What Senator Clinton said was technically correct.

[burythehatchet]

A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

- hrc


what she didn't say, or perhaps doesn't know, is that while lobbyists often do represent the interests of regular people, they do so at the expense of others...and here's the key...the benefit to the group usually is outweighed by the harm to many more. The is the basic, most essential issue that separates liberals and regressives, are you willing to harm many to benefit a few? Sometimes this is a good thing. For example a nurses union may succeed in improving staffing ratios through their lobbying efforts. That's a situation where a few benefit directly, the nurses and many patients pay. But in that example the patients also benefit with better quality care so they come out ahead.

What are some examples where it doesn't work out so good?

[EST]

1. I don't think it represents naivete on sen. Clinton's part,

merely calculation, that she was so inclusive. Her statement seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

[quiet.american]

2. We've had years of "technically correct" haven't we? Time for a change. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Including technically correct stories about blowjobs.

I expect Bushies to lie to me, but I gotta say I'm really damn sick of "technically correct" statements from anybody named Clinton too.

[Totally Committed]

3. Someday ALL lobbyist money will be banned from campaigns, and

those we elect will have to meet with us, hear us, and vote for our interests without us having to pay for their time.

That's the part no one seems to get. Even those who "lobby" for us have to go in with an open wallet, or what they have to say goes in one ear and out the other.... or their meetings get cancelled.

TC

[flpoljunkie]

6. When it's legal for lobbyists to serve as campaign fundraisers for members of Congress, they serve

first the special interests, and not the public interest.

[SaveElmer]

4. Anti-Lobbyist rhetoric is a gimic...the problem is not lobbyists...

The problem is campaign finance reform....

Lobbyists themselves cannot give any more money to a candidate than anyone else...it is the organizations behind them that can....

[burythehatchet]

8. You're probably right that lobbyists are not the problem, but crushing their

economic influence is the beginning of the solution.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Precisely so ...

The term "lobbyist" dates to the 19th century, specifically the Civil War, when those seeking to influence various matters would try to meet with members of Congress or the President. Abolitionists were lobbyists. Those urging that the US army be opened to enlistment by blacks were lobbyists. It becomes a form of collective bargaining not dissimilar to unions and the way they interact with management to express concerns of workers. A collective voice represented by one or a group that consolidates a message and has the skills to exert influence has more power than a disconnected smattering of individuals all shouting into the wind.

"Lobbying" is as old as politics.

The problem, as you say, is the money. Focusing on lobbying in and of itself misses the point entirely and leaves the money issue untouched. Remove lobbyists entirely, and you still have money. It just turns into more direct forms of payments.

[HereSince1628]

5. Does she support having immediate family members of US leadership employed as lobbiests?

I personally think the intimacy of family relationships with persons employed in the US Legislature, Executive or the Courts should not be available for exploitation by K-Street. An unfair price to pay for taking on one of these sacred positions? Wouldn't a promise of recusal from potential conflicts of interest be enough? Not hardly!

Of course, that would turn DC over like a bucket and spill a lot of family members out of their jobs. I'd be willing to bet there would be huge bipartisan majority to prevent it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. "The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few, or the one"

Mr. Spock, and if true, lobbyists should follow it to a "T"... but they don't.

[qazplm]

10. so what about

lobbyists for fighting AIDS?

or lobbyists for women's groups? NAACP? Gay Rights? LAMBDA? Unions?

This whole lobbyists = bad is an over simplistic, cartoonish approach.

So the idea that you are pure if you take from no lobbyists, and evil if you take from any is absolutely silly.

Now, Clinton may be "evil" but wouldn't that take an examination of WHICH lobbyists she is taking from and in what proportions?

[TeamJordan23]

11. A LOT of the lobbyists do not represent the American people. Some do, but to say A LOT of the ones

who donate money is misleading.

[polichick]

12. I'm pretty sure there are no money-people lobbying for...

Single payer universal healthcare or for the measures necessary to counteract global warming ~ and plenty lobbying against such essentials.

[BestCenter]

15. Are you kidding?

I don't know about universal healthcare, but are you saying that there are no environmental lobbyists at all? Really?

[polichick]

16. I'm saying there are far more people with money...

...lobbying for the status quo ~ key words being "with money."

Says a lot about our country that anyone should even have to lobby on behalf of the environment ~ taking care of the planet should be a given.

[Ethelk2044]

14. I am sick of Lobbyist and they can no do a damn thing for me. I want someone for the people not

for someone putting money in your pocket.