Why should any lobbying about anything be legal?

[Nimrod2005]

How can we, so called freedom loving American people, accept that a lobbyist working for some cause for MONEY, can organize a campaign to influence what happens in our country?

How can we claim that we are free people? and we live in freedom? if lobbying influences what laws pass, how we govern ourselves, and who gets on courts...etc.

Why isn't governing about our elected political leaders getting into a room discussing if a bill improves our quality of life? if it makes us safer? better educated? healthier...etc.?

How can we accept that their work benefits anybody or anything else? other than us the people?

Isn't it by the people for the people?

[JerseygirlCT]

1. Because it is our right to address our representatives.

It's our right to have someone do that on our behalf. It's our right to band together with others of similar viewpoints and do so.

Lobbying per se isn't the problem. Many terrific causes and organizations "lobby" -- that is, make their desires, needs, causes, information known to members of our government. Nothing at all wrong with that. Their work DOES benefit many people.

But the corruption in the system, the way power attracts power... that's the problem. We'll never really fix it -- money, like water, will find a way in. But we have to be vigilant and continue to watch it and adjust as needed.

We also need to be far more particular about the representatives. That's the key, I think. Let anyone who cares to attempt to persuade an official to a position. It's the official who is persuaded not by sense, but by cents that is the problem. And they need to be held acocuntable. They need to be held accountable when they don't do their own work, and depend on lobbyists to make up their minds for them. They need to be help accountable when they put their desires and needs ahead of those of the country and those of their consituents. But we keep re-electing them. We DON'T demand what we need in representatives, too often.

[Nimrod2005]

2. That's my point

Unfortunately for our country and people, that's where I see a disconnect.

We elect them to do things for us, then lobbying comes into the picture good or bad it gets between us them, between us and the work we sent them to do. If they do good, and put us first, then no need to lobby them at all, right?

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Well, yes, I suppose

Although I doubt any one human being would have all the information at his/her fingertips needed to make sound decisions. And lobbyists DO provide that. Non-profits lobby, unions lobby, teachers lobby... it's not just fat cats like Abramoff and co.

I think the problem starts with the people BEING lobbied, not with lobbying itself.

[napi21]

5. You're missing something.

Lets say you live in Georgia, and you actually get the Reps elected that will do what you wish, but one of your main concerns is keeping SS the way it is, and if they need more $$, just increase the cap. Well, there's NO Ga. Rep on the Committee that handles that, and when the plan gets out of Committee and goes to the floor for a vote, YOUR Rep only has ONE vote! You need to have a group of people who think like you ALL contact their Reps, and preferably, contact the Reps who are on the Committee so the bill they decide on will be at least close to what you'd like. The only realistic way to do that is to get "A Lobbiest" to do it for you! They know who to see, and how to promote your wishes.

That's what the lobbiests for AARP do on behalf of the organization.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Sure you get guys like Abramhoff, and they have to be found and punished...and he will be!

Things will settle down for a while because all the others will be gun shy, but it will come back and need to be ousted again.

[libodem]

3. to form a more perfect 'union'

'UNION' that evil terrible word. We are the people, for the people, by the people, the founding fathers were talking about. Our collective power is what gives us power. We the people need to form a more perfect union. Common cause to get those Fascists out of our government.

[Starlight]

6. I really think professional lobbying should be illegal.

I have no problem with private individuals contacting their representatives about issues, but I think the whole paid special interest lobbyist system can't help but attract unethical people.

[Toots]

8. Lobbying should never be illegal but giving money to candidates should be

All elections should be publicly financed and it should be a felony to give any money to a candidate period.... We should never be denied the right to lobby for our cause though. Lobbying does not take money, it takes salesmanship. It takes a winning argument and a charismatic person able to get face time with a Congressman. In place of charisma they use money and thus corruption.

[Starlight]

9. I don't think the charisma, salesmanship & debating skills of special

interest groups should get them special treatment either. Government should be for the people, not for the special interest groups.

[Silverhair]

12. Your plan would destroy many freedoms.

Think very carefully about what you want in the way of campaign financing. You want it paid for from gov't funds only. Think it through, and you won't like it.

You have to have some sort of method to separate out the serious candidates from the ones just trying to get the money. So you now have the gov't having the power to decide who gets campaign money AND WHO DOES NOT. The gov't then gets to choose the list of candidates that you hear.

Further, there is the question of freedom of speech. I like candidate X. I think people need to hear his message. Why can't I help get the message out? Your gov't would stop me.

That is called tyranny.

[patdem]

13. Well, Silverhair, since a corporation cannot vote they should not be

able to hire lobbyists in order to purchase a congressperson's vote. It should be illegal for a CORPORATION to hire a lobbyist. All lobbying should be a direct result of VOTER participation. All lobby groups should represent VOTERS and not MEGA corporations whose income rivals that of many contries. Someone mentioned that Exxon Mobile was bigger than all the voters in the USA and that there is NO ONE who could compete with Exxon Mobile ANYWHERE. I don't even think UNIONS should be able to lobby, but there could be several UNION lobby firms to whom individuals can contribute to lobby on their behalf depending on the ISSUES that lobby firm represents. I think ALL LOBBYING should be funded by VOTERS ONLY!

[Silverhair]

15. Interesting. Idea has merit. Deserves thought.

Your idea would completely eliminate foreign lobbyists too. I like that.

[onenote]

19. Bad idea

Under your approach, as I understand it, individual breast cancer survivors (and others interested in federal support for treatment and cure research) can individually contact members of congress and say "fund cancer research". But if they form an organization (like the the Susan Komen Fund or the National Breast Cancer Coalition) and come up with a coordinated strategy where they send in a representative to meet with members of congress to propose a specific funding plan, providing arguments in support thereof (facts,figures why the money would be well spent and how it would be accounted for etc), they should be thrown out of the representative's office and told to never ever come back.

onenote

[Silverhair]

22. I don't think that is what the poster meant.

I think they meant that GM should not be able to send a lobbyist, but a coalition of voters could organize and send a lobbyist. So the Susan Komen Fund and the AARP, and yes, the NRA, would still be in business, but GM, Ford, Chevron, etc would not be able to send a lobbyist. However, individual stockholders of GM would be able to form (with GM help)a stockholder's association to lobby, but they would have to be US Voters in the association, and direct stockholders.

[patdem]

23. That is exactly what I am saying..if a group of CITIZENS...care..and can

form a lobbying group...it is valid...ONLY corporations and unions would be forbidden to give to lobbyiests...ALL citizen groups would be not only permitted but the ONLY way to lobby congress.

[onenote]

24. a lot of the funding for groups like Komen come from corporate donations

So would they have to forego that source of funding? And a lot of "citizens" groups are corporations themselves. So how do you distinguish which corporations can hire a lobbyist (either on staff or as an "outside counsel") and which can't?


onenote

[onenote]

18. thanks Silverhair and JerseyGirlCT

I've been searching for some reasoned voices on this subject.

onenote

[MadHound]

7. It isn't the lobbying per se

It is rightfuly protected as free speech, and many disparate groups use lobbying as an effective tool to help the people, planet and address serious problems. And it is morally correct that lobbying groups from both sides of the political spectrum are in play, it keeps everybody honest. However the problem with lobbying and lobbyist is when money and politics meet, that is where corruption breeds. This is where you get your Abramhoffs and K Street Projects.

Why do politicians have this need for money? Because they wish to retain their political power. While their own personal fortunes rate in the hundreds of thousands and millions, running an election campaign in this million dollar a minute advertising age is beyond all but the very wealthy's capacity to pay for. And even those do so grudgingly. Thus we have the spectre that Mother Jones wrote of a number of years back, Newt Gringrich dialing for dollars each and every day since he entered office, at least two hours every day, pulling in thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for every call. Thus, one can see that the temptation to do an Abrahoff's bidding is huge. Pass some little gambling bill, push through a pork barrel project, throw some government business Jack's way. A few of those and your campaign chest is well filled.

But take money out of that equation, all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to just get a campaign off the ground. Instead make each and every election campaign funded by the public, from dog catcher to the president. Make that little "Fund the Election One Dollar" voluntary contribution on your 1040 mandatory, there's a good chunk of your funding right there. The airwaves in this country are still the public's domain, nominally at least. Mandate that as a condition of getting their license, each and every radio, television, and satellite station donate X amount of airtime, equaltibly split, to each and every candidate. That takes away another large chunk of campaign expense. Finally, each and every election campaign can only run a pre determined amount of time, something on the order of six months. During my lifetime I have watched Presidential elections go from six months to nine months to a year, and finally now working on a year and a half to two years.

Thus you remove money from the equation, and also the incintive to take bribe money. As a power addicted political animal do you honestly think that you would jeapordize your standing, walking those corridors of power, for money, especially since you no longer need it, and to get caught would risk your removal from those selfsame corridors? Power junkies are like any other, they'll risk their live to get their fix, but they won't risk their stash even if it's a matter of life and death.

Free speech isn't the problem here, it is that our collective political speech is being bought and sold. Take away the money, remove it as a commodity, and that speech now becomes what our collective forefathers intended, the counsel from we the people.

Oh, and if you still don't think that we could fully fund this, well hell, tax the lobbyists. Jack's got tons of cash.

[onenote]

20. I agree that the money is the problem, but the answers aren't easy

The problem is not the advocacy of public policy positions by lobbyists on behalf of those they represent, it is the fundraising activities of those lobbyists on behalf of the officials they are trying to influence.

The problem with a total ban on private funding of campaigns have been articulated by Silverhair. You can't fund everyone..there needs to be some criteria. But those criteria will inevitably favor the established candidates and limit third party movements. You could create an exception that allows someone to use their own money, but now you're just insuring that only the very wealth have any chance.

Clearly one step has to be better reporting. And limits on entertaining. Its one thing to donate to a campaign. Its another thing to fly a congressman to the Super Bowl. The latter looks a lot more like "commercial" speech than political speech and should be more constrained.

onenote

[Silverhair]

10. One man's lobbyist is another's delegate to congress.

I can't go to Washington myself and directly talk to a congressman about an issue, so I join a group of people who view the issue the same way and we send a messenger to congress. Since he is using his time and has expenses, it is only fair that my group pay for his time and expenses.

To you he is a lobbyist, but to me he is my messenger taking my message to congress.

[OneTwentyoNine]

16. Where's the lobbist for people making minimum wage??

I agree with the need but it usually seems like the big dogs/Corporations have the lobbists,people who really need them don't.

With all the millions on top of more millions that Abramoff took in,blew,wined and dined was ONE person who really needed the help of a lobbist ever helped??

[Silverhair]

17. I never claimed the system was perfect.

Nor does freedom result in an egalitarian society either.

[onenote]

21. unions, among others, lobby for increases in the minimum wage

[Odin2005]

11. Lobbyists arn't the problem.

It's that subset of lobbyists that buy influence thatb are the problem. The reason we have lobyists is that it is stupidly unrealistc to expect politicians to be knoledgable about every possible topic.

[The2ndWheel]

14. It is

"Why isn't governing about our elected political leaders getting into a room discussing if a bill improves our quality of life? if it makes us safer? better educated? healthier...etc.?"

That's exactly what it does. It all depends on who's "our" you're talking about. I know we like to pretend that it's a government for, by, blah, blah, blah. We know it isn't. It never has been. It's the government of whoever has the time and money to write the law. You want "better education" for your kids, but so do the corporations through owning what is put into your child's head. You have to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for your child, taking up all your time. The money only wants to own your child's brain and pocket, and they'll never stop trying.