A way to limit lobbyist, and shake up the Senate

[SerriaFox]

Ok this is two idea in one:

1. Assign Congressional Committee membership by lot every two years, without regard to seniority or party affiliation.

2. Ban lobbyist for giving money to incumbents until congress recesses for the year. The only way they can come back is if the President calls for an emergency session.
*Lobbyist would have no way of knowing who would be on the committee they want to influence.
*Note I said incumbents, so that congress can't stay in session forever.

 

[Cutlass]

Simpler, ban all money from lobbyists at all times.

 

[galdre]

Simpler, ban all money from lobbyists at all times.

this

 

[SerriaFox]

As an Individual citizen I don't have access to congress, and I can not have access to congress. There simply is not enough time in the day for congressmen to meet with every constituent.

Secondly While I am deeply interested in the National Airspace, and access to it, being a member of AOPA is a better use of my time and resources than having every pilot go to congress daily.

Which is why you can't ban lobbyist.

 

[galdre]

Sure you can ban lobbyists, and we should, it allows those with more money to have a greater voice.

Politicians doesn't have to meet with all their constituents. If their constituents feel strongly about something they can write/call in and the people working for the politicians will gather the info and pass it on (ie, 1,000 people called and asked you to _____)

 

[Winner]

Simpler, ban all money from lobbyists at all times.

This would only make them more likely to corrupt the politicians in greater secrecy. Even the EU has official rules and guidelines concerning lobbying in the European Parliament and Commission. (EDIT: Wait, you mean lobbyists in the US are allowed to actually give money to politicians?)

Lobbying is a part of democracy, but it needs to be regulated.

If I were you, I'd focus more on separating politicians from their rich sponsors, which is corrupting them much more severely.

 

[SerriaFox]

(EDIT: Wait, you mean lobbyists in the US are allowed to actually give money to politicians?).

There allow to give to the "campaign to re-elect So and So," which has a different treasurer but is mostly controlled by the candidate.

 

[History_Buff]

Which is why you can't ban lobbyist.

Cutlass didn't say ban lobbyists. He said ban lobbyists from giving not-quite-bribes to politicians. Make them express themselves with words instead.

(EDIT: Wait, you mean lobbyists in the US are allowed to actually give money to politicians?)

Pretty much. They really need to change their elections to be public funded.

 

[Ajidica]

I was reading somewhere (I think it was Newsweek) that the limits on what lobbyists can spend have contributed to an increased polarity in Congress. Prior to the lobbying laws the lobbyist would throw what ammounted to parties for a whole bunch of congressmen, bringing them together so they would get to know each other. Now that happens much less and lobbying takes place more on a one-to-one basis, increasing divisiveness because there is less contact across the aisle.
Is there any truth to this, or is it lobbyist apologism?

 

[SerriaFox]

Pretty much. They really need to change their elections to be public funded.

With a Public funding how would you determine who get money/ad time? Everyone even thoses who have no real chance of winning (they just want to show dead babies everywhere) The want-to-be Actor looking for publicity?

I agree public funding would be a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure about how to do it in practice.

At least lobbyist have to have X-number of supporters to give money. Although this is grossly abused. Rich guy Y give money to his employees and tells them to donate to cause Z.

 

[GamezRule]

We need to get rid of Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups.

 

[Tahuti]

You could replace congress with direct binding referenda: I doubt political lobbying would continue to be feasible if the ones in charge are millions of people instead of a few hundred men and women. But of course, you will risk the entire USA turning into California.

 

[Ajidica]

I think anything is better then the mess California has, and you can quote me on that!

 

[Kozmos]

Ban lobbying?

 

[Tahuti]

On the other hand, it are not just corporations who lobby. Think tanks, universities and unions lobby as well.

 

[Miles Teg]

1. Assign Congressional Committee membership by lot every two years, without regard to seniority or party affiliation.

The problem with this is that someone in Washington has to understand the field of policy that the congressional committee is working on. If you don't let congressmen and senators build that knowledge, the people in the know are going to be unelected folks in D.C.

In fact, you'd probably get something similar to what states with tight term limits in their state houses experience, and watch congressmen with no clue what they're doing being led around by corporate and special interest lobbyists who are oh so willing to provide policy positions, sound bites, and white papers to the congressman with no expertise in the field that his committee covers.

Anyways, you seem to be working on the premises that lobbyists primarily offer money. That may be true of the ones representing corporate interests, but there are scads of special interest groups that represent liberals and conservatives on issues, and offer backing and support to friendly congressmen. The NRA for example doesn't need to bribe anyone, it can just threaten to primary a Republican who doesn't look sufficiently pro-gun rights.

 

[Kozmos]

On the other hand, it are not just corporations who lobby. Think tanks, universities and unions lobby as well.

Write a letter?

 

[G-Max]

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Problem solved.

 

[Cutlass]

You could replace congress with direct binding referenda: I doubt political lobbying would continue to be feasible if the ones in charge are millions of people instead of a few hundred men and women. But of course, you will risk the entire USA turning into California.

You don't risk it: You guarantee it. Referendum just don't work beyond a small group.

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Problem solved.

How does making the Senate more corrupt solve anything?

 

[G-Max]

How does repealing the 17th Amendment make the Senate more corrupt?