Campaign finance and lobby reform won't do the job. (1 Viewer)

[AlbqOwl]

In the wake of the Abramoff scandal, the clamor for reform rises to a crescendo in Washingtn DC and reverberates across the land. But a wise man long ago once advised that when politicians learned they could use your money to buy your vote, it would be all over.

One modern wise man knows that new laws, rules, and regulations re campaign finance and lobbying will never solve the problem so long as Congress has the power to favor one person or group over another. He proposes that we take away that power. He favors the following:

Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. . . If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs must also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling.

So what do you think? Do you favor a government that treats everybody absolutely 100% the same and thus makes it virtually impossible to favor anybody? Or should some groups receive special consideration?

You can read the whole essay on this subject here:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/lobbyists.html

 

[Touchmaster]

I find it amazing that lobbying is so acceptable. Why should money allow you to have more influence in the legislature? that is not democracy, that is old-school kleptocracy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I find it amazing that lobbying is so acceptable. Why should money allow you to have more influence in the legislature? that is not democracy, that is old-school kleptocracy.

Lobbying is fine. If you have ever called the mayor's office with a complaint or have ever called or sent an e-mail to your congressman or senator, you are a lobbyist whether or not you are registered as such. And if you join with others in your complaint, you are part of a political action committee whether or not you are chartered.

It is lobbying that can gain you or your client special favors not afforded to others that is the problem. What is proposed here is a new law--no, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT--denying Congress the ability to give one person or business or industry consideration without offering the same to all. They won't do it without pressure of course, for without being able to give favors, their primary sources of campaign finance dries up.

But a sufficiently motivated majority of Americans can force an issue. Maybe it's time we forced this one.

Let's discuss it anyway.

 

[Touchmaster]

that is what im saying, if lobbying is defined as using your voice and reason alone, that is fine, but if the change in legislature is BOUGHT, that is not democracy - that is oligarchy, and corruption.

 

[AlbqOwl]

that is what im saying, if lobbying is defined as using your voice and reason alone, that is fine, but if the change in legislature is BOUGHT, that is not democracy - that is oligarchy, and corruption.

So you would vote for a constitutional amendment to prevent consideration of one person or group without giving the same benefit to all?

(I should have made this a poll)