- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Simple question for the board....Why is lobbying legal?
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:43 am to Bjorn Cyborg
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:43 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
So you don't think the public should be allowed to have their voices heard by legislators?
There's a big difference from having your voice heard and "paying" to have your voice heard. Money shouldn't be part of the equation.
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 10:45 am
2
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:44 am to VoxDawg
quote:This would actually INCREASE corporate power, not decrease it.
That is a fantastic question. Corporations should never be able to receive protections that individual taxpayers could not. In my opinion, lobbying should be illegal.
I mean, even if all campaigns were free to run, you can bet that the CEO of GE, MS, Apple, etc etc can dial their Senator and fully expect the phone to get answered.........BY THE SENATOR.
But, if YOU expect that to occur on your behalf, your only chance is as a member of a group that pools your money. IE, AARP, NRA, Nat'l Right to Life, Planned Parenthood and on and on.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:46 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:So, you draw the line at asking someone to speak on your behalf?
There's a big difference from having your voice heard and "paying" to have your voice heard
So if the neighborhood association wants to voice an opinion to their State Rep, the entire membership needs to travel to the Capital? They cannot just send Midge, because she has the time?
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 10:50 am
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:46 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
Let's clarify some things, starting with the first amendment:
Note part in bold.
So people have a constitutional right to petition the government. I hope no one disagrees with that.
BUT THAT'S NOT LOBBYING!!! I hear some say.
Look at the other part in bold. People also have the right to assemble. So if a bunch of people group together that is clearly constitutional.
Therefore if a bunch of people group together to petition the government, that's a CORE constitutional right.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN!!! I MEAN THE EVIL BAD LOBBYISTS!!!! You mean the people you disagree with?
NO, NO! THE FAT CAT CORPORATIONS WHO BUY ELECTIONS!!!!
So separate campaign donations from lobbying. Yes they are often linked in practice, but they are two distinct things. If your issue is campaign donations that brings you down the rabbit hole of PACS and the first amendment and the whole campaign finance reform discussion. And there is probably something to be gained from that discussion.
But lobbying is when people (hired or not) go and talk to their elected representatives. I don't think you want to outlaw lobbying. I think you probably want campaign finance reform.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note part in bold.
So people have a constitutional right to petition the government. I hope no one disagrees with that.
BUT THAT'S NOT LOBBYING!!! I hear some say.
Look at the other part in bold. People also have the right to assemble. So if a bunch of people group together that is clearly constitutional.
Therefore if a bunch of people group together to petition the government, that's a CORE constitutional right.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN!!! I MEAN THE EVIL BAD LOBBYISTS!!!! You mean the people you disagree with?
NO, NO! THE FAT CAT CORPORATIONS WHO BUY ELECTIONS!!!!
So separate campaign donations from lobbying. Yes they are often linked in practice, but they are two distinct things. If your issue is campaign donations that brings you down the rabbit hole of PACS and the first amendment and the whole campaign finance reform discussion. And there is probably something to be gained from that discussion.
But lobbying is when people (hired or not) go and talk to their elected representatives. I don't think you want to outlaw lobbying. I think you probably want campaign finance reform.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:49 am to jbond
quote:
Case law requires proof of an explicit quid pro quo I believe, which is damn hard to prove
This. Without that evidence, putting restrictions on lobbying will run afoul of most of the first amendment jurisprudence.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:49 am to BigJim
All true.
Lobbying itself isn't the issue. It's a campaign finance issue. And that's a huge issue for sure, but very complex.
Lobbying itself isn't the issue. It's a campaign finance issue. And that's a huge issue for sure, but very complex.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:52 am to BigJim
quote:
I don't think you want to outlaw lobbying. I think you probably want campaign finance reform.
Valid and important distinction.
Although I will add that I am very suspicious of K Street's influence on the Hill, and the various ways they work to either grease the skids or promise lucrative employment in the private sector, etc. I think there is room for reform in both areas, but campaign finance reform should absolutely be first in line.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:52 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
And that's a huge issue for sure, but very complex.
Citizens United Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:53 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
Lobbying itself isn't the issue. It's a campaign finance issue. And that's a huge issue for sure, but very complex.
I honestly don't see this as an issue at all and I think the people that do fail to understand what they are really saying.
They're basically arguing, "hey, we need campaign finance reform because these frickers can be bribed".
Well. I submit that even if it were free to run for President, you don't actually solve the "can be bribed" reality.
BUT, here's what you DO cause.
You causes a situation where the only people who have the ear of politicians are the preeminent people the routinely interact with. For example, if all campaigns were free, you would instantly castrate almost every advocacy group you can think of from the AARP to the NAACP to NRA, to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life to...........well, everyone.
ALL such groups would cease to have any leverage to get the ear of politicians. But, Bill Gates would still have them all on speed dial!
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:55 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
In pertinent part:
"Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech ***; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
US Const 1 Am.
"Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech ***; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
US Const 1 Am.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:56 am to Oilfieldbiology
[quote]It’s illegal to take a doctor to dinner
Can you please cite the law on this?
Can you please cite the law on this?
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Can an individual approach his representative to advocate or oppose pending legislation? A group of neighbors? A group of local businesses? The local Chamber of Commerce? The State Chamber of Commerce?
Probably not, that's why there are lobbyist representing your interest. Take any issue in your life there is a lobbyist representing it, either for or against it. If you drive car there is a lobbyist representing auto manufacturers, and one representing a driver advocacy group, same for insurance, there will be one representing insurance corporation and one representing the insured. Repeat for every possible issue you can imagine.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:59 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
There's a big difference from having your voice heard and "paying" to have your voice heard. Money shouldn't be part of the equation.
Well, sort of but not really.
A lobbyist will have more influence than a single constituent who might get written off as a nut job (at the Congressional level). But 20-30 is enough to make them take notice. Especially if they are sincere and not some form email that people sent in.
Lobbyists have their strongest affect on low-key technical bills. Things no normal citizen would pay attention to.
And don't forget lobbyists battle lobbyists on just about every issue since just about every group is represented by a lobby often more than one.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 10:59 am to EA6B
quote:More importantly...........if you gutted the ability to financially support candidates who share your views, only HALF of the above mentioned would continue to have influence.
If you drive car there is a lobbyist representing auto manufacturers, and one representing a driver advocacy group, same for insurance, there will be one representing insurance corporation and one representing the insured. Repeat for every possible issue you can imagine.
And, it wouldn't be the average schmo half!!
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:00 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
It shouldn’t be....
I used to support it blindly, but then I looked into it. Many large companies who have made it to the top of their field lobby to get increased regulations so as to make it harder for upstarts and others to compete with them. It’s disgusting that this is allowed.
I used to support it blindly, but then I looked into it. Many large companies who have made it to the top of their field lobby to get increased regulations so as to make it harder for upstarts and others to compete with them. It’s disgusting that this is allowed.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:01 am to jnethe1
quote:
I used to support it blindly, but then I looked into it. Many large companies who have made it to the top of their field lobby to get increased regulations so as to make it harder for upstarts and others to compete with them. It’s disgusting that this is allowed.
They successfully did this despite the fact that there are group lobbying efforts in D.C. attempting to counter them.
You eliminate the lobbying and all you're left with is powerful corporations who have Senators on speed dial with ZERO group lobbying efforts to counter them!!
Great improvement.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:02 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
heard any of our leaders (on both sides) speak out against this?
Any that do it's just BS...
But the reason it's legal is freedom...on the other hand, the reason bribery is illegal is immorality...
I think they should just make bribery legal and go full Banana Republic...instead of this veiled morality crap
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:04 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
I believe the reasons why we get so much terrible legislation is solely due to lobbyists..
Healthcare
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 11:05 am
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:06 am to ShortyRob
So by eliminating the lobbying, this would be beneficial for the larger corporations? Is that your argument?
Posted on 1/28/19 at 11:08 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
So politicians can get rich without actually stealing tax dollars.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News