Should we ban interest groups from lobbying in Washington? (1 Viewer)

[Space Goat]

"Special interests" have multiplied so much, the term has lost its usefulness. Interest groups are no longer special because so many of them exist! And each of them lobby Congress to expand and preserve government largesse. To buttress this effort, they pour millions of dollars into the coffers of politicians who support them and of opponents of politicians who cross them. These interests aren't just fat cat businessmen, but labor unions, environmentalists, farmers, pro- and anti-gun rights activists, pro- and anti-choice movements, immigrants, and any other group of which one could think. They have all opened an office in Washington with the goal of sucking the government tit or obtaining preferential treatment.

This multiplicty of competing interests (the manifestation of pluralism) ensures no group exerts more undue influence than any other group. Corporations do not control Washington, despite what many people might think, for their opponents are funneling millions to D.C., too. But, all these interests contribute to the ossification of government. Congress doesn't usually dare tamper with preexisting programs, because interests have coalesced around those programs who protect them. This means failed policies keep piling up, sapping the government of resources and efficiency. Consequently, government is slower and slower to act, and it does so less and less effectively.

That is the real danger interest groups pose.

(See Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working by Samuel Rauch.)

To combat this danger, I believe former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has the right idea: We should ban fundraising in Washington. Politicians should raise their campaign cash from the people at home, whom they are supposed to represent. I'd go one step further, though: Let's ban lobbying in Washington altogether. Politicians should be hearing from their constituents when they go back home, not from power jockeys in the capital. If an interest group wants to provide Congress with information or highlight an issue, then they can officially brief the relevant congressional committees, instead of lobbying behind closed doors.

This would remove many opportunities for corruption as well.

 

[Kandahar]

No. Banning interest groups stifles freedom of speech and protects incumbent politicians.

 

[Patrickt]

"Consequently, government is slower and slower to act, and it does so less and less effectively."

You seem to think this is a bad thing. I don't.

 

[TexWolverine]

No. Banning interest groups stifles freedom of speech and protects incumbent politicians.

But don't the interest groups (mostly big corporations) stifle the voice of the people? Surely we can't be heard over the sound of money being counted on the Hill. And isn't this the same money that, in effect, keeps these tired old incumbents in office?

Just a thought.

 

[Patrickt]

"But don't the interest groups (mostly big corporations) stifle the voice of the people?"

When you look at the list of the biggest contributors, in total dollars, you have groups like the teachers' union, NEA, and AFSCME, the goverment workers' union. Although they contribute individual the trial lawyers as a group go into the top ten. I don't think they're in the top ten but environmental groups keep their jobs going through the government and contribute accordingly. It isn't just the evil corporations.

 

[Picaro]

Interesting idea, banning them, but probably not practical, since there are so many ways to bribe pols other than campaign donations. I think the U.S. should definitely bust up the two-party monopoly and definitely bring back the 'equal time' legislation, as well as financing it's own elections through the public institutions, and limiting private campaign contributions to zero dollars. This will force parties to actually rely on written platforms rather than who has the best dental work and who is more photogenic. We also need some sort of qualification test, at least proof you've had a civics class and know what the hell it is you're voting for, and a literacy test. If you can't be bothered to learn how to read, or even grduate high school as easy as it is in today's U.S., you have no business voting in the first place; it's not 1791 any more, and we all know what a joke 'good ole down-home common sense' was, and is.

Yes, there are problems with these in general, but those are problems that are relatively very small compared to the way the 'system' works now, which is utterly corrupt and clearly failing.

 

[Picaro]

"But don't the interest groups (mostly big corporations) stifle the voice of the people?"

When you look at the list of the biggest contributors, in total dollars, you have groups like the teachers' union, NEA, and AFSCME, the goverment workers' union. Although they contribute individual the trial lawyers as a group go into the top ten. I don't think they're in the top ten but environmental groups keep their jobs going through the government and contribute accordingly. It isn't just the evil corporations.

It appears that way on the surface that dollar-wise those contibute the most; it's the unreported perks and ongoing bennies corporations provide and can offer after 'retirement' to pols that put them way over the top in overall bribery.

 

[Patrickt]

"It appears that way on the surface that dollar-wise those contibute the most; it's the unreported perks and ongoing bennies corporations provide and can offer after 'retirement' to pols that put them way over the top in overall bribery."

Sure, and the "assistance" politicans get from union and other groups that don't involve dollars go unreported and uncounted, too.

Whenever campaign finance reform is discussed it always seems to be from the standpoint of reducing the contributions, money and otherwise, for the other guy.

 

[Vader]

No. Banning interest groups stifles freedom of speech and protects incumbent politicians.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with banning big business from bribing their wishes into laws that favor them and screw everybody else.

As long as big business (*cough*halliburton*cough*) are allowed to directly interfere in the operation of our system of government, by buying off politicians, there were always be uncontrolable political corruption. For every oportunity we leave big business to interfere in our government, there is a far right or far left party member waiting to exploit it.

The government needs to represent ALL OF THE PEOPLE or NONE OF THE PEOPLE. We cannot have a governemnt that does nothing but represent the interests of the far right and their oil-dealing, contract-stealing (Haliburton), tax-evading special interest buddies.

Special interests have no place in politics, no place in campaigning, and no place in the creation of laws. Big business have used people like Dick Cheney to make sure that they got whatever they wanted for entirely to damn long. It's time to make new laws that ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY ban politicans and big businesses from fratranizing in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

To accomplish this, we need to:

1.) Make the financial records of each politician running for an office of Governer or above PUBLIC RECORD. This means that their finances are open for inspection at ANY time.

2.) Create legislation that absolutley outlaws persons with ACTIVE TIES to be big business from holding office.

3.) Create a new criminal code section that imposes heavy fines and jail time on those caught trying to buy favors with campaign donations, gifts, or under the table compensation of ANY kind.

4.) Create legislature that allows for the PERMENANT removal from office of any politican found to be in violation of these rules.

5.) Create a law which forces those running for House or Senate seats to take an pass a battery of tests, including; (1) Ethics; (2) IQ; and (3) Consititutional law. (This will keep the retarded assclowns in congress from making another mistake like they did with the current domestic violence laws)


:roll:

 

[Patrickt]

Vader: Would you advocate applying these same rules to the NEA, WWF, and the Trial Lawyers Association?

 

[hipsterdufus]

We currently have 63 lobbyists for every Congressman.

It's the best government money can buy, pure and simple.

 

[Patrickt]

The people who created our system of government were really amazing. When you consider they had no similar systems in recent history to build from. A representative democracy instead of a pure democracy was great. The three independent branches of government were great. In my opinion, they recognized that for the government to last they had to except that congress would have people who ranged from wise to stupid and honest to totally venal. They recognized the same applied to the President. They tried to limit the power of the federal government. Where power might collect in the hands of one person they tried to limit that power even more. They were designing a system that would survive incompetent or venal or even insane politicians. Overall, they did a good job.

The only system that will be pure is a benevolent dictatorship and, of course, that purity will depend totally on the person in charge. This is what Cuba has and Castro has said they have the perfect Democracy since he represents the people pefectly.

In my opinion, we need to consider returning to the system we had before President Franklin Roosevelt where the President's power, and the power of the federal government, was far more limited than it is now. The degree to which the federal government is bought is in direct proportion to the control they have over us.

Note: I don't consider money speech but the advertising and television time it buys are clearly speech.

 

[hipsterdufus]

5.) Create a law which forces those running for House or Senate seats to take an pass a battery of tests, including; (1) Ethics; (2) IQ; and (3) Consititutional law. (This will keep the retarded assclowns in congress from making another mistake like they did with the current domestic violence laws)

:roll:

Funny! Can I help write the exam?

I'm reminded of the survey done during the Vietnam war, when Americans refused to sign a petition supporting The Declaration of Independence, thinking that it was some sort of communist document.

Sorry I can't find the exact survey.

 

[Stinger]

Well if you start with the NOW, NEA and all the other unions..............

 

[Space Goat]

I've been reconsidering my position on this. Fundraising in Washington needs to go, because raising bushels of cash makes politicians chase after money instead of voting the best way for constituency and country.

Through lobbying, however, Americans who share passion for a goal can impress the necessity of it upon politicians. Without lobbying, politicians might not know what stirs the hearts of their brethren. Also, the American people themselves would lose a conduit to their leaders. So lobbying itself should not be verboten.

Maybe the best solution to the problem of corruption would be to socialize campaign financing completely. Every candidate who could gather x number of signatures would get y amount of public money, depending upon the office. That's all candidates would have to spend; they couldn't raise more from private sources. This would eliminate the kowtowing for interest group cash. Interest groups would have to rely on force of logical argument and depth of voter support to compel politicians to support their objectives.

 

[Vader]

Funny! Can I help write the exam?

I'm reminded of the survey done during the Vietnam war, when Americans refused to sign a petition supporting The Declaration of Independence, thinking that it was some sort of communist document.

Sorry I can't find the exact survey.

Sure!

 

[BodiSatva]

Our government was created by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots…

 

[FallingPianos]

Interesting idea, banning them, but probably not practical, since there are so many ways to bribe pols other than campaign donations. I think the U.S. should definitely bust up the two-party monopoly and definitely bring back the 'equal time' legislation, as well as financing it's own elections through the public institutions, and limiting private campaign contributions to zero dollars.

I would do it the opposite way. campaigns could no longer recieve any government funding or coorporate funding. there would be a cap on individual contributions. the amount of funding a candidate recieves would be proportional to the number of people supporting him, not the wealth of the people supporting them.

 

[Vader]

I would do it the opposite way. campaigns could no longer recieve any government funding or coorporate funding. there would be a cap on individual contributions. the amount of funding a candidate recieves would be proportional to the number of people supporting him, not the wealth of the people supporting them.

This is a good plan in all respects except one; that is the portion regarding government funding. The only funds that should be allowed are the bare minimum government funds.

Mayor's race - $1,000
Governer's race - $5,000
Senate/House - $2,000
Preidential - $10,000

Doing it this way allows some competition but prevents big corporations *cough*Halliburton*Cough* from buying off politicians.

:smile:

 

[FallingPianos]

This is a good plan in all respects except one; that is the portion regarding government funding. The only funds that should be allowed are the bare minimum government funds.

Mayor's race - $1,000
Governer's race - $5,000
Senate/House - $2,000
Preidential - $10,000

Doing it this way allows some competition but prevents big corporations *cough*Halliburton*Cough* from buying off politicians.

:smile:

the reason I dont like the idea of government funding, is that it would give the government the power to choose who that funding goes to. 3rd parties are always left out, and its not practical to give funding to everyone who says they are going to campaign.