Many people have a bad taste in their mouth with the whole lobbyist idea. Considering this article from Time I don't image that public opinion will increase with the concept of lobbyists and lobbying. We have spoken in the past a little on the Lobby School where people can go to school and learn how to rip off the American people. Regardless of how unlikely it would be to get lobbyists and lobbying illegal, is that a good idea?
Lobby's do some good in this country. But it is not a secret that the voice of the people are only heard through their votes, not with the everyday type of issues that face our nation day to day because lobby's have choked out the voice of the american voter. I tend to think that lobbying should be made illegal. Mainly because there is no benefit that they provide that is not capable to be found in other approaches, and the fact that lobbyists have hijacked tax dollars for ridiculous pork projects, it would seem that the most good comes without lobbying in Washington DC.
Perhaps making lobbying illegal at the federal level only. On a state by state basis lobbying might be able to remain localized and therefore minimal. But I would be interested to see if lobbying were to be made illegal what would change?
It's not lobbying per se that's the problem. If you or I write our Congressman or take a trip to Washington and visit their office to discuss our concerns, that is and should be perfectly legal. If you and other like-minded citizens join a non-profit group to better express your views on pending legislation or regulation, that too should be encouraged, not discouraged.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that corporations with virtually unlimited funds and with profit as their only (or at least their primary) motivation, are flooding the halls of Congress and the regulatory agencies with paid flacks out to get their employer special privileges, tax breaks, and more federal money. The problem here is that corporations aren't people and should not have the same rights as people to petition the Congress for redress of grievances. Individuals who happen to be employed by corporations are, of course, free to express their opinions and join groups, but the corporation itself should be prohibited from spending any of its funds to influence the political process or from facilitating any political action by its employees.
If we are going to permit corporations to have the rights and privileges of persons, then they have to bear the responsibilities and pay the penalties an individual person would pay should they violate the law. For example, if you or I were negligent and caused the deaths of other people and extensive property damage, we would be locked up and probably our assets would be seized to rectify the damage we caused. We would not get a minor fine and be allowed to continue with our lives unscathed. Why is there no corporate death penalty for corporations that kill people? Why do we seize the assets of drug dealers but not those of investment banks or oil companies who cause greater damage? Why do we lock up relatively petty thieves for decades and allow corporate thieves to get away with a slap on the wrist? If they want to be persons, then they should take the bad with the good.
I suppose I agree that perhaps the idea that citizens can get together and effect the outcome of their country is a fair goal, but is that lobbying?
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of lobbyist, I think of people who's SOLE purpose is to broker votes for money. Their job is to influence public policy and fund distribution through mafia like tactics. In many ways lobbyist are like the mafia, only legal... somehow.
If the government were run properly, and minimally, then there would be very little to lobby for. Tax money would be spent on that which the constitution allows for; basic services and national defense. Our taxes are way beyond what they should be because lobbyists are securing special interests (meaning government tax funded money) for those that hire them.
We had a lobbyist come to our office one day. She said that if we paid her 5000 for her services that she would be able to send about ten times that to our company through some kind of public use of funds that she could arrange through the state grants and other programs. The idea made my skin crawl. My then business associates took her up on the scam and I left the company shortly thereafter.
In today's world I don't believe the following to be a true statement:
Lobby = democracy.
I think the following is more true:
Lobby = ROI on tax payer dime with no viable public service or use to come of the money. It is a private reward with public funds.
If you think that there's not much to lobby for in national defense, I have a couple of fighters to sell you. Regardless of what the government chooses to spend our money on, there will be those who want to rip off the taxpayer by overcharging, selling things that don't work or aren't needed, and finding ways not to pay their taxes so that ordinary citizens have to shoulder the load. It's the old game: privatize the profit but socialize the risk.
ReplyDeleteYes, lobbying should be illegal, but we need to find a way to outlaw the shysters like the one that came to your office, while insuring that legitimate citizen-run organizations can make their voices heard in the halls of government.
It snot so much that I don't think there is a lobby for national defense, as much that I think that is one of the few things that the federal government needs to be spending our money on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Charles that legitimate citizen run organizations should have a voice. The problem seems to go back to money. Who gets it and for what? In Utah a person has to register as a lobbyist and they have to declare what the spend on whom and what meals they have with whom, and it seems like that at least makes the issues more public. I am not sure that takes away the problem, but it makes it so that we the people can be our own watchdogs on what is happening in government. I am not so sure such a think is required at the federal level.
Do you think that might help, if there were more transparency to the processes? Or is there already and we the people are just being to passive about it?
More transparency is good, but I am not opposed to an outright ban on corporate lobbying. As for the military, the government certainly doesn't need to spend anywhere near the amount it spends today to defend the nation. The military is an excellent example of what happens when lobbyists for those who benefit from government expenditures control the spending.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you saying that lobbying by non-profit groups or private citizens is acceptable to you then Charles? The idea of allowing corporations to support candidates is not agreeable?
ReplyDeleteYes exactly. You and I are citizens and are entitled by the Constitution to petition our lawmakers and to freely assemble to do so. Corporations are not persons, not citizens, and have only those rights we as citizens choose to give them. I choose to require them to focus on creating value by providing useful goods and services and keep their noses out of politics.
ReplyDeleteEvery thing I see with Insurance companies.And now if you seek employment they use your credit score as the factors in which. They adjust your insurance rates and whether if you get hired are not.You would think a guy with a bad score needs a job more than anyone. What does your credit score have with driving record.Every new law and piece of legislation pasted recently.Its nothing more than attacks on the poor and middle class
ReplyDelete