Yes or no: Amend the Constitution to make illegal any corporate lobbying of elected officials?

[brentspeak]

And candidates for public office.

If, as corporate lobbyists claim, campaign finance reform violated the First Amendment, then simply pass a new amendment which would add an exception.

Of course it's a pipe dream, but for the sake of the poll, assume that it isn't.

[Deep13]

1. It's the money that's the problem. nt

[gateley]

6. It's always about the money. Everything is about the money. nt

[Forkboy]

2. Well this is an easy poll.

And while I'm leery of any amendments, fuck it, we've had a few already and this would be a good one to add.

The rub is in the details, naturally. Not ALL lobbyists are lobbying for bad things.

[doc03]

5. Usually the ones with the most money are! n/t

[Forkboy]

8. No doubt there.

But for the sake or argument (this IS DU after all) I had to say what I did. ;)

[gateley]

3. Bwah! Talk about a push poll! I wish it wasn't just a pipe dream. nt

[jefferson_dem]

4. Push poll much?

Amend the constitution to prohibit certain groups from lobbying while other groups are allowed to lobby?

Um...no thanks.

Have you ever read Federalist #10?

[brentspeak]

12. Madison argued that the larger faction should be protected from the smaller faction

Corporations are hardly representative of "the larger republic". But you're on the same page as Clarence Thomas when it comes to interpreting Federalist #10 as advocating for lessened liberty to thereby preserve corporate lobbying: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/98-963.html#fn5.9

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all corporate persons are created equal, that they...

(from the neo-"conservative" Declaration).


The root of this problem is, of course, the doctrine of "corporate personhood" as applied to human rights, which is one of the more perverse revisions expoused by what now passes for "conservatism".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Repeal the first amendment?

No thanks.

[napi21]

10. I don't think you want to do awa y with lobbyists. Nor do I think you could!

Labbying is petitioning the gov't and that's authorized in the constitution. Besides, there are some lobbyists that you, for your own reasons, want to represent your views to condgess. What should be made illegal is lobbyists being able to give MONEY to congressmen, PACS, or any other group that could funnel the $$ to congress. Personally I'd like to see public funding of campaigns, and mandatory time given to anyone running for an office who has reached a specific threshold, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Maybe allowing individuals to give directly to candidates, and corporations only to Parties.

[loyalkydem]

11. In IL

Corporations can only donate 10,000 to a candidate. Do you think something like that could work on a national level.

[brentspeak]

13. It could be workable, as long as

there's some way to prevent "pooling" from corporations' employees, collusion of various interests, etc.

[harkadog]

14. What a loaded poll

[glitch]

15. This is a push poll I can agree with -- it pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it? ;) nt

[Dragonfli]

16. Interesting to see who the pro corporate lobbyists are in the replies

They seem familiar, reminiscent of trolls on this site that speak of ponies and abandoning core Democratic principles as if it were a good thing.

Must be my memory, I can't possibly be reading posts from them here that could have been typed by the most conservative of Republicans.

I mean this is a Democratic site so I must be imagining such replies.

[RoadRage]

17. Honestly.. i'm not sure

I don't know what the current policy is - but if there is a way to police it or if it's mandatory that it's public.. then I'm not sure if that's worse then making it illegal, and watching all sorts of back-room deals go down.

At the end of the day, everyone of these ass-hats are filthy money hungry scumbags, and they're not going to just stop taking (or giving) bribes because some stupid "law" tells them they have too.

It'll just be pushed further underground.... so if it's illegal, it needs to come with a nice long mandatory jail sentance. Because most of these guys get a light slap on the wrist if they're even caught.

[Trillo]

18. I would think it would require recission of the doctrine of Corporate "Personhood".

That would seem to remove the corporate 'petition of grievances' issue, since the plain language of the First Amendment seems to say it applies to "people". Thus, corporations, as long as they are considered "people", would seem to be allowed to assemble and petition.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Money+%3D+Speech&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4">Money being interchangeable with Speech also seems a second "doctrine" that would need overturning.

Making "corporate lobbying" "illegal" without rescinding http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/">Corporate Personhood seems to set up a constitutional lawsuit. So to with http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-34.htm">Money = Speech rulings.

[jgraz]

19. No. Corporations have no rights, so no amendment is needed.

Even trying to add this amendment concedes the fallacious point that corporations cannot be subject to ANY restriction the government passes.