The failures of lobbying reform

[ivwshane]

I thought this was a good article on the affects the lobbying reform bill that was passed in 2007 has had on the revolving door in Congress. That is to say, it hasn't had any major effects.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...m-that-enriched-congress-224849#ixzz4DLzq4sXy

Lobbying is a requirement for democracy but it should be transparent and open. Personally I think all lobbying should be done at a congressmans's office and be recorded and on video available to the public. But what about the revolving door? Does it become a moot point after that?

 

[trenchfoot]

The powers that be like things just the way they are. They will do every single thing possible to keep it that way.

It just goes to show how much leverage they have over our elected officials, when it really really shouldn't be that way.

Instead of pursuing the wishes of the folks that put them in office, our politicians have been compromised at the starting gate, or at times groomed in the locker room and given an open invitation into the Halls of Congress.

The only way I can see getting around that is instituting term limits, getting rid of Citizen's United and putting some real meat in those Sunshine initiatives that have been squashed flat dead the moment they get mentioned.

Think about it; we keep sending the same corrupted assholes back to office expecting something good to happen for a change in regards to having the voices of the commoners (who just so happen to be the vast majority of the nation) have more weight than those few very well-to-do dynastic families that currently call all the shots.

edit - Funny how our democracy has been used against itself and is on its way to becoming what it was meant to prevent: an oligarchy. It's pretty much a lost cause when the folks we elect to office to represent us have not so cunningly turned their backs on their constituents in favor of becoming whores for Corporate America.

 

[glenn1]

The powers that be like things just the way they are. They will do every single thing possible to keep it that way.

It just goes to show how much leverage they have over our elected officials, when it really really shouldn't be that way.

Instead of pursuing the wishes of the folks that put them in office, our politicians have been compromised at the starting gate, or at times groomed in the locker room and given an open invitation into the Halls of Congress.

The only way I can see getting around that is instituting term limits, getting rid of Citizen's United and putting some real meat in those Sunshine initiatives that have been squashed flat dead the moment they get mentioned.

Think about it; we keep sending the same corrupted assholes back to office expecting something good to happen for a change in regards to having the voices of the commoners (who just so happen to be the vast majority of the nation) have more weight than those few very well-to-do dynastic families that currently call all the shots.

edit - Funny how our democracy has been used against itself and is on its way to becoming what it was meant to prevent: an oligarchy. It's pretty much a lost cause when the folks we elect to office to represent us have not so cunningly turned their backs on their constituents in favor of becoming whores for Corporate America.

Do you think that lobbyists are some alien species from another planet? Special interest groups are just an aggregate group of the same "folks who put them into office." Do you think there's some inherent benefit in a Senator being forced to listen to 1,000 different old people complain to them rather than just having 1 rep from the AARP give the same complaint on their behalf?

 

[ivwshane]

Term limits won't fix the issue and will instead make it worse. At least right now politicians have the incentive of at least trying to please their constituents in order to get reelected, put in term limits and that incentive will be reduced.

Like I said earlier, I think the solution is for more transparency. What better transparency could there be then requiring politicians to have their meetings with lobbyists made public?

The powers that be like things just the way they are. They will do every single thing possible to keep it that way.

It just goes to show how much leverage they have over our elected officials, when it really really shouldn't be that way.

Instead of pursuing the wishes of the folks that put them in office, our politicians have been compromised at the starting gate, or at times groomed in the locker room and given an open invitation into the Halls of Congress.

The only way I can see getting around that is instituting term limits, getting rid of Citizen's United and putting some real meat in those Sunshine initiatives that have been squashed flat dead the moment they get mentioned.

Think about it; we keep sending the same corrupted assholes back to office expecting something good to happen for a change in regards to having the voices of the commoners (who just so happen to be the vast majority of the nation) have more weight than those few very well-to-do dynastic families that currently call all the shots.

edit - Funny how our democracy has been used against itself and is on its way to becoming what it was meant to prevent: an oligarchy. It's pretty much a lost cause when the folks we elect to office to represent us have not so cunningly turned their backs on their constituents in favor of becoming whores for Corporate America.

 

[trenchfoot]

Do you think that lobbyists are some alien species from another planet? Special interest groups are just an aggregate group of the same "folks who put them into office." Do you think there's some inherent benefit in a Senator being forced to listen to 1,000 different old people complain to them rather than just having 1 rep from the AARP give the same complaint on their behalf?

What you say makes sense in the context given. However, among these special interest groups are those that represent not so much the worthy causes of the working class, but exclusively represent the very few with enough wealth so as to mute and make trivial those other voices that compete with these elite few for the limited resources that our gov't can dole out.

What resources there are that can be spread out to benefit the masses are being redirected toward the wealthy few who do nothing but hoard these resources for themselves and then use a smidgen of it to reward their partners in crime: our very own politicians who write legislation in their favor.

This wretched closely guarded symbiotic relationship that benefits no one else but this tight-knit cabal of greed-driven collaborators have insulated themselves quite well from even the worst economic disasters that they create and then miraculously immensely profit from.

Damn, gotta go for now. A little more to add to this so I'll edit it in later.

 

[glenn1]

What you say makes sense in the context given. However, among these special interest groups are those that represent not so much the worthy causes of the working class, but exclusively represent the very few with enough wealth so as to mute and make trivial those other voices that compete with these elite few for the limited resources that our gov't can dole out.

What resources there are that can be spread out to benefit the masses are being redirected toward the wealthy few who do nothing but hoard these resources for themselves and then use a smidgen of it to reward their partners in crime: our very own politicians who write legislation in their favor.

This wretched closely guarded symbiotic relationship that benefits no one else but this tight-knit cabal of greed-driven collaborators have insulated themselves quite well from even the worst economic disasters that they create and then miraculously immensely profit from.

Damn, gotta go for now. A little more to add to this so I'll edit it in later.

So your problem is basically that rich people should FOAD and have their preferences completely ignored in order to allow the masses to have whatever they want just because there's more of them. Sorry but I utterly reject that notion as well as the one that government should play the role of Santa Claus giving out goodies but ONLY to the poor folks. I don't give a flying rats ass about the "worthy causes of the working class" and elevating them above others is your stupid fetish, not everyone else's. The working class has no more moral or other claim on the efforts of government than any other citizen and I resent you trying to make that be the case.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Do you think that lobbyists are some alien species from another planet? Special interest groups are just an aggregate group of the same "folks who put them into office." Do you think there's some inherent benefit in a Senator being forced to listen to 1,000 different old people complain to them rather than just having 1 rep from the AARP give the same complaint on their behalf?

Please, never in my 59 years on this planet has a lobbyist come to me asking what I what them to press congress for -- not once, ever! They do NOT represent the average Joe, in fact, they nearly always represent the rich guy and business types that want to fuck the average Joe!

If you actually believe a word you wrote I feel sorry for you! But, if representing the people that put them there is looked at as representing the rich guys and business types that funnel billions into major campaigns then your are 100% correct...


Brian

 

[glenn1]

Please, never in my 59 years on this planet has a lobbyist come to me asking what I what them to press congress for -- not once, ever! They do NOT represent the average Joe, in fact, they nearly always represent the rich guy and business types that want to fuck the average Joe!

If you actually believe a word you wrote I feel sorry for you! But, if representing the people that put them there is looked at as representing the rich guys and business types that funnel billions into major campaigns then your are 100% correct...


Brian

Cut the crap. You're perfectly willing to ignore the average joes when it's something the rich want that you support, like no Voter ID, much higher emphasis on deporting illegal immigrants, same-sex marriage (until recently when the "average joe" finally flipped to supporting it), ending the drug war, school vouchers, and a host of other issues. Stop saying you support 'the average Joe' when you abandon them and insult them as rabble, racist, or ignorant whenever their desires run counter to left wing orthodox positions.

 

[MongGrel]

Cut the crap. You're perfectly willing to ignore the average joes when it's something the rich want that you support, like no Voter ID, much higher emphasis on deporting illegal immigrants, same-sex marriage (until recently when the "average joe" finally flipped to supporting it), ending the drug war, school vouchers, and a host of other issues. Stop saying you support 'the average Joe' when you abandon them and insult them as rabble, racist, or ignorant whenever their desires run counter to left wing orthodox positions.

Corporate Lobbyists are the biggest leaches and one of the largest manipulators of the US Government.

You're full of BS if you think otherwise, but I suppose this confirms it more or less.

Special Interest Groups

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just a quick thought maybe lobbyists should be able to schedule time before congress. We can ask our congress critters to work maybe 10-20 days more per year, they could require some kind of signature petition physical or online. They better have a good plan or they can expect to be shut down.
I also say we should give all our elected folks a decent pay raise and adjust for inflation every few years.

 

[glenn1]

Corporate Lobbyists are the biggest leaches and one of the largest manipulators of the US Government.

You're full of BS if you think otherwise, but I suppose this confirms it more or less.

Special Interest Groups

Sorry if you expected me to support you in only disparaging the "corporate lobbyist leeches" so you can make space for the aggregate mass of the poor to leech instead. They're both as equally undeserving so if I have no choice in the matter of "there must be a leech" why the fuck should I care if it's the corporations doing it? At least I might get a job from them whereas the only thing I'd get from the poor is another news story about a gang murder or meth addict being arrested.

 

[MongGrel]

Sorry if you expected me to support you in only disparaging the "corporate lobbyist leeches" so you can make space for the aggregate mass of the poor to leech instead. They're both as equally undeserving so if I have no choice in the matter of "there must be a leech" why the fuck should I care if it's the corporations doing it? At least I might get a job from them whereas the only thing I'd get from the poor is another news story about a gang murder or meth addict being arrested.

I did not expect you to support me on anything. Far from it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Easy way to settle the question of have lobbyists helped normal American's is what in the last 40 years has been accomplished by lobbyists that has benefitted more than 50% of the people and what was the cost?

 

[Moonbeam]

The bad thing about lobbying is that greedy scum get to lobby for there petty interests. That should e illegal. The good thing about it is that I get to lobby for my interests and hat should be entirely legal. There are no down sides to lobbying for politicians. They find revolving doors.

 

[Darwin333]

Do you think that lobbyists are some alien species from another planet? Special interest groups are just an aggregate group of the same "folks who put them into office." Do you think there's some inherent benefit in a Senator being forced to listen to 1,000 different old people complain to them rather than just having 1 rep from the AARP give the same complaint on their behalf?

I think that Boeing gets a hell of a lot more "representation" from a Congressman then their constituents would merit.

 

[Darwin333]

Sorry if you expected me to support you in only disparaging the "corporate lobbyist leeches" so you can make space for the aggregate mass of the poor to leech instead. They're both as equally undeserving so if I have no choice in the matter of "there must be a leech" why the fuck should I care if it's the corporations doing it? At least I might get a job from them whereas the only thing I'd get from the poor is another news story about a gang murder or meth addict being arrested.

Umm the corporate lobbyists dictate where and how much of your tax dollars get spent.

Just an example, one of the guys who was the leader of pushing Medicare part D through quit congress a year later to take a $2 million/year job as, can you guess, a lobbyist for Pharma the very group whose legislation he had just pushed through Congress. One of the many fucked up caveats of the bill was that the government couldn't negotiate drug prices because who needs that negotiating bullshit in a capitalist society right. A few years later he made something like $12 million. Just so you know, Medicare part D was the biggest expansion of entitlement spending in decades costing us $727.3 billion from 2009-2018.

If your attitude is truly "at least I might get a job from the big corporations who purchase Congressmen and votes" then I hope you have absolutely zero complaints about the federal budget, entitlement spending or any government spending for that matter.

 

[glenn1]

If your attitude is truly "at least I might get a job from the big corporations who purchase Congressmen and votes" then I hope you have absolutely zero complaints about the federal budget, entitlement spending or any government spending for that matter.

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.

 

[shady28]

I thought this was a good article on the affects the lobbying reform bill that was passed in 2007 has had on the revolving door in Congress. That is to say, it hasn't had any major effects.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...m-that-enriched-congress-224849#ixzz4DLzq4sXy

Lobbying is a requirement for democracy but it should be transparent and open. Personally I think all lobbying should be done at a congressmans's office and be recorded and on video available to the public. But what about the revolving door? Does it become a moot point after that?

Perhaps the only thing I would agree with you on, except that I don't really see that 'lobbying' with money or support of any kind is required or even good for democracy. 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.

Not giving money, not giving free advertising, not promising (even implied) future employment, etc etc. Those are all bribes by any other term, totally unethical in circles outside of politics.

This reminds me of something in the history of corporations, though lobbying isn't just from corporations I'll pick on them just for you.

The way they were originally created and used in the 1800s was good.

The way they are now is bad.

Originally :

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

1. Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
2. Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
3. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
4. Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
5. Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
6. Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

And those corporate lobbyists that you don't care about ensure that the orgy of spending is ever larger. So either you care about shrinking said orgy and having the government spending more efficiently or you don't care that corporations can purchase legislation. You gotta pick one, you can't be for both.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Cut the crap. You're perfectly willing to ignore the average joes when it's something the rich want that you support, like no Voter ID, much higher emphasis on deporting illegal immigrants, same-sex marriage (until recently when the "average joe" finally flipped to supporting it), ending the drug war, school vouchers, and a host of other issues. Stop saying you support 'the average Joe' when you abandon them and insult them as rabble, racist, or ignorant whenever their desires run counter to left wing orthodox positions.

Your out of your tiny little mind!

Lobbyists exist and are paid for by folks who's interest seldom aligns with the average Joe. As I said before I've never had one come to me asking what I wanted them to press congress for AND I've never had the kind of money they expect. They do NOT work for the people -- they work for those with money, big money!

And, we're not talking about a little amount of money either. DC is pretty much a one industry town and in the nearly 40 years I've driven from NY to FL and through DC I've seen the DC area grow enormously. The number of people working in DC for the government has gown in those 40 years, but far and away the largest increase is the parasite class that is made up of by mostly lobbyists.

Honestly, it's hard to know if you're joking or if you are actually this out of touch with reality!


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

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.

WOW, just wow!

So we're not to care if money is funneled to poor people or corporations?

It's certainly true that there are some lobbyists pushing for money for the poor but they are outnumbered by lobbyists pushing for bennies for corporations and the wealthy. And the ratio is not even close to the same. Poor people don't buy very many lobbyists whereas corporations and rich people do. In addition, lobbyists are not the only expense in this process as there is money that is transferred from the lobbyists to our elected officials and once again, the poor aren't so well equipped to provide the necessary palm greasing!

Talk about false equivalence -- honestly, I think you're just trolling now...


Brian

 

[glenn1]

And those corporate lobbyists that you don't care about ensure that the orgy of spending is ever larger. So either you care about shrinking said orgy and having the government spending more efficiently or you don't care that corporations can purchase legislation. You gotta pick one, you can't be for both.

"Spending more efficiently" IS shrinking the orgy and means that we reduce welfare for both poor and rich alike; I completely and utterly reject that 'efficiency' means we continue redistributionist policies for eternity. Government should not be doing anything that is primarily to benefit one group, whether it's poor, rich, or middle class and if you're deliberately trying to do things that precludes benefit from one group like the rich then you're being a jerk.

 

[ivwshane]

The right to lobby is guaranteed by the constitution. In order to restrict what is talked about between the people and their politicians, you would have to violate the first amendment. If you are fine with that then more power to you (well technically, less power). That's why I like my plan, it doesn't limit was is said but it makes it public. You can still make laws regarding bribing officials but as we saw in Virginia, it's not an easy conviction and by the time it moves through the courts the damage will already have been done.

Perhaps the only thing I would agree with you on, except that I don't really see that 'lobbying' with money or support of any kind is required or even good for democracy. 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.

Not giving money, not giving free advertising, not promising (even implied) future employment, etc etc. Those are all bribes by any other term, totally unethical in circles outside of politics.

This reminds me of something in the history of corporations, though lobbying isn't just from corporations I'll pick on them just for you.

The way they were originally created and used in the 1800s was good.

The way they are now is bad.

Originally :

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

 

[ivwshane]

"Spending more efficiently" IS shrinking the orgy and means that we reduce welfare for both poor and rich alike; I completely and utterly reject that 'efficiency' means we continue redistributionist policies for eternity. Government should not be doing anything that is primarily to benefit one group, whether it's poor, rich, or middle class and if you're deliberately trying to do things that precludes benefit from one group like the rich then you're being a jerk.

That's why the federal governments job is overseeing the general welfare of the country, which, and here comes the shocker, sometimes creates policies that may end up benefiting particular group(s). Trying to avoid such bias would actually create an inefficient government.

 

[shady28]

The right to lobby is guaranteed by the constitution. In order to restrict what is talked about between the people and their politicians, you would have to violate the first amendment. If you are fine with that then more power to you (well technically, less power). That's why I like my plan, it doesn't limit was is said but it makes it public. You can still make laws regarding bribing officials but as we saw in Virginia, it's not an easy conviction and by the time it moves through the courts the damage will already have been done.

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.