DU this Capital News poll on lobbyists

[mandyky]

http://www.capitalnews.org/index.asp

Should Congress ban lobbyists?

[babylonsister]

1. Boy, a Congress w/o lobbyists; what a concept! nt

[onenote]

10. yep, that would help environmentalist and unions and others

There are lobbyists on all sides of issues. Lobbying isn't the problem. Its the campaign fundraising and lavish entertaining that's the problem. You can have one without the other.

onenote

[babylonsister]

13. How about healthcare? Big pharma wouldn't have their

reps to do their dirty tricks. I pray something eventually comes of this and rules are enforced.
Ha! I can dream...

[Oceansaway]

2. done

Should Congress ban lobbyists?
Yes


78%

No


22%



Total Votes: 895

[bigwillq]

3. Done

Should Congress ban lobbyists?
Yes


79%

No


21%



Total Votes: 908

[Pam-Moby]

4. Done

Should Congress ban lobbyists?
Yes


79%

No


21%



Total Votes: 910

[cosmicdot]

5. done

Should Congress ban lobbyists?
Yes 79%
No 21%

Total Votes: 922

[xxqqqzme]

6. R corporations able 2

write lobbiests off as a business expense?

[spindrifter]

7. Done...no lobbyists? Great!

[biscotti]

8. Done

yes 79%

[onenote]

9. uh, and what is the "DU" answer?

Personally, I just voted no. Banning speech isn't my idea of progressive thinking. The problem isn't "lobbyists" its campaign funding. There is nothing inherently wrong (and actually much right) with groups organizing to present their message (and arguments) in opposition or support with respect to matters of public policy. Its when groups (and individuals) mix presenting their substantive messages with campaign fundraising and/or lavish entertaining that the problems arise. Strict limits on lobbying expenditures for meetings outside the elected official's office (in DC or back home) and public financing of campaigns would be much more effective than "banning lobbying" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

11. "We the people" are the only lobbyists necessary

[onenote]

12. so what is or isn't lobbying

If I write a letter to my representative asking him to support policies that protect the oceans, is that lobbying? What if I get together with my local scuba club and we all sign a letter taking that position? What if we buy an ad in the newspaper or run a spot on radio or TV? At what point have we crossed the line? A Congressman is persuaded that legislation should be drafted regulating emissions from cars. Should he write it himself or can he get input from experts who work for environmental organizations? I live in DC and can visit any member of Congress relatively easily. But if I lived in bumfuck and wanted to hire someone to carry my message for me, should I be forbidden from doing so?

I think its odd that folks are so quick to limit political speech. As I indicated, buying a fancy dinner or taking someone to Bermuda: not political speech. Setting up meetings and helping to frame an argument for or against a particular position (and a strategy for accomplishing a particular legislative goal)-- not inherently bad.

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

14. Only people should be able to lobby

Corporations are not people, contrary to common knowledge

[onenote]

15. so can a partnership lobby?

Can a corporation hire people to lobby? Can people hire a corporation to lobby? If my scuba club is just an informal club can we lobby but if we incorporate we can't?

Who is allowed to advocate for or against the passage of legislation? How do you expect the average person to even know about legislation if there aren't groups who are paid to follow what Congress is doing, analyze it, report on it, help formulate a response and then help deliver that response. Do you think environmental groups, unions, etc. will do as well as, say defense contractors?

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

16. Hell no! Only American citizens! What's so hard to understand?

[onenote]

21. so non-citizens can't lobby?

who's gonna speak for the green card holders when some nutjob proposes throwing them out of the country?

Or is it only individuals? Okay. But I'm an indvidual. I support a particular piece of legislation. Would it be illegal for me to say that my view is shared by members of my scuba club? Do they each have to speak for themselves individually?

Lobbying is a lot of things. Some of the practices that are part of lobbying are unnecessary to the advocacy of public policy and should be constrained. Stopping people from speaking -- or having someone speak on their behalf -- not good.

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

22. First, you must be eligible to vote to lobby

Second, you can speak to whatever issue you want. Your scuba club, sure! But with the understanding that you are only (and CAN only) speak for yourself and your dependants.

[onenote]

23. I'll try one more time.

Under your approach, as I understand it, individual breast cancer survivors (and others interested in federal support for treatment and cure research) can individually contact members of congress and say "fund cancer research". But if they form an organization and come up with a coordinated strategy where they send in a representative to meet with members of congress to propose a specific funding plan, providing arguments in support thereof (facts,figures why the money would be well spent and how it would be accounted for etc), they should be thrown out of the representative's office and told to never ever come back.

I prefer my world.

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

24. No, it doesn't work that way

[onenote]

25. well that clears it up

Someone tell the Susan Komen Fund and the National Breast Cancer Coalition to shut their doors and stop doing what they've been doing since "it doesn't work that way."

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

26. You're talking about several things not related

You can still raise money and have foundations!

[onenote]

27. both of those groups have lobbying arms

using registered lobbyists to promote particular public policy initiatives supported by their membership. They pay for these lobbyists and for their grass roots organizing with money raised from a variety of sources: individual contributions, matching corporate donations, donations from foundations (including corporate foundations), even money from corporations. And as I understand it, you would ban them from engaging in any of their lobbying activity and leave it up to the cancer survivor community to come up with and communicate messages individually rather than in an organized manner.

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

28. That's the whole point - Lobbyists are illegal

[onenote]

29. fortunately they're not and that's not going to change

thanks to the first amendment

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

30. This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment

[onenote]

32. right, because the first amendment doesn't have anything to do with

the advocacy of public policy positions. Which, of course, is what lobbying is.

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

34. The first amendment covers individual rights

[onenote]

35. and if individuals want to express their rights by engaging someone

to speak on their behalf, that doesn't count? So I guess newspapers don't have first amendment rights, just individual writers? So if you're hired as an editor by a newspaper corporation to decide what goes in the paper and what doesn't and the state decides it wants to make those decisions for the paper, not a first amendment issue?

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

36. You raised 2 or 3 strawmen just now.

You can speak 'on behalf' of as many people as you want, but with the understanding that you are really only able to speak for yourself. Yes, individual writers should have 1st amendment rights, not corporations that control newspapers. And as to your third point - no, government cannot censor a newspaper.

[onenote]

37. Now we're getting somewhere

"You can speak 'on behalf' of as many people as you want, but with the understanding that you are really only able to speak for yourself."

Someone speaking on behalf of others...that's lobbying. And its protected free speech.

And I'm not following why you conclude that the government can't censor a newspaper put out by a corporation if your position is that the first amendment doesn't confer any first amendment rights on a corporation?

onenote

[MadisonProgressive]

38. Because the people writing the articles are humans

[MadisonProgressive]

39. I didn't say speaking on behalf - I said speaking 'on behalf'...

[onenote]

40. the management of corporations are humans too,

as are the folks that they hire to speak on their behalf. So if a corporation's management (humans) hires lobbyist (human) to present public policy positions to elected officials (lobbying) on behalf of the humans who manage the corporation, it would seem to fit within even your vision of the first amendment.

onenote

[mandyky]

33. There isn't a DU answer

I meant that DUers should vote. period. not what they need to vote.

[DanCa]

17. I lobby for parkinson's funding and stem cell research .

Do we throw the baby out with the bath water because of corrupted politicians or do we fix the systems?

[MadisonProgressive]

19. Good for you!

[karlrschneider]

18. Are you a Communist? We have the best congress money can buy!

:evilgrin:

[MadisonProgressive]

20. Bull! We have much higher standards in this country!

Lots of governments can be bought, but you really need TOP DOLLAR to buy ours!
:patriot:

[Vidar]

31. done 80% ban--sadly utopian

[insanity]

41. Lobby Groups are not the problem

The problem is campaign finace laws and dirty politicians. I think the real answer is term limits in congress with a cap on spending (I think it would be fair if it was a cap that depended on state population).