Exactly how do lobbyists influence legislation except through bribes? I mean it's not like members of Congress don't have staffs who know how to Google for information regarding public issues.
Isn't the acknowledgment of lobbying as a problem a tacit admission by Congress that a lot of crooks are among its members?
spainlinx0
09-28-09, 08:01 AM
Come on, you know it's those guys that are crooks. We're all innocent over here.
classicman2
09-28-09, 08:50 AM
Lobbyists perform a valuable service in the congress.
If you don't like lobbyists - you definitely shouldn't be in support of term limits.
Sean O'Hara
09-28-09, 04:23 PM
If unicorns are made of rainbows, do their farts smell like sunshine?
I mean, as long as we're asking non-sense questions.
Sean O'Hara
09-28-09, 04:23 PM
Dupe, dupe, dup-peh-dupe.
nemein
09-28-09, 05:31 PM
Why do you hate the first amendment :scratch2:
classicman2
09-28-09, 06:09 PM
They just don't believe that people have the right to petition their government.
Isn't it obvious?
mosquitobite
09-28-09, 10:30 PM
re: 1st amendment
Unfortunately, due to the size of the federal govt these days MONEY has become = to SPEECH. Those with money have the mouths that get heard. Those who hear the money get a war chest to help them get re-elected, and thus the cycle continues.
Votes still matter to a certain extent (otherwise we'd already have a healthcare bill on Obama's desk) but money definitely has priority at the table.
orangecrush
09-29-09, 09:42 AM
re: 1st amendment
Unfortunately, due to the size of the federal govt these days MONEY has become = to SPEECH. Those with money have the mouths that get heard. Those who hear the money get a war chest to help them get re-elected, and thus the cycle continues.
Votes still matter to a certain extent (otherwise we'd already have a healthcare bill on Obama's desk) but money definitely has priority at the table.I agree with you to a degree. But, if a senator has a few thousand letters (not e-mails, but actual letters) from continuants saying they want him to vote a certain way, then he is going to vote that way. If people got off their butts and wrote their representatives, lobbyists wouldn't yield as much power as they do.
Tracer Bullet
09-29-09, 09:54 AM
re: 1st amendment
Unfortunately, due to the size of the federal govt these days MONEY has become = to SPEECH. Those with money have the mouths that get heard. Those who hear the money get a war chest to help them get re-elected, and thus the cycle continues.
Votes still matter to a certain extent (otherwise we'd already have a healthcare bill on Obama's desk) but money definitely has priority at the table.
I wish we could get rid of the legal fiction that corporations are people. That is a bigger problem than money equaling speech.
nemein
09-29-09, 09:56 AM
If people got off their butts and wrote their representatives, lobbyists wouldn't yield as much power as they do.
I think one thing that is frequently overlooked in the castigation of lobbyists is sometimes those lobbyists are representing public interest/membership groups. Frequently lobbyists are portrayed only as "arms" of corporations but that's not the whole story. Would direct mail be better, maybe, but I think the general feeling is those letters aren't really read (sure you get a form letter in return) whereas sending your money to a group that has the professional lobbyists on staff is a better use of time/money.
wishbone
09-29-09, 10:01 AM
I think one thing that is frequently overlooked in the castigation of lobbyists is sometimes those lobbyists are representing public interest/membership groups. Frequently lobbyists are portrayed only as "arms" of corporations but that's not the whole story. Would direct mail be better, maybe, but I think the general feeling is those letters aren't really read (sure you get a form letter in return) whereas sending your money to a group that has the professional lobbyists on staff is a better use of time/money.A handwritten letter stands a better chance of being read than a typed form letter, fax, or e-mail.
orangecrush
09-29-09, 10:22 AM
I think one thing that is frequently overlooked in the castigation of lobbyists is sometimes those lobbyists are representing public interest/membership groups. Frequently lobbyists are portrayed only as "arms" of corporations but that's not the whole story. Would direct mail be better, maybe, but I think the general feeling is those letters aren't really read (sure you get a form letter in return) whereas sending your money to a group that has the professional lobbyists on staff is a better use of time/money.Congressmen take hand written notes from their districts very seriously. They calculate that 1 note = a certain number of voters. They know exactly where voters stand if they are told by said voters where they stand. Most congressmen's first concern is getting re-elected.
wishbone
09-29-09, 10:50 AM
How to Write a Letter to Congress (http://www.writeexpress.com/Write-Congress.html)
1. Though it is tempting to fire off an e-mail, write a letter instead.
2. State your purpose.
3. Make your letter personal.
4. Support your stance.
5. Make your request.
6. Remain professional and courteous.
7. Keep you letter clear and concise.
8. Close your letter.
9. Know to whom to send your letter.
10. Proofread your letter.
11. Know that your vote counts.
I used "Senator" instead of "Honorable" when I wrote to my state senator -- no disrespect intended. :p
mosquitobite
09-29-09, 11:20 AM
I wish we could get rid of the legal fiction that corporations are people. That is a bigger problem than money equaling speech.
Corporations have money, so that's why they get to talk.
And like nemein said, it's more often groups (think pharmaceuticals, lawyers, doctors, Realtors, unions) that have powerful lobbies, not just corporations.
creekdipper
09-29-09, 11:22 AM
If unicorns are made of rainbows, do their farts smell like sunshine?
I mean, as long as we're asking non-sense questions.
:hscratch:
To repeat:
Exactly how do lobbyists "influence" legislation? I know they are paid to represent others & to make a case for "their side", but how a lobbyist exert any more "influence"...which is the term used when describing the detrimental effect of lobbying...than any other constituency unless they are offering huge campaign contributions in return for political favors? If it were just a matter of presenting the best arguments, then what would be the problem.
My point is that lobbying should not be a problem if Congresspeople are honest & competent. If they are honest, they will ignore the temptation to grant favors in return for donations. If they are competent, they will check out the issues for themselves & vote accordingly.
Why isn't this a fair question? To say that we just accept the corruption of government as SOP seems awfully cynical.
creekdipper
09-29-09, 11:34 AM
Come on, you know it's those guys that are crooks. We're all innocent over here.
:hscratch:
Brack
09-29-09, 03:27 PM
:hscratch:
To repeat:
Exactly how do lobbyists "influence" legislation? I know they are paid to represent others & to make a case for "their side", but how a lobbyist exert any more "influence"...which is the term used when describing the detrimental effect of lobbying...than any other constituency unless they are offering huge campaign contributions in return for political favors? If it were just a matter of presenting the best arguments, then what would be the problem.
My point is that lobbying should not be a problem if Congresspeople are honest & competent. If they are honest, they will ignore the temptation to grant favors in return for donations. If they are competent, they will check out the issues for themselves & vote accordingly.
Why isn't this a fair question? To say that we just accept the corruption of government as SOP seems awfully cynical.
In contrast to offering money for political favors, they could go the other way, convincing the elected officials to steer away from an issue, or else take the risk of losing campaign contributions.
VinVega
09-29-09, 04:41 PM
My point is that lobbying should not be a problem if Congresspeople are honest & competent. If they are honest, they will ignore the temptation to grant favors in return for donations. If they are competent, they will check out the issues for themselves & vote accordingly.
Why isn't this a fair question? To say that we just accept the corruption of government as SOP seems awfully cynical.
I think if you don't have some level of cynicism, you're going to be mad all the time and if you're mad all the time you run the risk of a premature heart attack. ;)
In the end it all comes back to money and power. Money is more power than it is speech, but unfortunately it's quantified as speech in the political process, so a rich person/corporation's speech is more important than someone who is poor. Money is power and the politicians want to stay in power, but to do that they need a ton of money to run for reelection. That money has to come from somewhere. The easiest way to get the money is from large backers. So it's actually pretty easy to be cynical.
spainlinx0
09-30-09, 08:22 AM
:hscratch:
Just a joke that lobbyists are only a problem for the other side, depending upon which side you're on.
creekdipper
09-30-09, 09:09 AM
Just a joke that lobbyists are only a problem for the other side, depending upon which side you're on.
:doh:
Thanks, spain. I knew it had to be something obvious that I was missing, but I was having a dense morning. I would blame it on trying too hard not to be cynical, but that would be flip-flopping.
My interpretation of your joke (which is funny) was so far off-base that it's embarrassing.
creekdipper
09-30-09, 09:10 AM
In contrast to offering money for political favors, they could go the other way, convincing the elected officials to steer away from an issue, or else take the risk of losing campaign contributions.
For some reason, this observation is not helping to restore my faith in our elected representatives. -wink-
Actually, I should be mad (but not mad enough to need CPR, as vinvega pointed out) at the electorate. The money used in campaigns to purchase signs, ads, tv & radio spots, and (for national pols) trips around the country are meaningless to me. I get all the info. I need to make voting decisions from various media (print & electronic), debates, and the like. The bought political ads are meaningless to me (well, they are incredibly annoying, so they do have a negative influence on my perception of the candidate who paid for them), but they obviously sway voters who don't take the time to do a little investigating for themselves. Even the "name recognition" factor of having signs plastered all over town is a lame but obviously effective means of getting elected.
To me, that makes the "voters" who are unwillingly to use their critical thinking skills to examine the issues and the candidates' purported stand on them equally guilty with the politicians who buy their votes through cheap persuasion, attack ads, blanket coverage, etc. It still boggles my mind that, in the day of multiple cable tv channels such as C-Span & all of the internet coverage (in addition to the print media), people still vote according to whose name they remember seeing along the roadway as they drove to the polls.
Brack
09-30-09, 10:25 AM
I agree with what you're saying, but just because there are more ways of getting information doesn't mean people are becoming any more informed. There's more disinformation than ever before, and that doesn't help matters either.
creekdipper
09-30-09, 09:27 PM
I agree with what you're saying, but just because there are more ways of getting information doesn't mean people are becoming any more informed. There's more disinformation than ever before, and that doesn't help matters either.
No doubt about that. One has to put on waders to pore through all the B.S.
However, I still find it easier to trust my instincts than to pay attention to one-sided ads designed by "strategists". People ought to be able to sort out the obviously-biased "commentators" from the more objective people who point out flaws & strengths of both sides.
Just saying that I don't get why any rational person would simply accept political ads as gospel without challenging the 'facts' presented.
Not holding my breath waiting for the electorate to rush to turn off "Dancing With the Stars" to become better-informed at election time.
Buy: