Get Rid of EVERY Single Lobbyist- Lobbying Is Nothing More Than STATE Sanctioned BRIBERY

[Orwellian_Ghost]

It would take forever to try all the crimes being committed on a daily basis in the halls and lobbies of Congress. It's a protection racket for US capital. The whole place needs to be cleansed.



Lobbying is nothing more than state sanctioned bribery.

[anonymous171]

1. I am pretty sure lobbying is protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Fireweed247]

18. It should be illegal for a foreign country to lobby our Congress to act in their behalf

It is treason for a Congressional member to act for another country. But that is what ALL of them have been doing. The entire war on terror....see PNAC!

[dkofos]

42. At least they want you to believe that.

[SoCalDem]

49. The word "lobbyist" just needs a re-definition

to what it has BECOME.. These days, MOST lobbyists are little more than highly paid "former legislators", whose singular assignment is to extort favorable legislation from former colleagues, in exchange for money with which they parlay future terms in office..

bribery, extortion, quid pro quo

[onenote]

62. I'm willing to bet you any amount you state that "MOST" registered lobbyists

are not former legislators.

[notesdev]

57. Is it?

Does the "right of the people" automatically mean the right of a corporation, fictional personhood notwithstanding?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. That is utterly and completely ignorant.

Not to mention unconstitutional.

Legal lobbyists, which number over 99% of the overall lot of lobbyists, do not commit bribery. Period.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. It's legal alright

State-sanctioned legalized bribery. The list is endless.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Outside of the same campaign contributions that anyone else gives,

there can be no other exchange of money or goods. And whereas most lobbyists make less than $70k/year, they aren't giving out many campaign contributions either.

Focus your outrage elsewhere, such as campaign contributions.

[dkofos]

43. How utterly naive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. And what, exactly, do you base that on?

Have you ever even met a lobbyist?

[JoseGaspar]

54. So what? Ban them anyway. Torture is unconstitutional too.

Ban the lobbyists and fuck the constitution. At least it will be for a good cause, for a change.

Don't water-board them though. We're not animals.

[aquart]

3. We registered them because we CAN'T get rid of them.

For the same damn reason we need to legalize drugs.

[ginnyinWI]

4. What about lobbies for good causes?

Like the National Resources Defense Council. They are fighting for the environment and the wildlife in it and are non-profit and supported by the likes of me.

http://www.nrdc.org/

[rcrush]

5. Or the MPP

Marijuana Policy Project

http://www.mpp.org/about/

MPP's Vision Statement

MPP and MPP Foundation envision a nation where marijuana is legally regulated similarly to alcohol, marijuana education is honest and realistic, and treatment for problem marijuana users is non-coercive and geared toward reducing harm.

MPP's Mission Statement (as approved by the board on December 1, 2008)

1. Increase public support for non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

2. Identify and activate supporters of non-punitive, non-coercive marijuana policies.

3. Change state laws to reduce or eliminate penalties for the medical and non-medical use of marijuana.

4. Gain influence in Congress.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Let's start fresh

The system is broken.

Those who are fighting for justice, and their are some, simply cannot compete with those who have the cash. I've lobbied and let me assure you that Exxon-Mobil wins out every time no matter how many ways are attempted or how many people lobby against them. That is the current state of affairs. There is no reforming this beast. It must be lanced like a boil before we can try a more just and sane approach.

[AndyA]

13. I think you may be right.

Just look at the bankruptcy overhaul a few years ago. And the credit card companies paid a fortune to get the laws changed so they could raise interest on balances from 7.9% to 24.9% just by notifying their customers they're going to do it. And late on one payment...all of your credit cards go to the MAX, even if you've never been late with the rest.

Who - exactly - had the American consumers best interests at heart? It surely wasn't our "elected representatives"...they were representing the corporations, not us.

We need a lot of things to change.

[tridim]

16. At which point the "Let's not start fresh" lobby kicks in. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. You must not have been a very good lobbyist.

Or you must have been on the wrong side of the issue (vis-a-vis composition of the Congress), because that is patently untrue.

[TBF]

33. The thing with "good causes" is that if there were more economic

parity in this country we wouldn't need to go this route. These organizations allow people to feel a little better (because they are ostensibly doing "good") while continuing to support capitalism and all that entails.

I know that some of these organizations have huge lobbying arms, and they've built those with small donations because it's the only way they see to fight the big corporations. Here is a website that will give you some information on lobbying and who the big players are - http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php. But it's sad to me that we've accepted this incrementalism as the best way to go.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. And the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee...

Friends National Committee on Legislation, Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, Common Cause, NOW... Many organizations include lobbying as one of several efforts to make this planet abetter place.

The Outrage of the Ignorant does not discriminate between babies and bathwater.

[blindpig]

67. Here's the problem:

Yeah, there's a lot of 'good' lobbyists, but what do they accomplish? Every fight is a real struggle and the victories are thin for the 'good guys'. Meanwhile the deep pocket guys just steamroll their way through on a bed of cash. There is a vastly disproportional effect, basically you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. By insisting on the viability of lobbying you give cover to the bad guys. Proportionally speaking, the bad greatly outweighs the good. And I can't see any way to drain that septic tank without the baby going down the plug hole. Just have to petition our reps by different means.

[ginnyinWI]

69. black and white thinking.

I don't like to see it on the left or the right. It rarely reflects the reality of a situation.

[rfranklin]

7. The real problem is bribes know as campaign contributions....

It is the problem created by the Supreme court equating money with free speech. That allows the corporations and billionaires to shout louder than anyone else and drown out everyone else.

[anonymous171]

10. Isn't there a way we could ban corporations from lobbying?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. No.

SCOTUS has ruled in favor of corporate citizenship many times, unfortunately.

[anonymous171]

26. Then that is what needs to change. Corporations are not citizens.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. I agree, but it'll take a lot of strong willed new Supreme Court Justices to make it happen.

Even the most liberal Justices rarely like to overturn SCOTUS precedents. Short of passing a Constitutional amendment, I don't see it happening.

On edit: Here's part of the problem with even that, however - corporations are lead by citizens, whom still would have the right to lobby. All changing the Constitution would do is move the game underground, by having the CEO's privately hire citizens to lobby on their own behalf, which would incidentally coincide with the corporation's interests. Ultimately, I think campaign finance reform (to a system of fully governmentally funded elections) is the only thing to really change matters.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. There's twice as much money spent on lobbying compared with campaign finance

Center for Public Integrity tracks influence peddling
SHOWCASE | September 20, 2005
‘LobbyWatch’ manager notes that twice as much is spent on lobbying as on campaign finance but it gets about one-tenth of the coverage.

By Alex Kingsbury

Following the money trail is an inexhaustible source of stories for reporters trying to understand and show how government actually works. The Center for Public Integrity has compiled a vast (and free) database of lobbying records with that goal in mind.

CPI's LobbyWatch Project adds thousands of records to the database each week as the disclosure forms are made public. There are currently about 2.5 million searchable records. "We wanted to create a resource for journalists and the general public that is user-friendly but doesn't talk down to them," said Alex Knott, project manager for the initiative, in a telephone interview.

The most useful feature of the database is the ability to cross-reference lobbying monies spent on or by agencies, issues, industries, countries and states. In the coming months, the database will expand to include information on companies and political action committees, Knott said. "There's twice as much money spent on lobbying compared with campaign finance, for example, and about a tenth of the coverage," he said.

<snip>

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=showcase.view&showcaseid=0026

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Lobbying is free speech.

It's petitioning the government over grievances.

[HamdenRice]

11. Like the Sierra Club? AFL-CIO? NAACP? Natural Resources Defense Council?

Lobbying originally just meant trying to talk to congressmen in the "lobby".

You may be thinking of campaign contributions -- a different issue.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

17. See post #14 n/t

[HamdenRice]

23. #14 doesn't answer anything

When you hear about big money being spent on lobbying, most of it goes to lobbyists. A senior lobbyist in a corporate lobbying firm gets paid in the $300-$1,000 per hour range. Plus junior staff, plus offices, plus expenses, etc.

Lobbyists are paid to write draft or proposed legislation and get congresspeople to look at it and adopt it. A big push to get a bill passed costs several million dollars, most of which stays right on K Street.

Lobbying money only gets into politicians' hands in the form of campaign contributions -- and even then, not directly from lobbying funds, but from the dual role lobbyists play as fundraisers.

[droidamus2]

21. Your right but,

Don't campaign contributions aid a group in their lobbying operations by getting them a good seat at the table? I absolutely disagree with the Supreme Court decision that equated 'money read wealth' with free speech. That says that those that are wealthy or have access to large pools of money can buy access and effect legislation in much bigger sense than everyday citizens. I see that as anti-democratic.

[HamdenRice]

25. Yes, lobbyists raise campaign funds

often bundling funds raised from other sources. My main point is just that the OPer is confusing issues. The problem isn't lobbying. It is, as you point out, campaign financing.

We tend to go off half cocked on this forum.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. +1 - your post is 100% correct.

[jody]

12. IMO STATE Sanctioned BRIBERY is allowing anyone other than constituents to donate to a candidate's

campaign and that should be capped at some reasonable amount. e.g. $100 or $200.

[defendandprotect]

31. Corporations should be barred from any participation in our elections . . .

However, I do think that individual citizens should understand that it doesn't

matter if your Senator is blocking Single Payer Health Care or some "blue dog"

in another state -- citizens should be able to join together to defeat the blue dog!

[onenote]

63. wow. So when I sent a check to Ned Lamont I was engaging in "bribery"?

I live in Virginia. Ned was running against Lieberman in CT.

Exactly what was I expecting in return for my bribe?

[jody]

70. My statement was IMO. If you approve of your donation, then you probably also approve of unlimited

donations to candidates by corporations and others, perhaps even foreign interests, who wish to influence the elected representative of about 625,000 citizens who look to their congressperson as their sole voice in congress, i.e. their one and only lobbyist for their specific needs and wishes of their congressional district.

[onenote]

71. leaping over tall buildings of logic arent you?

The fact I approve of my limited individual contribution to Ned Lamont does not logically lead to the conclusion that I also support "unlmited donations to candidaets by corporations and others perhaps even foreign interests". I am a strong supporter of the ban on corproate contributions and on the limitations on individual and PAC contributions. I recognize that while corporations cannot direcly contribute, they often can skirt that limitation through corporate funded pacs. Of course, some of the largest, most active PACs are union PACs that overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates. And there are many individual candidates who refuse PAC money -- Ned Lamont for one. He turned down a $5K donation by a union pac, so the union then announced that it was going to provide 5,000 "boots on the ground" -- union members working as volunteers for the Lamont campaign. Do you think that such activities should be banned?

[ProSense]

15. Now there is a well-thought out argument. n/t

[stillcool]

24. huh...So I can't lobby my government?

guess I better quit making those phone calls.

[harun]

48. Did you ever get to talk to an elected official? Because the real lobbiest

sure as hell do.

[stillcool]

52. Yes I can..my Congressman has..

public meetings in my area several times a year.

[harun]

56. That's excellent. Mine actually did one near my place recently.

The congressman not either of the senators. About 25 people went to a local diner he gave a talk then had individual meetings with people.

[onenote]

64. I am a "real" lobbyist and I almost never talk to elected officials

I work with staff, explaining my clients' positions, advocating in favor or or against particular legislative proposals, etc.

[defendandprotect]

29. Campaign contributiosn = bribes . . . !!!

except when individual voters contribute, they are simply gifts -- !!!

[Junkdrawer]

30. LOL...Hit a nerve did we?

Not like you'd be taking bread off anyone's table... :rofl:

But serious...what do other countries do? Is the multi-billion dollar lobby industry uniquely American? :shrug:

On Edit:

Wiki has some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#Lobbying_by_country

[FiveGoodMen]

32. K&R

[TBF]

34. K&R n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Unfortunately, the people who have the power to get rid of the lobbyists are the bribe takers.

Catch-22.

[backtoblue]

36. Ok, so lobbying started out innocently enough, BUT

Greedy folks have come to power and are bribed BEHIND closed doors from special interest groups. Politicians want to further THEMSELVES, not the poor, the helpless, the sick, or the oppressed.

[onenote]

65. you don't know your history

there has always been "good" lobbying and not so good lobbying. Campaign contribution reform has actually made the system better today than it used to be.

[backtoblue]

68. Please explain

[cascadiance]

37. National Public Campaign financing NOW!!!

And throw in Instant Runoff Voting too, to help keep these folks honest so that they can't buy "both sides off" even if they can find a way around campaign financing rules...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

38. Can some of the defenders of this system

put forth how it is that lobbying is working and show the cause and effect of such lobbying campaigns?

[onenote]

66. let's see: how about the AFL-CIO's lobbying for SCHIP and minimum wage reform

Terrible, wasn't it.

[Lerkfish]

39. there are good lobbyists -- what do you think Michale J. Fox was doing?

lobbying is like anything, it can be used for good or for evil. What you REALLY want to fix is bribery by lobbyists and their expectations of quid pro quo.

[TBF]

41. See no, 4 - you are right that in this system it can be used for good or evil. nt

[blindpig]

40. K&R

While every single lobbyists may not be bribing the institution opens the door to the worst sorts of mischief. Yeah, the good guys have lobbyists too, but as they say in DC(or your state capitol), money talks & bullshit walks. Big Money will crush good intentions every day of the week.

[NeedleCast]

44. My Non-Profit Organization Lobbies for Better Access to College Education

Not all Lobbies are bad...

[philly_bob]

45. I contribute to Non-Profit that lobbies for separation of church & state.

Not all Lobbies are bad...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

53. Despite your good intentions

In July 2005, Public Citizen published a report entitled "The Journey from Congress to K Street": the report analyzed hundreds of lobbyist registration documents filed in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act among other sources. It found that since 1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join private life have registered to lobby. The Washington Post described these results as reflecting the "sea change that has occurred in lawmakers' attitudes toward lobbying in recent years." The paper noted that

Congressional historians say that lawmakers rarely became lobbyists as recently as two decades ago. They considered the profession to be tainted and unworthy of once-elected officials such as themselves. And lobbying firms and trade groups were leery of hiring former members of Congress because they were reputed to be lazy as lobbyists, unwilling to ask former colleagues for favors.

But starting in the late 1980s, high salaries for lobbyists, an increasing demand for lobbyists, greater turnover in Congress, and a change in the control of the House all contributed to a change in attitude about the appropriateness of former elected officials becoming lobbyists.

Former lawmakers are eagerly hired as lobbyists because of their relationships with their former colleagues as well as other contacts. The Public Citizen report included a case study of one particularly successful lobbyist, Bob Livingston, who stepped down as Speaker-elect and resigned his seat in 1999 after a sex scandal. In the six years since his resignation, his lobbying group grew into the 12th largest non-law lobbying firm, earning nearly $40 million by the end of 2004. During roughly the same time period, Livingston, his wife, and his two political action committees (PACs) contributed over $500,000 to the PACs or campaign funds of various candidates.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

[TBF]

47. Wow, there seem to be a lot of lobbyists on this site! n/t

[maryf]

50. K&R though I actually have lobbied with my union for state education funds

its a shame to beg for what should be a given...

[TBF]

58. "Its a shame to beg for what should be a given"

Ain't that the truth. Most of us do some form of lobbying or supporting lobbyists, in theory, with our contributions and calls/letters etc... on behalf of the issues closest to us. Doesn't stop us from demanding overall systemic change though. And I know you are one with your feet on the ground. Wish I lived closer to NY so I could march with you.

[cwcwmack]

51. k&r!!

[leftstreet]

55. K&R

[SidDithers]

59. Alan Reuther, Legislative Affairs Director...

for the UAW. Just what exactly do you think he does in Washington? Hint, it's not oil changes.

Sid

[onenote]

61. Hyperbole much?

What you apparently don't know about "lobbying" could crash the internet.