POLL-Lou Dobbs. Should all lobbying be banned?

[napi21]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

So far, it's 94% YES!

[bigwillq]

1. Done

Do you believe lobbyists and all lobbying organizations should be completely banned?

Yes 94% 2569 votes

No 6% 153 votes
Total: 2722 votes

[cry baby]

2. voted

[Oceansaway]

3. Done...

Yes 95% 3250 votes

No 5% 178 votes
Total: 3428 votes

[TomInTib]

4. done 95-5

[stepnw1f]

5. done (nt)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. done n/t

[sam sarrha]

7. yes .. have a weekly publication for reference for those elected officials

who are concerned and end ALL campaign contributions for Business.. the CEO's already made a contribution and giving money to elected officials is stealing form the investors.

[Acryliccalico]

8. Done n/t

:kick:

[Warpy]

9. Banning lobbying would cut both ways

meaning citizens' groups from the various states or even nationally organized would be prevented from lobbying for progressive reforms (think unions).

Something needs to be done, however, to put all those K Street crooks out of business, permanently. When access to government carries a price tag, then there is no way that government can be responsible to anyone but the men with the fattest wallets, the fastest Lear jets, and the nicest digs in the tropics in which to hold those "informational" junkets.

The vote shows the message about corruption and bribery has gotten out there. Let's hope Congress has a collective attack of conscience and does something about the vultures.

[napi21]

13. Someone suggested that lobbying be banned in DC.

The only place it would be permitted would be at the local level of each state.

That would at least prevent the Abermoff's of the world from getting a strangle hold on MANY Reps & Sens, and keep it in individual States! At least that way, the people who elect the money grubbing leaders could throw them out! Right now, I sure can't do anything but complain about DeLay, Cunningham, Frist, etc.

It sounds like a good idea to me! It wouldn't take the voice away from anyone, but would keep the eye of the voters who elect the individuals on what those idiots do once they get in office.

[sojourner]

14. congress...conscience...LOL!!!

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

10. The ACLU? NOW? NAACP? Planned Parenthood? VFW?

There are lobbying organizations and lobbying organizations. I'd be personally willing to throw a small dead baby out with the shit-infested bathwater, but be aware that there's lobbying of all kinds.

[nradisic]

Yes

Off, By and For the People. Period.

[onenote]

11. let's ban free speech!!

Its not lobbying per se that's a problem. Its when lobbyists become fundraisers rather than advocates for the substantive interests of their clients. I don't have a problem if the oil industry and the Sierra Club both hire lobbyists to go up to the Hill and explain to members of Congress why a particular piece of legislation should or should not be enacted. I do have a problem when the oil company lobbyist is making that pitch and a $5,000 a plate breakfast of lukewarm eggs and dried bacon.

onenote

[SoCalDem]

15. I agree with you, BUT the way the whole thing has changed, it

might be necessary to eliminate all of it..even the good onees. (for the greater good) If our elected officials were not so susceptible to being bribed, envionmentalists might not have to lobby so hard)..

Lobbying is to free speech as Personhood is to Big corporations

an idea that has been tweaked to within a millionth of an inch of life

[onenote]

18. how do you eliminate speech?

How do you define lobbying? Can I send a letter to my Senator saying support this or oppose that? Would that be lobbying? What if I write not just on my behalf but on behalf of my family (so they don't each have to write separately)? Or on behalf of my school? Or a club I belong to. What if I hire someone to write the letter for me since I don't write that well? Can I meet with my Senator? What if I'm in bumfuck? Can I hire someone to meet with him on my behalf?

Again, how do ban lobbying? You can't. What you can do is regulate fundraising.

onenote

[SoCalDem]

20. "Hiring" your request out is where the problems start

Those folks want to be paid well if they are to "work for you", and if you are "ordinary folks" you cannot pay enough to "make it worth their while"..

The trick is to elect decent people who do what they SAY they will do, limit their tenure, so they don't get all that cozy.

Our founders never intended politics to be a lifetime career. They envisioned people with good ideas, stepping forward to volunteer their services for s specified time, and to then go back to their "real" life.


Politics today is like the cute toddler who grew up to be a very ugly adult..

[onenote]

22. These Founding Fathers had a different view about term limits

The Founding Fathers on Term Limits

Alexander Hamilton: "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection .... One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them." (The Federalist, #72)

John Adams: "There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice.... hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people." (A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America)

James Madison: "No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it.... A few of the members , as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them." (The Federalist, #53)

Samuel Adams: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." (1780)

Roger Sherman: "Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.... In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government; and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office." (From Madison's notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

Gouverneur Morris: "The ineligibility proposed by the clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, make hay while the sun shines.'" (From Madison's notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

Samuel Adams: "Much safer is it, and much more does it tend to promote the welfare and happiness of society to fill up the offices of Government after the mode prescribed in the American Constitution, by frequent elections of the people. They may indeed be deceived in their choice; they sometimes are; but the evil is not incurable; the remedy is always near; they will feel their mistakes, and correct them." (1790)

[SoCalDem]

23. Nobody's perfect..

not even them :P

[B Calm]

25. Anytime you have to PAY for Free Speech, it's not FREE

[onenote]

26. So if I take out an ad?

Publishing the names of two dozen like minded people who support/oppose a particular government policy...that's not protected by the constitution?

onenote

[Tommy_J]

12. done

[donheld]

16. Does everybody feel it should all be banned?

I voted yes, but I'm questioning myself.

[onenote]

19. I don't

see post 18

[Pam-Moby]

17. Done

Do you believe lobbyists and all lobbying organizations should be completely banned?

Yes 95% 5604 votes

No 5% 284 votes
Total: 5888 votes

[A Simple Game]

21. Voted yes but didn't really mean it.

Some lobbying is necessary, and even does some good.

But if there is any connection between a lobbyist and a Representative or Senator monetarily or its equivalent, they both automatically are in jail for a year minimum. I mean if a lobbyist drops a penny, the Senator better not pick it up!

Money does not equal free speech, that law needs to be changed along with corporate personhood. If corporations are people, they better find a way for them to do jail time. If I did what some corporations do, I would be in jail.

[FlaGranny]

28. I would think that if any organization

was interested in legislation before Congress, a member of that organization could do the lobbying without paying any third party to do it. Lobbying should be legal, but it should involve no compensation, either to the person being lobbied or to the person doing the lobbying.

[Metta]

24. Done. Important.

There should only be public funding of elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. done

[bpilgrim]

29. wow - he took it to the extreme and even that is backfiring on the elite

k street appears to be in a world of hurt!

peace

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. kick