Thread: Craigslist notice??.

Tweet

Originally Posted by cffisher

If you (we) were to do away with the lobbiests this country would be farther ahead. JMO

Charlie, you and I usually see things from a very similar perspective, so a word of caution here.

There has been an effort for the past few decades to demonize the notion of lobbying. It's not a conspiracy, it's a ploy. If anyone signs the above referenced petition, that's lobbying. If anyone sends a letter or email to their Congress person, that's lobbying. If you join a group, say to preserve Social Security, and you pay a visit to your Congress person to advance your point of view, that's lobbying. This is all protected specifically in the First Amendment. It's a right granted to ensure that those who reside in this country have a way to seek redress, or protect themselves from overbearing laws/regulation. It could also be seen as a pesky nuisance by certain politicians who seek greater power and control.

If enough citizens end up being convinced that "lobbying" is the problem, we'll see laws limiting our ability to protest and protect in a civil manner, thus enriching the power of the political class. It will be in a small way at first, then ever more restrictive, each time presented as a "necessary action to limit corruption...." or some such deceitful cloak.

The problem isn't the act of lobbying, it's the act of the political person accepting some form of quid pro quo, e.g. a bribe, political contribution, a future "job", whatever. The person offering the bribe to someone they believe would accept it isn't a saint, but nothing "bad" happens until the politician accepts and acts on the bribe. THAT is where we need to focus our ire and action...............................not on limiting our rights.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

........The problem isn't the act of lobbying, it's the act of the political person accepting some form of quid pro quo, e.g. a bribe, political contribution, a future "job", whatever. The person offering the bribe to someone they believe would accept it isn't a saint, but nothing "bad" happens until the politician accepts and acts on the bribe. THAT is where we need to focus our ire and action...............................not on limiting our rights.

Well said, Bob. I fear that the old proverb, "May you live in interesting times", is coming into the forefront and it has nothing to do with the Mayan Calendar.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

.

The problem isn't the act of lobbying, it's the act of the political person accepting some form of quid pro quo, e.g. a bribe, political contribution, a future "job", whatever. The person offering the bribe to someone they believe would accept it isn't a saint, but nothing "bad" happens until the politician accepts and acts on the bribe. THAT is where we need to focus our ire and action...............................not on limiting our rights.

couldn't agree more. that is why I say limit terms for congress and sennet. eliminate there pensions I bet you wouldn't have as many people trying to be elected, and those that want it may even want it for the right reasons.

Originally Posted by Evolvo

Bob, if a private citizen was to call their congress person, write or sign a petition I suppose it could be seen as lobbying. Using myself as an example, if I did any of these things it would be because I was concerned enough to speak up. Not because I was being paid.
On the other hand, if I worked for Lobby World, Inc. and received financial reward and my full time job was to "persuade" government officials to see things my clients way then I would be a professional lobbyist.
I see a difference between the two.
The answer IMO (which will never happen) is to somehow limit professional lobbying. We as citizens could start a nation wide petition to change the laws regarding full time, paid lobbyists. If this where to happen it would at least take some of the money out of Washington and allow our representatives to listen to the people who actually elected them, not those paid to corrupt them......

The problem, as I see it, is that one cannot legislate away the rights of paid lobbiests without giving up the individual rights of the 1st Amendment which is in that position for a reason - it is one that forms the foundation of our rights. Bob's point, "The problem isn't the act of lobbying, it's the act of the political person accepting some form of quid pro quo, e.g. a bribe, political contribution, a future "job", whatever. The person offering the bribe to someone they believe would accept it isn't a saint, but nothing "bad" happens until the politician accepts and acts on the bribe. THAT is where we need to focus our ire and action...............................not on limiting our rights.", rings true to me. That said, perhaps we need a double edged sword here, taking action not only with the politician who accepts and/or acts on the bribe, but also making the penalty against that lobbiest who initiated the bribe (along with the group he represents, be they individuals or corporations) severe enough that they think twice before they dangle the carrot in the first place. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act deals harshly with companies that cross the line in their foreign and domestic corporate dealings. Why not extend that act to our lobbiests? Active and accurate enforcement might prove to be the Catch 22.