Lobbyists

[rickr15]

So reading the threads on here the one thing I notice is even when the reds and blues both agree on something it is usually not what Congress gives us.
Oh we may get a watered down version with a lot of riders and pork etc. But not just plain, good honest legislation that makes sense and helps the majority.

I suspect most of this has to do with the intense amount of legalized bribery that is done by lobbyists. Who of course are only speaking for those who can't (you know like the insurance industry).

I personally feel proffesional lobbying should be outlawed and accepting money(in any form) by a public official a crime.

Is there anyone here who feels lobbyists serve any good purpose that benefits the people?
Any thoughts?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by rickr15

Is there anyone here who feels lobbyists serve any good purpose that benefits the people?
Any thoughts?

Yes, I think lobbyists are useful in bringing the concerns of a variety of interest groups to the attention of our politicians. The problem is money. We need to strip them of the power they have to influence policy through campaign contributions. If the voluntary $10 check-off on our income tax forms would be made mandatory it would provide enough money all by itself to finance our elections.

Of course, since the Supremes have determined that money is a form of speech and thereby protected under the First Amendment We have a problem. Now, me, I think political contributions are commerce and should be regulated as such.

JOhn

[merrylander]

" I begin to believe seriously that large numbers of the American people are completely incapable of understanding English. Whenever I write anything that sets up controversy its meaning is distorted almost instantly. Even the editorial writers of newspapers seem to be unable to understand the plainest sentence. I ascribe all this to the public schools. They have been debauching the American mind for years."

H. L. Mencken

Now get a good dictionary, I recommend the OED, and look up 'citizen' , 'petition' and 'redress' and then tell me where the governments of China and Abu Dhabi qulaify as citizens or where a petition comes in the form of $100 bills. I believe Mencken's remarks apply to the Supremes who decided that the First applies to lobbyists.

[rickr15]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Now get a good dictionary, I recommend the OED, and look up 'citizen' , 'petition' and 'redress' and then tell me where the governments of China and Abu Dhabi qulaify as citizens or where a petition comes in the form of $100 bills. I believe Mencken's remarks apply to the Supremes who decided that the First applies to lobbyists.

I think you just said what I was thinking in a whole lot less words. I also think some of those $100 bills may have influenced that Supreme court decision in one way or another. Money talks and certain lobbys have a lot of it.

[d-ray657]

Unfortunately, "opinion shaping" goes far beyond lobbying. Lobbying/PR firms have "experts" to provide to the networks; letter writers; Op Ed writers; and all sorts of methods to put a favorable message out for anyone who can afford it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Unfortunately, "opinion shaping" goes far beyond lobbying. Lobbying/PR firms have "experts" to provide to the networks; letter writers; Op Ed writers; and all sorts of methods to put a favorable message out for anyone who can afford it.

Regards,

D-Ray

Mark it sold, baby!!!

Chas

[merrylander]

The thing is it says "petition for redress", now redress is a post facto function, i.e., the government must have already done something that a citizen feels has harmed them, It does not mean that you get invited into the WhiteHouse to write the energy bill.