicarily in the best interest of the people or the country for PERSONAL GAIN.

kind of like giving the energy industry a tax break bigger than anything ever seen in american history at a time when they are making record profits evey year at the EXPENSE of PEOPLE and this COUNTRY.

lobbying is not bad. making it personally PROFITABLE for politicians to work with certian interest groups is BAD. VERY BAD. for the people in this country and for the country itself. BAD BAD BAD.

i hope you can understand better why the media blitz now. it is not about lobbiest. it is about lobbiest using money to influence politicans. lobbying is an intrigual part of our government and should remain so. throwing cash around by lobbiest is BRIBERY at the HIGHEST LEVEL.

Personally, I'd just not allow lobbying donations across the board. I'm sure there's a damn good reason for it besides bribery, but that's just what I think. I don't care if you're phillip-morris or the sierra club.