Yes or No: The nation's next President should be a Prez 100% commited to abolishing lobbying in D.C.

[brentspeak]

Poll question: Yes or No: The nation's next President should be a Prez 100% commited to abolishing lobbying in D.C.

The influence of money on Capitol Hill is the number one reason why this country is in the mess it is, and the American people should choose as their next President one who is going to once-and-for-all lead the fight against the culture of lobbying.

*By 'lobbying', I refer to lobbying which involves the exchange of money, gifts, and favors.

[SaveElmer]

1. So you feel the NRDC, AFL-CIO, NAACP etc...

Should be barred from lobbying congress...?

[geek tragedy]

4. Well, they'd have to repeal the 1st amendment

before they ban any kind of lobbying.

[SaveElmer]

7. Exactly...

You can't ban lobbying...

You can do something with campaign finance reform however...that is the focus

[brentspeak]

11. Has it been established in law?

I don't think it has.

[geek tragedy]

16. Have you read the First Amendment?

Congress shall pass no law . . . abridging the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[brentspeak]

18. No: is there a firm, final legal ruling specifically affirming that money & favor lobbying are

allowed -- and will always be allowed -- to take place between citizens and members of Congress? If all people had to do was cite an amendment, there'd be no need for the courts.

[geek tragedy]

28. Bribery is already illegal. eom

[rock]

20. These are not people, they are lobbiests

If you catch my drift.

[brentspeak]

10. Just how much "lobbying" on Capitol Hill do those groups actually do?

Where has lobbying gotten the AFL-CIO? It's a damaged group. If all lobbying is abolished, the goals of environmental groups like NRDC will be accomplished a lot more easily than if corporations are allowed to wine-and-dine Congress. In fact, the goals of groups like NRDC can probably never be attained as long as corporations and business interests are allowed to lobby Congress.

[SaveElmer]

17. It can't be abolished...

Its useless to try...the constitution specifically protects the right to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances...no court would ever uphold such a restriction...

Do not focus on lobbying...focus on campaign finance reform...that is where progress can be made.

btw: Those groups do extensive lobbying, and donate to alot of campaigns...

[brentspeak]

19. No, I don't think it's useless to try

The Constitution is there to be interpreted by the courts; the courts are there to determine just how far the Constitution's wording should affect current law. I don't believe that the exchange of money, gifts, and favors in the lobbying process is protected under the Constitution.

[SaveElmer]

21. Knock yourself out...it ain't gonna happen...

Nor should it...

If you want to attack the money, concentrate on campaign finance reform....get some level of public financing and the whole issue goes away...

It's like attacking the 4 foot thick fortified wall of a fortification rather than the thin wooden gate right next to it.

[Cosmocat]

25. BINGO ...

IMO, it is a sell out by ANY politician who just off handidly dismisses the notion based on the first amendment ... IMO, I hear a politician who goes that route and I just automatically chalk it up to that politician wanting to keep the pay to play policy for their own personal reasons ...

IMO ... Anyone and everyone should be able to "lobby" elected officials all they want ... Make an appointment and come to their office ...

Lobby all you want ... Talk to your blue in the face ...

I do NOT for one second believe that the first amendment relates to the exchange of money and goods ... I do not for ONE second believe the first amendment is meant to reserve the right to extortion and bribary ...

[brentspeak]

2. My vote, of course, is for 'yes'

[geek tragedy]

3. You need to start with a constitutional

amendment, since the right to petition the government is explicitly protected under the First Amendment.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Nah, you don't need an amdendment.

It all depends on HOW you define the law... one could say that the current lobby system is the system that is infringing upon the right of the people to petition the government, as it allows better access to rich people, while keeping poor people from being able to petition the government.

You can restrict the amount a person and/or firm can get paid to "lobby" under the premise that it will allow more access to the government to more people.

You can force the books WIDE OPEN for any lobby firm and/or person, allowing for public scrutiny of who is paying who and how much. If a group of people with a concern HIRE someone to bring their concern to congress, the person accepting money is accepting full public scrutiny of who they accepted money from. However, the group of people with a concern are free to go or get someone to volunteer to bring their concerns, but once money changes hands, it becomes a relationship of public interest that deserves full scruity...

Neither of those would result in constitutional violations, but would deal a heavy heavy blow to lobbying as we know it today.

[geek tragedy]

27. Possibly, but that wasn't what the OP suggested. eom

[Milo_Bloom]

29. The nah wasn't to the question...

It was to the necessity of a constitutional amendment to get it done. I voted Yes on the original poll.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. No, I want my union, environmental group, the Amer. Cancer Society, PFAW,

to be able to lobby our Reps on our behalf.

However, I am very much in favor of outlawing bribes.

[KingofNewOrleans]

6. In a free country it's kind of hard

to abolish lobbying. Regulate it far better than the whore years, yes. Abolish it? No.

[NoodleBoy]

8. so, if you want to go to your congressman's office and present a case for or against a piece of

legislation they're considering, you want to be escorted out of the capitol in handcuffs?

[brentspeak]

12. I'll be more specific: eliminate all exchanges of money, gifts, and favors in the lobbying process

[geiger]

9. Lobbying is not all bad; it's the money part that gets it all mucked up

It's a legitimate, constitutional right of association and it's an educational opportunity. I am so sick of the anti-lobby mentality. It doesn't make sense, and it's a fundamental right of our democracy.

[creeksneakers2]

13. No control

can substitute for a watchful,informed public.

[Prophet 451]

14. Can we abolish paid-for lobbying? n/t

[quinnox]

15. nope

[Larry Allen]

22. We need a new playing field.

We should prohibit lobbying by for-profit corporations, and contributions to lobbying groups by for-profit corporations. Here is a message that I sent to Barbara Lee.


Barbara Lee

Thank you Barbara Lee for your co-sponsorship of H.R. 508. With so much cacophony this really warms my heart.

We need a new playing field. Every progressive cause could be won by taking the correct first step: banning for-profit corporate contributions to campaigns, parties and lobbying groups.

For-profit corporations have utterly usurped the covenant between the people and their representatives. Industry after industry literally write their own laws. I will be wincing at the sausage that will be made of every other issue: election reform, health care, environment, media reform, you name it, if we do not take the correct first step.

I envision a one page law derived from the one Thom Hartmann likes to read on his radio show. Penalties and fines have to be brought up to date, lobbying groups added, and provisions to block Tom Delay style end around laundering schemes.

Perhaps it could be prepared in time to add it as an amendment to the Iraq war appropriations bill. I don't know. But I would love to hear the change in dialogue that would result from the structural change to our democracy that I am proposing going through a few election cycles.

What do you think?

[brentspeak]

23. Those are good steps.

[flpoljunkie]

24. Tellingly, what remains legal is for lobbyists to serve as campaign fund raisers for Congress

members and the new rules do not cut off "power trips."

Yesterday Joan claybrook was on NPR:

CLAYBROOK: I just don't think members of Congress should be pulling lobbyists together to do this. Even for campaign events.
Despite the Democrats' promise to end lobbyist-financed vacations, there are big loopholes.

This is the way the leadership PAC loophole works: Hoyer's guests give thousands of dollars to his PAC. Because there are few restrictions on how PAC money can be spent, Hoyer's PAC uses some of the cash to pay for the congressman's trip to Puerto Rico. The PAC also provides entertainment, golf, even nifty little gifts bags for all the guests.

The lobbyists and donors who have supplied the cash for this party then pay their own way to Puerto Rico. And in return for their generosity, they get to golf and hang with the congressman in the Caribbean.

Hoyer's PAC has booked 137 rooms for his May event. Lobbyists who didn't want to be named tell us it will be a blast.

It may not look good, but it is legal, and well within congressional ethics rules.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702205.html

[brentspeak]

30. self-kick

:kick:

[brentspeak]

31. more self kick

:kick: