Why not outlaw lobbiests?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 30, 2004 9:19 am

Here's an attempt to start a new topic without turning it into the predictable right vs. left...although at some point someone will no doubt try to steer it that way.

I think of the legislature as both judge and jury when it comes to making the law we live by.
Why in the world would we ever allow anyone to bribe them with millions of dollars in cash and services to get the legislators to shape the law in a way that suits them?!?!

If a private citizen was on trial and tried to bribe the jury or judge he'd be in a lot of trouble yet we allow corporations and special interest groups to employ lobbiests to buy our representatives right out from under us!

It's the single most ridiculous part of our system and perhaps the most detrimental to the intent of the sytem as it was designed, an honest, altruistic representation of the individual citizen.

Can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't seek to abolish lobbiests?

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun May 30, 2004 10:29 am

I cant. In fact I would argue quite emphatically for banning lobbiests. However I can tell you why they wont: greed.

The system is designed to work for those at the top. In this case, its the senators and representatives. The objective is to stay at the top, i.e. stay in office. To do that, they need, want, and obsess about money. As such, the corporations and special interes groups are all in the business of legal bribes (campaign contributions) and the common Joe Schmoe from your congressional district is left holding the bag.

I think several states had laws against this sort of thing back in the late 1800s, and it was considered bribery and corruption. The problem is that corporations have essentially more rights than you and I because they have ungodly amounts of money, and thus they can wield their rights much better than you or I could ever hope to because as we all know, money talks.

The solution would encompass not only outlawing lobbiests, but corporate campaign contributions as well. And also stripping corporations of their right to free speech. IMO, anything a corporation says should be classified as Commercial Speech and thusly not protected by the first ammendment. Additionally, corporations should have absolutely no rights, just priveleges granted them by the state and federal governments. The bill of rights should be directed at people, not corporate "entities".

The downside is that nothing short of a revolution or a really organized and powerful nation wide campaign will ever get those rights taken away from the corporations.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun May 30, 2004 11:28 am

I was talking about politics and someone brought up a intersting point: Everyone kinda misses that the supreme court has the ultimate power in the government and they have been consistantly wasting our time for decades. The supreme court answers to nobody. If you look at how the power works, the court has it all right now. They can make or break any law that the other branches put out by deciding how or not to enforce it.

That is why corparations are so powerful, it is because they can afford lawyers and appeals to get something all the way to the supreme court.

If you attempted to outlaw lobbiests then you can bet, if congress and the president both signed off on it, the supreme court would overturn it and quickly.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sun May 30, 2004 11:39 am

Well you could argue, Krom, that the Supreme Court is less susceptible to lobbiests simply because they don't have to fund for re-election.

That is why corparations are so powerful, it is because they can afford lawyers and appeals to get something all the way to the supreme court.

No, it's because whether they're right or wrong they can make it so the common man would go broke from lawyers and legal fees.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun May 30, 2004 1:04 pm

I agree but this is like getting congress to take a pay cut.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun May 30, 2004 2:57 pm

I don't think the solution is to outlaw lobbyists so much as it is to outlaw taking bribes / kickbacks from lobbyists. I don't mind the fact that some people lobby congress members on behalf of whoever it is who can afford to pay them to do so -- I only mind that said people have more influence than they should because they can essentially buy people off.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 30, 2004 3:51 pm

You'll never do away with influence peddling. In a way it's better to have it upfront so there's an easily tracked money trail.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 30, 2004 9:58 pm

Bash, what trail?!?
There is nothing up front about it!

If, for example, Lockheed Martin wants the president to relax trade sanctions with China so they can export their product to them, the lobbiests for Lockheed Martin are told that in order to get the president to do that all the Senators in the presidents party, who are up for re-election next cycle will need $250,000 for their re-election fund.

Those Senators in turn are told that to recieve the "donation" they must vote a certain way on a piece of legislation the president is pushing.

So your Senator votes for the bill even though it actually hurts your state's economy because Lockheed Martin who isn't manufacturing or hiring in your state is now going to recieve the government contract that causes General Dynamics who was manufacturing and was hiring in your state to shut down it's factory in your state.

Your Senator just aided China's military and did it at the expense of workers in your state. Your Senator would never have wanted to or needed to do that if Lockheed Martins money couldn't make it to his re-election fund!
Your representation has been sold out from under you and these sort of things, large and small happen everyday in Washington.
What purpose do they serve? Not the purpose of the citizens that's for sure!

If Lockheed Martin wants my representative to vote a certain way then let them spend that bribe money on advertising their cause to the voters, and ask us to encourage our representative to vote to help Lockheed Martin's cause.
THAT would be upfront and in the open!!!

Without spreading the bribe around town lobbiests would serve no purpose, they are bagmen. Corporations don't need lobbiests to ask for help, they could do that directly. Lobbiests are an industry to itself. (see below)

********************

Lothar,
If crack is illegal, like bribes are, then we don't need to protect the careers of crack dealers do we?!?!
So why keep lobbiests?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun May 30, 2004 11:12 pm

Because there actually do exist those who lobby congress without bribing them. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true. There actually do exist those who go to congress and say "I represent X many people in your district who support cause Y" and who raise awareness of that cause and the relevant bills, but who don't offer bribes (and who couldn't even if they wanted to, because they don't have money and neither does their cause.) I used to know the person who did all of the lobbying for Right to Life, and I know for a fact that the movement doesn't have the sort of cash flow to be making any sort of contribution to anybody's campaign funds.

Now, I suppose if you got rid of all the lobbyists from all sides of all issues, individuals could make up for that by simply writing individual letters to congressmen or visiting them... but then, even if you do away with the lobbyists, you have the same problem, namely, that someone can still let their congressman know Boeing will contribute $250,000 to the campaign fund of any congressman who votes in way X on bill Y. If that wording is illegal, well, they can let it be known that Boeing likes to support those candidates who do what's best for Boeing, and the candidates can figure out what's best for Boeing and make sure Boeing knows that.

The problem isn't the lobbyists -- the problem is the fact that people or corporations can make freakin' huge donations to people's re-election funds. Lobbyists are just a convenience for those who want to bribe lawmakers. Taking them away makes it a little harder to send bribes, but it doesn't really change the fundamental situation.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 30, 2004 11:42 pm

I guess I should have repeated the other reforms I wish for that go hand in hand with the abolishment of lobbyists when I posted this topic:

1) No person or entity should be able to contribute to any candidate except a registered voter within that candidates jurisdiction and all contributions should be itemized in public record.

2) There should be a process where anyone or any entity could appear before a committee of representatives to plead their cause, but that committee should be randomly and anonymously staffed from a cross section of congress just before it meets and no one should be allowed to contact any member of the commitee outside of the committee chambers once it convenes.

Example:
It's fine for Delta to ask for federal bailout, but they must do so in the public committee and/or by way of selling the voters on the idea. They may not privately contact congressmen or contribute funds or services to a candidate in any way.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:24 am

I think it's okay to lobby for something in terms of banding together as a group and marching around the capitol. But, I draw the line at any sort of monetary contribution. That type of lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery that corrupts the system. There is no rational excuse for it, but our politicians will never part with it.

I'm tired of the almighty corporation running the show, with its humongous war chest of cash and elite attorney team.