Lobbyists

[JohnGalt80]

Lobbysts are a necessary evil. They counter-balance populists, who'd choke businesses to death with their socialist agenda.

 

[Mark1031]

I think it could be banned. That is getting any special personal access to legislators could be banned. They can easily provide information by sending white papers to congress and testifying before committees. They can also have personal meetings as long as when they request a meeting they are put in the same queue as a constituent visiting Washington requesting a meeting.

 

[DNK]

I think it's more the money and influence being thrown around more than the actual act of "informing" that bothers me. How much that information is actually unbiased and not just the industry lobbyists telling the politicians how to spin things better is unclear to me.

I agree that discussion would be more beneficial, but what happens when a politician only hears one side of the story, and chooses to do so?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Lobbysts are a necessary evil. They counter-balance populists, who'd choke businesses to death with their socialist agenda.

Aren't there better ways to reach the same goal without using your "evil" ?

 

[The Yankee]

No, I wouldn't support a ban on all lobbying. After all, given that there are 300 million Americans and only 535 members of Congress, not including the relevant White House staff, as well as various numbers of state and local legislators and executives. It's not as if you or I could readily go to the politicians needed and push for this or that.

What is more democratic than people with similar interests banding together to give strength in numbers?

However, there should be plenty of restrictions on lobbying, such as the whole deal with gifts, such as making sure they can't just stroll onto the floor of the House and Senate, such as not being able to cash in on contacts just as soon as a person leaves the government, such as registering themselves and their activities so that we know who does what, when, where, and who the receptive lawmaker is in each case.

I think, now that I think about it, Whomp's call that there should be no lobbying in foreign affairs, is probably a sound decision. Although public opinion and vocal minorities have always played a part of deciding certain issues, there should not be undue influence that could determine America's stance in the world or its interests. That can be decided at election time.

 

[mdwh]

Are you going to lobby for such a ban?

Things like money donations are a bad thing, but "lobbying" can be as simple as writing to a politician, or urging others to do so.

I do wish Governments would stop passing laws in response to petitions, since these are usually the result of vocal minorities, may have been misleadingly worded, and are poor indicators who general public opinion.

 

[The Yankee]

Now, now, politicians don't want to be seen as having taken a poll before every vote!

However, sometimes those vocal minorities do have more to bring to the table on issues that aren't all that well known to the public. It isn't necessarily that 70% of the public, if aware, would oppose this or that action, but that 70% of the public just doesn't care about that particular issue.

 

[Ace]

lobbying, per se, is provided for in the constitution. It is every citizen's right to have access to his/her representatives. What needs to be "fixed" is the massive amounts of money some lobbyists are able to spread arround to influence votes.

 

[mdwh]

However, sometimes those vocal minorities do have more to bring to the table on issues that aren't all that well known to the public. It isn't necessarily that 70% of the public, if aware, would oppose this or that action, but that 70% of the public just doesn't care about that particular issue.

Sure, it's fine in cases where they're lobbying for something that only affects them, I was thinking more of the "Ban X" type petitions, which obviously affect a load of other people, and not them at all.

 

[Masquerouge]

Lobbying would be fine it there was a way to know, when some text goes to congress or senate for approval, who's paying what.
Right now it's a huge black box and that can't be good.

 

[The Yankee]

Sure, it's fine in cases where they're lobbying for something that only affects them, I was thinking more of the "Ban X" type petitions, which obviously affect a load of other people, and not them at all.

Perhaps, though the vocal minorities always seem to have their place in a democratic system.

I can't believe I'm more on the side of the lobbyists in this thread.

 

[Masquerouge]

Actually I think it's more important to stop pork and riders.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Lobbysts are a necessary evil. They counter-balance populists, who'd choke businesses to death with their socialist agenda.

how the hell can someone associate anything with how evil socialism is?

 

[GinandTonic]

What is more democratic than people with similar interests banding together to give strength in numbers?

Thats Socialism

 

[Masquerouge]

What is more democratic than people with similar interests banding together to give strength in numbers?

Problem is, what's actually happening is "people with similar interests banding together to give strength in money".

And that's not very democratic.

 

[mdwh]

Perhaps, though the vocal minorities always seem to have their place in a democratic system.

In a democratic system, yes, it's the idea of doing things because of a petition that I mean.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Thats Socialism

If you're joking (I hope you are):

If not: What's wrong with socialism? I'm not a socialist myself, but personally I'm of the opinion that a country with no socialists (not necessarily in power, just existent) is a country with no freedom and a working class with no voice (FYI: virtually all trade unions fundamentally advocate [wiki]social democracy[/wiki] at minimum, so the US does have socialists, but they don't call themselves that).

 

[GinandTonic]

Indeed joking.

Nothing wrong with a Socialist element in society, even if they have to invent a new name for those aspects of American society that are socialist as the word scares them

 

[The Yankee]

Thats Socialism

If you let people band together, then the socialists will have won!

Problem is, what's actually happening is "people with similar interests banding together to give strength in money".

And that's not very democratic.

Unfortunately, the limits placed on donations have come into a conflict with the interpretation that money is free speech. Additionally, as long as you set up a PAC or donate using different persons/corporations and donating targets, depending on the state, you can get away with anything.

There is too much money in the never ending campaign industry. However, it would not be right to say that a group cannot call on its members or listeners to donate money and/or time towards certain causes, parties, and candidates. That just goes too far. Certain limits and safeguards should be in place. Exactly what they will be and how far they reach to ensure that people cannot simply "bundle" donations in exchange for being in a photo with the president (hello, Abramoff), I can't say for certain because I've yet to beat the issue to death and look at any and all cases.

In a democratic system, yes, it's the idea of doing things because of a petition that I mean.

Well, the Declaration of Independence was a petition that wasn't supported by the majority...

In theory, that's exactly what the next election is for, to rectify such perceived mistakes. But then we get into gerrymandering, franking privileges, and other powers of incumbency.

 

[REDY]

Lobbying should be illegal. I realy dont understand why its legal.