• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should AIPAC be outlawed in US?

Should the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC be outlawed in the US?

  • yes

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • no

    Votes: 21 77.8%
  • Total voters
    27
RightinNYC said:
It's not the artificial persons that are doing the lobbying, it's US citizens employed by that artificial person...
Click to expand...
Now that really is splitting hairs. Artificial person don't do anything at all (in that sense) since they are merely abstractions. But, as I am sure you know, employers are responsible for the authorized actions their employees take. And in that sense, artificial persons do quite a number of things.
 

I don't mean to be splitting hairs, I guess my point is just that I don't think it's possible to really distinguish between the two in this situation.

Say a factory worker is self-motivated to travel to DC to advocate for the auto bailout. Everyone would seem to agree that this is well within the right to petition government.

-What if the company offered to provide transportation for any employees who wished to go to DC?
-What it the company sent out a memo to all employees explaining their stance on the issue?
-What if the memo urged employees to call their representatives and share their thoughts?
-What if managers from the company wanted to travel to DC to state their case?
-What if the VP for Public Relations went there to do the same thing?
-What if the VP for Public Relations took his entire team and prepared presentations for Congress members in order to help them understand how important the bailout is to the company?

All of those things appear to be on the same spectrum to me, and I find it difficult to draw a line between which are acceptable and which are not.
 
obvious Child said:
Banned no.

Increased surveillance on them? Mandatory.

Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

NO THATS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT AND THE UN OUTLAWS THAT!!! [/billo]


Any lobby for a foreign group or country should have its surevillance increased.
Click to expand...

Again, they're "a lobby for a foreign country" in the same way that groups supporting immigration reform are lobbyists for Mexico and Catholic Charities is a lobbyist for the Vatican.

(Which is to say that they are advocating for increased support for their members in the US and abroad, but are comprised entirely of and funded entirely by US citizens.)
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, they're "a lobby for a foreign country" in the same way that groups supporting immigration reform are lobbyists for Mexico and Catholic Charities is a lobbyist for the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Fine. Organizations with histories of spying on the US should have surveillance ramped up on their activities. The AIPAC has two known incidents of spying on sensitive US programs. That is unacceptable.
 
AIPAC is an American group, not a foreign lobbying group. In fact, AIPAC is often at odds with the Israeli government in terms of policy.

Like all American political groups, they have the right to petition the government and the rights to free assembly and free speech.
 

I think lobby groups of foreign countries and foreign businesses in general should be banned. They are not Americans citizens and those with split loyalties shouldn't be petitioning us for anything. So our constitution shouldn't apply to them.They should not have any right to lobby our government IE us the American people for anything because our politicians are supposed to be kissing our ass not that of other countries.
 
Orius said:
I don't think they should be outlawed, but their powers equalized to that of all other foreign lobbying groups. IMO I think they get special privileges.
Click to expand...
Really? And how would you accomplish that?
 
Billo_Really said:
Why else would they have influence with government officials if they didn't contribute to their coffers. No one in government is going to listen to a special interest group without some sort of personal benefit.
Click to expand...

I know this is going to blow your mind. But maybe they actually agree with their situation? Maybe they believe that its in the interest of the US to support Israel? Maybe this is the one bit of backbone that they actually have? I know its crazy but lets suspend disbelief for a minute.
 

Can we also ban CAIR?
 
RightinNYC said:
What about every other interest group that lobbies Congress, representing basically every country on the planet? Is there something specific about AIPAC that you find objectionable, as opposed to everyone else?
Click to expand...
I love the "interest group" label.
Anyone find it interesting, how "interest groups" only oppose, and never support, your particular ideology?
 

Serious question: Did you read any of the posts in this thread?
 

No it's not. I'm reading this thread so I don't know if this has already been addressed, but lobbying groups don't have near the power that most people think they do. Yes, they can and do sometimes provide Senators and Representatives with perks but they hardly provide enough to twist their opinion in any significant way. Almost exclusively they lobby to Senators or Representatives who most likely would have voted for them anyway and try and sway neutral ones by providing pertinent information on subjects that they may not know a lot about. While lobbying groups almost always get a bad rap they are a good institution.
 
Yes, AIPAC and all other orgs/groups from whatever country should be banished--not allowed to play the money-religio-political game; take a homeless American citizen and a big foreign lobby with much money and whom is that politician going to listen upon? Money. We hear it all the time from politiicans that they need money to run. A no brainer.

YouTube - Both parties are owned by the AIPAC Lobby, the Israel Lobby
 

AIPAC is not a foreign organization. It is an American lobbying group supported entirely by American citizens who want their views heard. Apparently you didn't read the thread.
 
no, but what should be done is to cut the legs out from under the liberal agenda and stop allowing the federal government to control so much. This would eliminate the role played by groups such as AIPAC.
 
RightinNYC said:
Serious question: Did you read any of the posts in this thread?
Click to expand...

Do you think AIPAC being an "American" group somehow changes my views about foreign lobby/interest groups? If they are an American group I have problem with them lobbying politicians for **** as long as they are not allowed to bribe/give gifts to politicians.
 

Did you mean to say you have no problem or a problem with them lobbying?
 
RightOfCenter said:
AIPAC is not a foreign organization. It is an American lobbying group supported entirely by American citizens who want their views heard. Apparently you didn't read the thread.
Click to expand...

This is only a part of the story as these American Citizens also are likely to be citizens of Israel.
 
RightOfCenter said:
That was an or question. You had options. Which one?
Click to expand...

Of course I do not have a problem with AIPAC period. Banning an American group from lobbying because you do not like their views sets the precedence for banning other American groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.