Labor unions, AARP, AAA, and even the boy scouts for god’s sake:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/07/professional-lobbyists-help-boy-sco.htmlThere is so much money and influence in Washington now everyone feels compelled to “get their share”. Limiting lobbying in any way runs against the right to free speech. Perhaps what we are seeing today is proof that a large, powerful central government is incompatible with free speech. The common man is not being heard any more. Concentrate the wealth and power in one place, and everyone who can, will come knocking and there will always be one group crying foul of another, and one group competing with another. Look at what happens to somebody who wins the lottery. Same thing.
So look at all 7 bullets listed in the original post and decide whether or not those things would even be happening if we had a smaller, limited federal government that actually answered to the people (and followed the Constitution). Would a smaller government have the means to wage wars for corporate profits? Would any corporation bother to spend lots of money to affect election outcomes if their financial future did not depend on it (ala Boeing, GE, Solyndra)? Would a weaker government even be a place where some professional from a big company wants to go work as a regulator? I do know that currently, and for the first time in our history, on average, he will be paid more at the government job than the private one.
I hate the influence big corporations have on our government as much as anybody. I do, however, look at why this lobbying is occuring and try to see things from more than one angle. If that means I am in the wrong forum, then so be it.
So, is this an accurate summary of the seven bullets above? “No for-profit organization of any kind is to be allowed to communicate with or donate to any elected government representatives nor allowed to benefit financially in any way from government legislation.”