Lobbyist Reform, Necessary Regulation Measures

[M Kitt]

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 02:31 PM - Edit history (5)

Lobbyists:

Lobbyists are a symptom of our current dysfunctional political process, one of many. They're representative of the results of our failed social value system that places money in control of election results, literally, in the USA.

Complicit bought politicos have relied on the lack of "Transparency" related to current campaign finance methods, taking advantage of flaws inherent within our system, betraying public trust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-lobbyists-k-street-project_n_1186606.html

What Purpose is served by these Purveyors of Money and Legislation?

Technically, lobbyists represent legal "Loopholes", removing Elected Officials from engaging in what would otherwise be literal "Bribery, payoffs, graft" under legal definition, insulating them from what's commonly referred to as “Conflict of Interest” related to functions of Political Office. Yeah, right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57317459/lobbyists-can-skirt-ethics-reform-says-abramoff/

***LAST POST***

Functional Lobbyist Behavior

Lobbyist have “Clients” on both sides of the equation, they're promoting or “Selling” funding resources to eager interested parties, Politicians who can't LEGALLY reciprocate for said funding resources. So they'll never admit to any resulting (confirmed) “Quid Pro Quo” exchange taking place. EVER

Candidates can't and won't publicly disclose the inherent "Conflict of Interest" in terms of this relationship, won't admit that Special Interest sources of Campaign Finance are NOT in fact giving away Free Money

So our Public Legislation will continue to be compromised for their Private Enterprise Profits, as dictated by Special Interest Money.

Showing Lobbyists the Door

But the relationship between Lobbyists and connective, familiar politicians isn't quite that simple, there are detailed methods and constraints to consider, especially since politicians are beholding to Moneyed Interests EVEN BEFORE accepting donations to the extent that Lobbyists are former office holders.

So while in office elected officials are basically leveraged into compromising their positions for FUTURE EMPLOYMENT as Lobbyists, "Feathering Their Nests" as it were. A "Relationship" develops between Lobbyists and their clients, a very personal one.

Based on future employment to be provided by Moneyed Interests, since that's not discouraged under our current system.

Retiring politicians are STILL assured of future Corporate job security based on their cooperative efforts, not to be confused with practices of "Reciprocation", of course. That wouldn't be LEGAL or morally correct, you understand.

"Insider Trading" isn't just for Wall Street, after all

Although restrictions vary under State Law, as do conditions of "Compliance".

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/ethicshome/50-state-chart-lobby-definitions.aspx

***END***

Campaign Finance Reform Measures

But under those circumstances, why wouldn't Conflict of Interest be obvious, why would we allow Campaign Finance Policy to dictate otherwise?

The act of Legislation being submitted and promoted by Elected Officials while beholding to (on behalf of) campaign donors isn't discouraged under our system, so the current status of our resulting Dysfunctional Legislative System remains unchanged, maintained by those who benefit the most from it, not surprisingly.

In fact, Legislation promoted by elected officeholders on behalf of Special Interest campaign donors cannot LEGALLY be interpreted as "Reciprocation" under our current system, contrary to "Conflict of Interest" concerns, and current Campaign Finance Guidelines actually ENCOURAGE this behavior so long as general "Disclosure" guidelines are followed.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/25/close-lobbyist-reporting-loopholes-first/

REFORM is the Answer

Campaign funding should not be allowed to effectively dictate behavior of public officials, EVER. So let's summarily remove that problem, let's render the issue resolved by changing the campaign environment.

PUBLIC FINANCE of elections would be the optimal solution, would level the playing field for candidates while removing the need for dependance on Tainted resources generating Relationships that compromise the integrity of an Oath of Office.

Until ethics standards are reformed, those well paid lobbyists and their resulting influence on Government will continue to purchase cooperative (Special Interest Driven) legislation, our public programs will continue to be compromised for their private enterprise profits.

Our legislation, our Politicians, neither should be For Sale. Let's Reform this broken system.

What's in the immediate future?

Our first mistake was misplaced trust.

Our entire Political System is eroding away, being placed in the hands of Special Interests who rely on complicit Lobbyist influence (See Above!). Cooperative officeholders are enabling this, trading their obligations under "Oath of Office" for what's essentially a stake in the Corporate game.

They're selling our public trust to the highest bidder.

Moneyed interests are BUYING the mechanisms of Democracy thru legislated Loopholes, loopholes which were also PURCHASED thru direct influence of Political Capital in the context of our above described flawed system.

Once Media interest increases, Supported Reform will Prevail, Right?

Suppose the MSM will become less hesitant? Up 'til now they've generally been silent on this issue, media management is tilted, skewed in favor of the 1% for the most part.

But Damage Control concerns are emerging, our broken economy has driven "Occupy" influences to the streets against our current DYSFUNCTIONAL election process, among other things.

Perhaps the tides are turning

More Detailed Dysfunctional Campaign Finance Info?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1091850

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Tell this to Max Baucaus.

[M Kitt]

2. @Wellstone, agreed. The issue involves both parties, tho I've more trust for Liberal Dems.

Last edited Sun May 12, 2013, 11:13 PM - Edit history (3)

"Blue Dogs" like M. Baucus (DINOs) are especially representative of behavior I'd rather attribute to TeaPublican Conservatives like Grover Norquist.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/karen-finney/173399-norquist-...

The "K Street Project" was specifically a contrived GOP enterprise, but I can't say that Dems don't like money with a straight face

Which is why the term "Lobbyist" isn't partisan.

And current legislative "Change" seems to push halfway measures, doesn't have "Teeth" to deal with violators at the State level.

http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2013-05-06/editors-desk-lobbying-reform-law-barely-beginning

So NATIONAL reform is the apparent solution, and the current Reicht Wing majority SCOTUS will be against that, will maintain the "Status Quo" for as long as possible.

Not very reassuring.