Can we possibly correct the corruption of Washington lobbyists ?

[jarab]

In regards to the 1st Amendment's right to petition clause, I found this snippet to be "curious":

"Restrictions such as registration and disclosure requirements are constitutional because they do not effectively prevent exercise of the right of petition. Yet the Court has not affirmatively recognized lobbying as a constitutionally protected activity anchored in the petition clause. Whether a lobbyist, as a paid agent, stands in the same position as a citizen requesting government consideration is unclear. The Court has recognized the right to freely associate and take collective action as inherent in lobbying, but it has not highlighted the unique role petitioning plays in such activities."

At least as far back as the Magna Carta, the right to petition in various fashions has been recognized, but it was used to gripe about an existing condition, not as assurance to gain something in the future without the presence of a recognized grievance - as seemingly done by today's lobbyists.

BTW - and FWIW - our Founders originally separated assembly/petition from the rest of what we know as First Amendment rights.

I perceive lobbyists to be vultures, and I note in light of present happenings some token changes are being proposed. Since - as noted above - the right of petition as now practiced is largely untested in courts, this would appear to require court action for further definition.
It's clear to me that our Founders did not define the right to petition the government the way it's currently practiced - buying one's way out of a perceived "grievance" which may present itself in the future (protecting oneself or one's interest from a possible future grievance?).
mini-rant/

...O...

[Sammy Pepys]

1. I think the question revolves around this...

Yet the Court has not affirmatively recognized lobbying as a constitutionally protected activity anchored in the petition clause. Whether a lobbyist, as a paid agent, stands in the same position as a citizen requesting government consideration is unclear. The Court has recognized the right to freely associate and take collective action as inherent in lobbying, but it has not highlighted the unique role petitioning plays in such activities.

Having some experience with lobbyists (or the less noxious "consultants"..whetever you want to call them), it's pretty easy to make the case that they do. Most lobbying outfits don't act without direction from those they represent. That direction may not be specific (go to talk to John Jones in the Appropriations Committee), but I'd say the affect a client has on a lobbyists activities is substantial.

I'm also not certain how you could seperate the activities of a lobbyists from groups like MoveOn, the NRA, AARP, etc etc etc. This is not the best analogy, but it's not forbidden for someone accused of a crime to seek a high-priced lawyer for the purposes of defense when the state can provide one for free, nor is it forbidden for a defendant to provide their own legal defense with no help at all. I think a version of that same thinking would end up applying to lobbying activities.

[kentuck]

2. Thoughtful....

Maybe too much so for DU..:) But you are correct that Congress is way behind on this issue. They are still debating whether or not money is free speech...

[OneBlueSky]

3. we can if we start a movement for a Constitutional Amendment . . .

that bans lobbying altogether . . . it's a long, drawn out process to be sure, but it will keep the issue in the forefront of public consciousness (much as the fight for the ERA did) . . . just a thought . . .