• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law to Curb Lobbying Sends It Underground

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

... we'll just call ourselves something else.


Law to Curb Lobbying Sends It Underground


In light of strict new regulations imposed by Congress over the last two years, Ms. Miller joined a wave of policy advocates who are choosing not to declare themselves as lobbyists.


The falloff began shortly after Congress passed a sweeping ethics and lobbying law that imposed on registered lobbyists both heavier reporting requirements and potential criminal penalties. The law required lobbyists to report four times a year instead of two, and to detail any campaign contributions and certain meetings with public officials. The law also made it a crime for registered lobbyists to provide gifts or meals to lawmakers or their aides.


So, lobbyists are now "policy advocates" who aren't subject to the new regulations.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

as long as no money, gifts, or favors change hands, they can call themselves garfield for all I care.
 
Law to Curb Lobbying Sends It Underground - NYTimes.com

Ellen Miller, co-founder of the Sunlight Foundation, has spent years arguing for rules to force more disclosure of how lobbyists and private interests shape public policy. Until recently, she herself registered as a lobbyist, too, publicly reporting her role in the group’s advocacy of even more reporting. Not anymore.

In light of strict new regulations imposed by Congress over the last two years, Ms. Miller joined a wave of policy advocates who are choosing not to declare themselves as lobbyists. “I have never spent much time on Capitol Hill,” Ms. Miller said, explaining that she only supervises those who press lawmakers directly. “I am not lobbying, so why fill out the forms?”

Her frankness makes Ms. Miller a standout among hundreds of others who are making the same decision. Though Washington’s influence business is by all accounts booming, a growing number of its practitioners are taking a similar course to avoid the spotlight of public disclosure. “All the increasing restrictions on lobbyists are a disincentive to be a lobbyist, and those who think they can deregister are eagerly doing so,” said Jan Baran, a veteran political lawyer who has been fielding questions from clients hoping to escape registration. “It is creating some apparent contradictions.”

This highlights the flaws inherent in a system that relies on regulations to limit what is in essence speech. Much like we see in the case of campaign contributions and commercials, increased regulations only result in an increase in the number of people operating outside of the rules.

Another problem with this whole system is that it creates perverse incentives:

Before the new rules, the number of advocates who registered as lobbyists appeared to have grown steadily, peaking in late 2007. A tally by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (another group founded by Ms. Miller) put the count at about 13,200. The number fell by nearly 2,000 by the fall of last year. The falloff began shortly after Congress passed a sweeping ethics and lobbying law that imposed on registered lobbyists both heavier reporting requirements and potential criminal penalties. The law required lobbyists to report four times a year instead of two, and to detail any campaign contributions and certain meetings with public officials. The law also made it a crime for registered lobbyists to provide gifts or meals to lawmakers or their aides.

Although the amount of lobbying has not decreased in the slightest, the Congressmen who passed these "reforms" can now claim that they decreased the number of lobbyists. Similarly, proponents of campaign finance reform claim that they limited the influence of big money in elections, despite the fact that they simply moved it around.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

as long as no money, gifts, or favors change hands, they can call themselves garfield for all I care.

That's the point: money, gifts, and favors do change hands. Regulating the lobbyists was supposed to have at least slowed down the exchange.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Well redefinition of the same thing into a fake "other" thing is what the 2009 election was all about. It continues to be --- Blackwater changes their name and no one's supposed to pay them any mind. ACORN does the same thing. Congress defines a "lobbyist" and they simply re-invent themselves to not apply to the law... why not? It's what our President has been doing in his first year --- call it "progress" long enough - redefine the criteria of progress, and all is well. Victory can be claimed at a whim.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Well redefinition of the same thing into a fake "other" thing is what the 2009 election was all about. It continues to be --- Blackwater changes their name and no one's supposed to pay them any mind. ACORN does the same thing. Congress defines a "lobbyist" and they simply re-invent themselves to not apply to the law... why not? It's what our President has been doing in his first year --- call it "progress" long enough - redefine the criteria of progress, and all is well. Victory can be claimed at a whim.

Actually, changing the name of something to make it appear to be something else is a long cherished tradition of politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are many examples I can think of, and I'm sure you can too.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

I'd rather see lobbyists or whatever they want to call themselves entirely eliminated. Not one red cent is allowed to be passed in any way, shape or form to politicians, period. No dinners, presents, tickets, not anything of any kind whatsoever. If you want to ask for help with your problem, fine. If you want to buy influence, forget it.
 
This highlights the flaws inherent in a system that relies on regulations to limit what is in essence speech. Much like we see in the case of campaign contributions and commercials, increased regulations only result in an increase in the number of people operating outside of the rules.
Exactly right!
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Actually, changing the name of something to make it appear to be something else is a long cherished tradition of politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are many examples I can think of, and I'm sure you can too.

Oh absolutely. I'm just using this current President because well, he's really good at it and he's the current President.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

as long as no money, gifts, or favors change hands, they can call themselves garfield for all I care.

Without money, gifts, and favors what would our government have left?
 
Naturally our Messiah can now turn round to the American Electorate and spout the word, um what was that word?, oh yes, 'CHANGE'.
Don't make me laugh, where money and politics are concerned the two can never be separated.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Without money, gifts, and favors what would our government have left?

The jobs they were elected to do? Just saying.
 
Naturally our Messiah can now turn round to the American Electorate and spout the word, um what was that word?, oh yes, 'CHANGE'.
Don't make me laugh, where money and politics are concerned the two can never be separated.
Does this have a single thing to do with Obama?
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Without money, gifts, and favors what would our government have left?

Protect our rights, and us from others & ourselves; then get the hell out of our way.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

actually, the political bribery situation might get worse very soon. The supreme court is expected to produce a very pro business ruling on this case which will pretty much allow corporations to spend all the money they please on future elections, which will pretty much destroy any hope of representation for citizens.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Protect our rights, and us from others & ourselves; then get the hell out of our way.

Protect us from ourselves?

I'd rather be protected from the excesses of government, thank you.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

the only way to decrease the influence of lobbyists is to decrease the power of the federal government.

why anyone would believe that the gov't could (or would) effectively regulate lobbyists in the first place is beyond me.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

the only way to decrease the influence of lobbyists is to decrease the power of the federal government.

why anyone would believe that the gov't could (or would) effectively regulate lobbyists in the first place is beyond me.

yeah then businesses wouldn't need special favors to run rough shod over the general population.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

yeah then businesses wouldn't need special favors to run rough shod over the general population.

Yeah,it's only suppose to be the Government that does that!
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

actually, the political bribery situation might get worse very soon. The supreme court is expected to produce a very pro business ruling on this case which will pretty much allow corporations to spend all the money they please on future elections, which will pretty much destroy any hope of representation for citizens.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki

It's about time to toss the old government in the trash can of history and start over.......... with the same constitution we have now, but none of the laws or precedents. Then read that constitution word for word, and shoot any judge that can't read.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

actually, the political bribery situation might get worse very soon. The supreme court is expected to produce a very pro business ruling on this case which will pretty much allow corporations to spend all the money they please on future elections, which will pretty much destroy any hope of representation for citizens.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki

As opposed to the current system, where those same corporations can just funnel all that money to PACs that do the exact same thing?

The idea that "campaign finance reform" actually keeps money out of politics or somehow protects your representation is one of the more pernicious myths in politics. I can't wait for the court to dump the BCRA in Citizens United. T-minus 13 hours and counting...
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

It's about time to toss the old government in the trash can of history and start over.......... with the same constitution we have now, but none of the laws or precedents. Then read that constitution word for word, and shoot any judge that can't read.

Let's be honest: a lot of constitution comes up to interpretation. Take Freedom of Speech for instance, the court is still trying to define where the line for protection of speech is, and where is stops. Is an armband protected speech? Hanging a soldier in effigy? You may have your own opinions of issues like these, but you can understand how reasonable people would disagree. It's nowhere as simple as you make it sound.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Let's be honest: a lot of constitution comes up to interpretation. Take Freedom of Speech for instance, the court is still trying to define where the line for protection of speech is, and where is stops. Is an armband protected speech? Hanging a soldier in effigy? You may have your own opinions of issues like these, but you can understand how reasonable people would disagree. It's nowhere as simple as you make it sound.

Have you ever read the constitution? It's a pretty short document, and is written in simple, easy to understand language.

Here, try it.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Tell me what you don't understand or isn't clear to you.
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Without money, gifts, and favors what would our government have left?
They still have our tax dollars. :shock:
 
Re: Regulate us lobbyists? No problem....

Have you ever read the constitution? It's a pretty short document, and is written in simple, easy to understand language.

Here, try it.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Tell me what you don't understand or isn't clear to you.

What I don't understand is what the limits are for what speech is protected under the first amendment, and to what extent. Is an armband "speech"? Can an advertiser lie about his product under the first? Can I say "I saw Crunch ****ing a goat" without consequence? If I make a parody of a Disney movie, can Disney sue me for copyright infringement, or are parodies covered? None of these questions are answered in the constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom