Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
As I made clear in the rest of the post, it was an invitation to discuss more, not to end debate. The debate started with my opponent asserting that it was already over because he knows more about lobbying than an actual lobbyist.

Non the less claiming absolute knowledge of anything, comes off as arrogant and basically says to everyone "I know it all, end of discussion!"

Even old timer Lobbyists dont know it all. New situations different policies and public acceptance of the trade transforms the situation on a annul or even less bases.

You seem to be claiming that big money has absolutely no influence on the practice of lobbying. If that were true how can certain types of lobbying be illegal?

U.S. charges two for illegal lobbying for Pakistan | Reuters Pakistan has spent at least $4 million since the mid-1990s lobbying the U.S. Congress and the White House through Fai and the Kashmiri American Council, also known as the Kashmir Center, where Fai served as executive director, according to an FBI affidavit filed in U.S. court.

The above seems to suggest that perhaps you do not know what you are talking about. Pakistan spent $4 million lobbying. Where did that money go?

An FBI affidavit detailed the alleged scheme in which Fai's organization received up to $700,000 annually from Pakistan to make campaign contributions to U.S. politicians, sponsor conferences and other promotions. same link

Top of the list turns out to be "U.S. politicians". Now why would campaign contributions be where the money was going? Could it be that Pakistan wanted to buy a say so in our Government, which by all definition is by-passing our Democracy?

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

Bodhisattva said:
I understand what you mean and what the law says... I don't agree that either are correct though.

You just said you did agree. Which is it?

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

Freedom From al said:
Non the less claiming absolute knowledge of anything, comes off as arrogant and basically says to everyone "I know it all, end of discussion!"

When people come charging at me and insult me, I resist. I'm happy to have a respectful discussion though.

Freedom From al said:
You seem to be claiming that big money has absolutely no influence on the practice of lobbying. If that were true how can certain types of lobbying be illegal?

No, I'm saying lobbying and money aren't the same thing. If you want to criticize the influence of money, do that. Don't call it "lobbying." Plenty of people lobby without money involved - including the reform groups that want to get money out of politics.

The above seems to suggest that perhaps you do not know what you are talking about. Pakistan spent $4 million lobbying. Where did that money go? Top of the list turns out to be "U.S. politicians". Now why would campaign contributions be where the money was going? Could it be that Pakistan wanted to buy a say so in our Government, which by all definition is by-passing our Democracy?

These contributions were illegal. Remember? What's your point?

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
When people come charging at me and insult me, I resist. I'm happy to have a respectful discussion though. No, I'm saying lobbying and money aren't the same thing. If you want to criticize the influence of money, do that. Don't call it "lobbying." Plenty of people lobby without money involved - including the reform groups that want to get money out of politics. These contributions were illegal. Remember? What's your point?

My point is that the 1st Amendment does not mention money only the right to petition. The public throughout the history of the US has called for strict regulation of Lobbying.

What made it illegal for Pakistan to Lobby?

FBI agents arrested Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, 62, in Virginia on charges that he failed to register as an agent of a foreign government. Zaheer Ahmad, 63, was also charged but is believed to be in Pakistan. Both are naturalized U.S. citizens. Mr. Fai is accused of a decades-long scheme with one purpose -- to hide Pakistan's involvement behind his efforts to influence the U.S. government's position on Kashmir," said Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia. The Justice Department said that there was no evidence that any elected officials who received the contributions from Fai or his group knew that it came from the Pakistani government.---Same link as above

It wasnt the actual Lobbying practice that was illegal, instead it was the fact that Pakistan was doing it without declaring that they were.

mpg · Nov 22, 2011

I don't want to live in a country where the press is barred from discussing politics.

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

Freedom From al said:
My point is that the 1st Amendment does not mention money only the right to petition.

And my point - again - is that lobbying does not mean giving money. It is simply petitioning. If you don't like the fact that money is involved in lobbying, criticize that. Don't say all lobbying is bad.

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

Freedom From al said:
What made it illegal for Pakistan to Lobby? It wasnt the actual Lobbying practice that was illegal, instead it was the fact that Pakistan was doing it without declaring that they were.

Well, and the illegal donations. But yeah, they have to register as a foreign agent. So what? What's your point?

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

mpg said:
I don't want to live in a country where the press is barred from discussing politics.

But it's just not fair! Everyone should have an equal voice! 2 minutes of TV air time for every citizen! (I recently had someone actually propose that).

haymarket · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
And my point - again - is that lobbying does not mean giving money. It is simply petitioning. If you don't like the fact that money is involved in lobbying, criticize that. Don't say all lobbying is bad.

Lobbying is not bad in and of itself. Look, my job is as chief of staff to a State Representative. I deal with lobbyists almost every day I work in the state capital. They can be a valuable source of information, especially in this era of term limits where institutional knowledge is fairly limited. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about them or the job they perform.

Any citizen who walks in our office is seen by either the Rep or by myself if he is in committee or on the House floor. A lobbyist needs an appointment - a citizen from the district does not need one.

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

haymarket said:
Lobbying is not bad in and of itself. Look, my job is as chief of staff to a State Representative. I deal with lobbyists almost every day I work in the state capital. They can be a valuable source of information, especially in this era of term limits where institutional knowledge is fairly limited. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about them or the job they perform. Any citizen who walks in our office is seen by either the Rep or by myself if he is in committee or on the House floor. A lobbyist needs an appointment - a citizen from the district does not need one.

Thanks for your post!

Bodi · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
You just said you did agree. Which is it?

Lobbying in it's current form is not as simple as "freedom of speech" and needs to be heavily modified or eliminated in its current form.

DiAnna · Nov 22, 2011

TheDemSocialist said:
CEO's, etc.

Because they are non profit
They dont sway politicians for gains in profits
When was the last time unions destroyed a financial sector?

Public employee unions are the primary cause of state/municipal bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies we are now experiencing. California is on the brink of economic collapse, while its public employee unions are the highest paid in the nation. That's the thing with public unions as opposed to private unions. Private unions can see the company's bottom line, and know that when the profit drops to zero everything, including their jobs, go away. Public unions just point to the taxpayers and public management negotiators, who have no dog in the race since they'll get paid no matter what, just shrug and send taxpayers the bill.

Corporations are not "people"; unions are not "people"; PACs are not "people"; special interest groups are not "people".

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

DiAnna said:
Public employee unions are the primary cause of state/municipal bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies we are now experiencing.

Completely false.

Public unions just point to the taxpayers and public management negotiators, who have no dog in the race since they'll get paid no matter what, just shrug and send taxpayers the bill.

And taxpayers don't care? They don't complain, or vote? Legislators feel no pressure to save money, and have no limits on what they can spend?

Simon W. Moon · Nov 22, 2011

First off, union ARE corporations

Ontologuy said:
In practice, the unions would gain an advantage, as there is a per-person donation maximum per recipient, and it might be an enforcement challenge to insure that unions didn't launder donations through individual members, which unions and ad hoc equivalents would have far more of than corporations could recruit.

Why would this practice be more suited for unions than any other group?

Simon W. Moon · Nov 22, 2011

X Factor said:
Any organization that's subject to federal income tax should be able to donate money how they see fit.

Why should fiction be treated the same as human beings?
And,after that, the real issue is that it breaks the system by bypassing the electorate. It becomes the special interests and the govt working together w/o much need to consult the actual bosses--the electorate.

DiAnna · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
You can say whatever you want.

:lol:

Why, thank you ever so much! :mrgreen:

Thrilla · Nov 22, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
First off, union ARE corporations

Why would this practice be more suited for unions than any other group?

unions are not corporations.. legally speaking.
they are unions.

Thrilla · Nov 22, 2011

DiAnna said:
Corporations are not "people"; unions are not "people"; PACs are not "people"; special interest groups are not "people".

you are quite correct.. they are not "people".

they are, however, "persons".. according to the law....and have been since the early 1600's

they have to be considered legal persons, else laws would not pertain to them.

misterman · Nov 22, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
Why should fiction be treated the same as human beings?

They aren't treated "the same."

But they do have some rights. Just like any group. You wouldn't say, for example, that a political party has no freedom of speech because it's not a person. Would you?

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 22, 2011

misterman said:
And my point - again - is that lobbying does not mean giving money. It is simply petitioning. If you don't like the fact that money is involved in lobbying, criticize that. Don't say all lobbying is bad.

I did not say that all lobbying is bad. I did say though that padding politicians pockets to get them to act in your behalf is wrong.

In the future please do not attempt to speak for me.

OhIsee.Then · Nov 22, 2011

There have been so many posts on this, but I have to add my two cents. I voted No for a practical reason. That is I don’t think such a law could be effectively enforced. Money moves so easily from person to person and place to place, that is the intent of money. So tracking it close to an election and enforcing a law in courts is not going to work. What we have to rely on are a sufficient number of educated voters that are resistant to dogma, advertising, and the ilk that they are the ones effectively decide elections.

Catawba · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
What about when you donate money? What's that like?

I'm in favor of ending all campaign donations and only providing a small equal amount from public funds.

whysoserious · Nov 23, 2011

misterman said:
And yet I'm the one who actually knows what I'm talking about, whereas you don't. And you're proof that most people don't know what a lobbyist's real job is. You would be smart to shut your mouth and listen to someone who actually does know, but I don't see that happening. And yeah, the little guy has a lobbyist - I was one of them.

I knew you were a lobbyist, lol. Get mad if you want, but let's be honest, useless ****ers. Everyone jokes at lawyers for being slimeballs, but lobbyists are probably worse in reality. I am still "listening" for you to teach me all these facts I don't know.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

Freedom From al said:
I did not say that all lobbying is bad. I did say though that padding politicians pockets to get them to act in your behalf is wrong.

In the future please do not attempt to speak for me.

I didn't mean "you" in the specific sense, but rather "one." Sorry.

misterman · Nov 23, 2011

whysoserious said:
I am still "listening" for you to teach me all these facts I don't know.

No you aren't.

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?