MidwestLiberal said:Just looking for opinions on lobbyists. I'd like to see some response before I post my own opinion, so ... vote in the poll!
jamesrage said:I am against lobbyist.They should have no place in politics.The only people elected officials should be listening to is the voters/tax payers.
128shot said:With this said, you know businesses pay taxes. Corporations are supposed to be taxed, and their owners pay taxes.
So now busninesses (which are taxed) have a voice, which is seen as a problem with lobbyists isn't it? Businesses controlling the lobby?
jamesrage said:Corporations do not owe any alligiance to this country,look how some of them have outsourced.
A business is not a individual entityThe owner of that business is a individual therefore his vote and voice should have just as much say as any other tax payer/voter,he does not need a lobby group.
jamesrage said:I am against lobbyist.They should have no place in politics.The only people elected officials should be listening to is the voters/tax payers.
earthworm said:Here we agree 100%....But does this mean that industries should not be allowed to petition their representatives ???
It seems as if the present system is working, I think .. ????
My_name_is_not_Larry said:what are lobbyists for anyways? whats there purpose of having them in the first place?
jamesrage said:Corporations do not owe any alligiance to this country,look how some of them have outsourced.
A business is not a individual entityThe owner of that business is a individual therefore his vote and voice should have just as much say as any other tax payer/voter,he does not need a lobby group.
AndrewC said:Lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to buy votes. This is the real concern here. Groups, industries and businesses need spokesmen for their interests. If lobbyists use facts and information to influence policy, then so be it.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.carville.htmlFirst, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay 'em what we pay the president: $400,000. That's a huge increase from the $162,000 congressmen and senators currently make. Paul, especially, has been a critic of congressional pay increases. But he is willing to more than double politicians' pay in order to get some of the corrupt campaign money out of the system. You see, the pay raise comes with a catch. In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.
And when it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. You read that right. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.
Challengers, on the other hand, would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits, just as the free-market conservatives have always wanted. But here is the catch: Within 24 hours of receiving a contribution, the challenger would have to report it electronically to the Federal Election Commission, which would post it for the public to see. That way, if you want to accept a million dollars from, say, Paris Hilton, go for it. But be prepared for voters and reporters to ask what you promised her in exchange.
The day after you disclose Paris's million bucks, the U.S. Treasury would credit the incumbent's campaign account with a comparable sum—say 80 percent of the contribution to the challenger to take into account the cost of all the canapés and Chardonnay the challenger had to buy to raise his funds as well as the incumbent's advantage. So if Paris gave the challenger a mill, the Treasury would wire $800,000 to the incumbent. It couldn't be much simpler. You might even call it the flat tax of campaign laws.
The penalties for violation would be swift. If an incumbent accepts so much as a postage stamp, he loses his seat. If a challenger doesn't report contributions, he loses his shot. If you cheat, you are out on your ***.
What if the incumbent wants to spend her own money? After all, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution does not allow restrictions on how much money a candidate—challenger or incumbent—can spend. No problem. Uncle Sam would write the challenger a check for an equivalent amount. Unlike today, no one would have the upper hand simply because they were loaded.
What if a sitting congressman wants to run for senator, or a senator wants to run for president? Would he be allowed to raise funds? Sure. He'd just have to do what Bob Dole eventually did—resign his Senate seat and hit the campaign trail like a regular citizen. If you want to run for higher office, you have to get off your current pedestal first.
The idea is to fundamentally change the role and responsibilities of incumbency. Under our plan, incumbents have to live by Thomas Jefferson's maxim: “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.” (We know, we know, the language is archaically sexist, but we are not going to edit Mr. Jefferson.) Once you assume an elected office, you achieve a new status. You are no longer a campaigner. You are a public servant. As such you should not be in the fundraising business. You should be in the exclusive business of making policy.
Today more than 90 percent of all senators and representatives are re-elected. Under current law, incumbents almost always have a huge money advantage. Our wager is that a majority of incumbents would be willing to give up that advantage in exchange for higher pay and no time spent fundraising. Think about it. Not only would they be bringing in a much larger salary, they'd also never have to kiss up to another rich donor. You should never underestimate how much these folks hate spending half their time—or more—sniveling for money. Nor should you underestimate how damaging and distorting it is to require federal office holders to spend that time raising money. No wonder they vote on so much legislation without ever reading it. And what about the public? We haven't seen the final data for 2004, but in all the federal races in 2000—congressional, senatorial, and presidential—candidates spent a total of $1.6 billion. Half of that, which is what taxpayers would have had to shell out under our plan, would be a lot of money: $800 million. But that is nothing compared to what the current system costs us. Those special interests who pour money into politicians' campaigns get something in return. Actually, they get a lot in return. Special tax breaks, special loopholes, special funding of pork-barrel projects, maybe even a no-bid contract or two. The energy bill passed in 2005 handed $2 billion in subsidies to the ethanol industry—you know, the fine folks at Archer Daniels Midland. It gave the makers of the controversial fuel additive MTBE another $2 billion. And another $8.1 billion in tax breaks for oil, coal, and electric utilities. In all, that one bill cost you $80.8 billion.
All of a sudden $800 million—one percent of the cost of one bill—doesn't seem like very much money, does it?
hipsterdufus said:Here's an interesting idea to totally eliminate the lobbyists altogether, while eliminating the need for our elected representatives to fund raise as much as they do now.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.carville.html
First, we raise congressional pay big time. Pay 'em what we pay the president: $400,000.
That's a huge increase from the $162,000 congressmen and senators currently make.
In return, we get a simple piece of legislation that says members of Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.
And when it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. You read that right. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. Period.
jamesrage said:Corporations do not owe any alligiance to this country,look how some of them have outsourced.
A business is not a individual entityThe owner of that business is a individual therefore his vote and voice should have just as much say as any other tax payer/voter,he does not need a lobby group.
hipsterdufus said:Here's an interesting idea to totally eliminate the lobbyists altogether, while eliminating the need for our elected representatives to fund raise as much as they do now.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.carville.html
alphamale said:Lobbyists are protected under the first amendment - nobody is going to illegalize them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?