The failures of lobbying reform

[ivwshane]

That's not what I said though, I said "I don't really see that 'lobbying' with money or support of any kind is required or even good for democracy".

As far as talking - I also said "I think lobbying should be nothing more than providing facts, possibly providing for 'discovery' visits on one subject or another, or doing the footwork on proposed legislation and how to get it passed. "

That's discussion, meetings, trips if needed to "see" the subject matter whether that's an inner city ghetto, a melting ice cap, or a factory full of workers. I think that's all fine.

But 'paying' politicians with contributions, and future job promises Anywhere but politics that's not called 'lobbying', it's called bribery, or quid pro quo.

Only politicians get to do that.

Frankly I think that is where the wheels fall off of Democracy. On that point I do agree with Sanders.

I get what you are saying but I was simply pointing out the realities of how such a setup would work. The fact is, there are already laws and rules regarding bribes and paying for access via trips and tickets. The problem is that politicians and lobbyist will find ways around it or a way to be legal while violating the spirit of the law. I think transparency is the key and I feel your solution, while good intentioned, lacks any accountability or change with actual bite in it.

 

[soulcougher73]

My entire point was that if government is going to have an orgy of spending and it's not going towards things that benefit everyone pretty much equally, then there is literally no reason to care if aggregate poor people or rich corporations are getting the welfare. You're taking our tax dollars to play Santa and I have zero incentive for it to go to the poor and good moral hazard reasons for it not to.

Rich people dont need a santa. They are the fucking santas. They can buy their own presents.

 

[Sonikku]

They could. But why spend their own money when they can spend tax payers instead?