DescentBB

Think so?

I agree but I think you have to take it to a more precise boundary.

I think there is no need, and thus no place for "lobbyists" in our system.

Whether it be a corporation or the Boy Scouts of America or Lesbians for Sensible Shoes they should not be allowed to function as a fund raiser or contribute to the representatives or the political party that serves in those ways.

If you want the Congress to craft legislation to meet your needs, as an individual citizen you may contribute and petition the politicians to that end up to the limits set for individuals.
If you are representing a corporation or any group you must take your message and your money and aim it at the voters. Take out ads on TV instead of taking the Congressman and his family out for a vacation at your villa in Spain...

Bribing a judge and bribing a Congressman should be the same thing with the penalties mirroring the politicians office. Try to 'lobby' a U.S. Congressman and you are in violation of Federal law.

Try to 'lobby' a U.S. Congressman and you are in violation of Federal law.

I wonder how one could create a law (which would never go anywhere because it would be the end of congress politicians' real source of wealth) that would exclude corporate lobbying but allow constituents to still get their congressman to move on issues of real legitimate importance to the citizenry.

How would one separate the corrupting influence of wealthy special interest groups (left, right or plain self-interested motivations) from the real concerns and needs of the American people?

its called a constitutional amendment.

You can never get rid of 100% of the corruption but it is so horrible right now that with some simple changes you could radically improve and alter the system, and by doing so, the type of people that are drawn to the job.

What we need are more people like the ones who forsake wealth in order to serve the greater good. And although there are some bad apples that come from that tree the ratio is far better than the ratio of self serving asshats that grow on the self serving asshat tree.

The committees that decide to craft legislation are seats of power in congress right now. It takes seniority, party loyalty and a track record for putting the people second to political expediency to get on the committee.

In stead I would have Congress show up each session to find out where they were going to serve. No preplanning to make use of loyal asshat #'s 3, 6 and 213 on the Ways and Means committee to make your corporation happy because no one knows who will be where until they begin. If you are a corporation or a special citizens needs group it doesn't matter, you go before the committee and plead your case. If the people there think you have a need they begin the process of crafting legislation to serve that need.
If any of them or anyone from the outside are found to be buying/selling influence in the process they face serious federal prison time.

As long as people vote their own greed, nothing will ever change, and the powers that be know this.

agree with all the above......the problem is that bit about citizen access. To maintain that, you can't get rid of lobbying. Given Citizens United and similar rulings, you can't really even limit the money involved, and we've made it so massive money is required to run campaigns, because of the advertising, equally unchecked due to SCOTUS rulings.

actually, there is one key part of the OP I do not agree on, simply because it is wrong. Corporations do NOT lobby to give the government more power. They lobby to give the government the ILLUSION of power while essentially remaining powerless in very real ways. Doesn't make for a neat graphic, at all, but it is the truth.

callmeslick wrote:agree with all the above......the problem is that bit about citizen access. To maintain that, you can't get rid of lobbying. ....

That is not true. "Access", as in to have your concerns voiced, etc. does not require what we know as lobbiests.
Access as the lobbiests have it today is the conduit to control of the whole system.

It could be changed to the model I alluded to.
Corporations, special interest groups of all kinds, would simply have to target their money and influence towards convincing the voters of the formerly targeted politician to effect a change in policy. The special interest group entices or persuades the voters and the voters pressure the candidate/representative.

Every dollar into a political party or candidates campaign must be accounted for with a voters name. No exceptions. If Monsanto gives all its employees $1000 to 'donate' to a candidate it wouldn't be too hard to spot the pattern. If everyone knew it would result in a 20 year stay in a federal prison it would be hard to take part in that plan.

Make giving or receiving any kind of material favor a very serious federal crime. Penalties of 20 year minimum with no parole is nothing to laugh at. That would cut the influence down by a tremendous amount.

Access as it was meant to be would be restored, not hindered. And political party's and individual candidates would have to retool their campaign process to deal with the new paradigm.

Of course this requires law passed to make it happen so it is no easy task but it isn't impossible. It would require a very popular outside candidate to campaign right over the heads of the Party and media attempts to corral him/her taking the appeal straight to the people.
As soon as the candidates platform started to gain support you would have politicians trying to ride his wave by attaching themselves to it in anyway they could.

When someone goes to trial it is to have our system declare if they have been on the wrong side of the law. If the defendant or the accused try to influence the judge or jury or witnesses in the trial by personal contact where they offer bribes or threats of any kind they have poisoned the system. They have committed a crime.

The legislators create the law. If anyone tries to influence the legislature to ensure that 'the right side of the law' is defined to their favor then they have done the same thing. It should also be a crime. That should be a fundamental line that can not be crossed. Our politicians have turned it into a grey area where only they are allowed to decide if they have crossed any line. Human nature being what it is...we have a very serious fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected.

I don't see how your plan, Will(and it isn't a bad one at all) wouldn't run afoul of Citizens United. You would, as others have noted, need a Constitutional amendment to bring it about.

could be, or maybe the court would accept an interpretation that allows it. They just did recently with the definition of penalty vs tax for example. So it is possible depending on how you word it that the court could find a way to allow it.

I can't think of a better reason to have an Ammendment right now though. And a candidate running on that platform would have no shortage of media exposure if he started to get support from the grass roots which he would need to build it into a viable bid for office.

you do touch on one aspect, above, Will.....elections still matter, especially for President. We are paying for a decade of judicial appointments that use the guise of 'conservatism' to justify putting multinational businesses on a par with the citizenry as far as public policy participation. That could be changed, but not with a lot of the current court voting.

Slick, the last 25 years the Supreme Court has recieved an equal number of appointments from democrat and republican presidents.

So where is this "guise of conservatism" favoring multinational businesses be on a par with our citizens? Isn't the current president trying to impliment international authority over our citizens in many ways?

I think you are just trying to spin up some partisan bogeyman.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, the last 25 years the Supreme Court has recieved an equal number of appointments from democrat and republican presidents.

yes, and?

So where is this "guise of conservatism" favoring multinational businesses be on a par with our citizens? Isn't the current president trying to impliment international authority over our citizens in many ways?

not in any way that any other recent one has......generally around the developing global economy.

I think you are just trying to spin up some partisan bogeyman.

no, the nature of decisions from the court of the past 20 years have completely upended the primacy of the individual in the system. No matter what one wishes to see as government grinding away individual rights or overregulating individuals, it was traditionally seen that citizens have rights that larger entities of a commercial nature do not. With the campaign finance and Eminent Domain rulings, as the most salient of a few, the individual citizen has very little say in the conduct of government, the makeup of available candidates for election and input into decision making. Not trying to make it partisan, by party, but definitely by ideology. This may not be 'true' conservatism, but it is in line with the thinking and end goals of the modern American conservative movement.

All I know is that "corporations are people too!" is just about the worst ★■◆●ing sentence that has ever been uttered, both legally and ethically.

Why not, they are taxed, and only people can pay taxes.

Don’t even ask me to explain what I mean by that, because you should be smart enough to figure it out.

(and its not like I haven't done it already a million times)

Just because corporations are made up of 'people too'...and...'corporations pay taxes'...doesn't mean who ever is in charge of a corporations political donations should be able to inject influence orders of magnitude greater than a single person who is just a regular voter who is limited to a much smaller amount of donation.

Every individual that you count as a person who gives a corporation it's human-too status already has his or her individual level of influence/donation they get to contribute just like 'non-corporate' voters.

And the fact that 'corporations pay tax too' isn't an reason to let the corporate entity act as a special voter with higher limits on donations because that corporate tax is less than an individuals tax rate...money retained by a corporation, taxed at that lower rate, ultimately finds its way into the benefit column of the few rich people at the top...who, as individuals, have the same access and limits as the rest of us. So the corporations-are-people-too excuse means they are getting a great tax break AND extra access/control over policy because of their good fortune?!? Doesn't make sense to me.

The influence that a corporation adds to the process is in addition to the influence that any/all voters have. The greater amounts of money that a corporation or PAC etc. have sway policy by virtue of that entity being the 'important customer' to the politician or political party that is selling the position of priority to those high rollers.
The fact that these politicians actually have fund raisers that are called "bundlers" who gather funds in ways to circumvent regulation is blatant contempt for the law, the individual citizen and the spirit of the process. Actually they think they own the spirit of the electoral process and it is what ever they say it is...thus the open contempt for us...

Those special interests should be making their case for policy consideration without having hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold out as incentive.

as one who has served as a 'bundler' for a certain Presidential candidate, there is a clear difference between that and allowing unlimited contributions from a corporation, or even an individual. All a bundler does is manage the raising of minimum legal donations from a network of individuals. Those individuals ALL have a say in whether they part with their money. Not so a corporation, if they are purporting to act on behalf of their stockholders, as the share holders never have a yes/no say in the matter.

Not all corporations have a large pool of stock holders. Some are wholly owned by one or two individuals.

woodchip wrote:Not all corporations have a large pool of stock holders. Some are wholly owned by one or two individuals.

quite true. But those are relatively few and far between.

Slick, sending the money to the candidate that some of the contributors might not choose themselves is not the problem but I think you know that and simply attempted to dismiss my complaint by inserting it in place of the problems outlined in the link I provided.

But since you have opened that door about 'the choice'...I guess you are opposed to unions being able to fund politicians their members might object to? You would be in favor of stopping their ability to do that?
How about entities that fund abortion against the will of the contributors?

I think you not only raised a red herring but you don't even stand in principle for that which you implied by tossing it into the conversation...

I would assume corporate money speaks for the board members, not stock holders.

Same problem exists in the union example x10 because the money comes directly from members instead of company profits.

And I also notice those who get freaked out about corporations…never mention unions.

………………

Will…

Corporations are also expected to have ethics, my only point was don’t treat something like a person, and you won’t have to call it a person.

Just in case you think my comment was condoning stupidity. (just the opposite)

Spidey wrote:I would assume corporate money speaks for the board members, not stock holders.

Same problem exists in the union example x10 because the money comes directly from members instead of company profits.

And I also notice those who get freaked out about corporations…never mention unions.

well, I have, because it is the same thing. Unless every stockholder/union member agrees to give X dollars to a campaign, it should be forbidden by the larger organization to commit funds.

If money = free speech, why do we allow a millionaire more speech than a minimum wage worker?

Vander wrote:If money = free speech, why do we allow a millionaire more speech than a minimum wage worker?

because for some stupid reason, we think more money = better brainpower.

Vander wrote:If money = free speech, why do we allow a millionaire more speech than a minimum wage worker?

Seems like a good question on the surface, unfortunately the solution means implementing limits.

And limiting free speech, just doesn’t make a good sound bite.

Spidey wrote:...

Will…

Corporations are also expected to have ethics, my only point was don’t treat something like a person, and you won’t have to call it a person.

Just in case you think my comment was condoning stupidity. (just the opposite)

Sorry, you are right, I thought you were defending the 'corporate donor's' right to have a much greater level of influence.

I think it is a great flaw that we allow anyone other than a citizen speaking on his individual situation to influence lawmakers by allowing the big-money entities to own the process by which the lawmakers are able to be elected.

If a congressman represents a constituency that lives off of government subsidies for corn farmers...or a coal mine....or an automobile manufacturing industry...etc. etc. then let the number of individual voices from that district represent those entities to the ears of the politician.
If you own the coal mine then spend your lobbyist money convincing the citizens of the politicians district to pressure him to accommodate your legislative loopholes.

It would keep influence in a proper perspective and politicians would be beholding to their constituencies not their top 10 donor lists...or the national parties list.

Oh, hell no!

.................

Problem is…money will always have more influence.

Do you remember the Gates ads that ran on national TV near the end of Reagan’s first term?

“After 4 years, it’s time for a change”

Those ads had nothing to do with automotive belts, they were a blatant political campaign.