• 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!

Trump sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban...

GhostlyJoe said:
This thread has nothing to do with insider trading. But, in general, no, i don't believe that just because something is legal means it's just hunky dory.

Americans have the right to lobby their government and advocate for policies and laws. I don't believe in stripping people of rights because of their previous job title.
Click to expand...

So then you have no issues with possible conflicts of interest for president Trump.
 
This is the sort of swamp draining that outrages liberals and inspired them to protest in the first place.
 
ModerateGOP said:
In other words, you can't ban the lobbyists that helped Trump make this anti-lobbying law lolz.
Click to expand...


Everyone appointed in his cabinet has signed an agreement that they can't lobby for five years. This was on Nov. 16, almost two weeks ago. This is binding whether it is passed as a law or allowed to stand as an executive order or not.

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team on Wednesday announced that it will require incoming officials to terminate their lobbying registrations, and agree not to lobby again for five years after leaving the administration.

Anyone joining the transition or the administration will have to sign the following pledge: “By signing below I hereby certify that I am not currently registered and reporting as a federal lobbyist as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act as amended or as a compensated lobbyist at the state level in any state. If I was listed as lobbyist in the most recent lobbying disclosure forms or reported to be filed by federal or state law, I hereby notify the president-elect’s transition team that I have filed the necessary forms to the appropriate government agency to terminate my [lobbying registration]. I will provide the transition team with written evidence of my federal or state lobbyist termination as soon as possible."

“The key thing for this administration is going to be that people going out of government won’t be able to use that service to enrich themselves,” Republican National Committee chief strategist Sean Spicer said during a conference call. After the call, he rejected a suggestion that the post-employment ban could hinder the transition team’s ability to recruit qualified applicants.
Click to expand...

Trump team announces tough lobbying ban - POLITICO
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
Fair point, but the modern practice is legal and fairly standard. It's basically just people banding together to promote an issue or cause.
Click to expand...

It's also people banding together to sell product and create laws to do it.
 
This wont change much, even if it stands challenge.
 
I'd only care if he did it for domestic lobbying -- but like that would ever happen. So much for making America great again. All he seems to care about is targeting foreigners.
 
Excon said:
This wont change much, even if it stands challenge.
Click to expand...

Id prefer he completely ban the foreign policy oriented lobby groups, like AIPAC.
 
this ban will inhibit lobbying just like the seven-year ban of military personnel prevented mattis from becoming the secretary of defense
 
MaggieD said:
A five year ban will ban lobbying for five years.
Click to expand...

Maggie, complicated math like that is too complicated for many LWers to grasp.
 
jimbo said:
I don't know what that means, or how it applies to shutting down revolving door lobbying.
Click to expand...

When you demand that government emplyees do the right thing and not chase the dollar you should be somebody who does the right thing and actually pays tax. Social concience goes both ways.
 
Tim the plumber said:
When you demand that government emplyees do the right thing and not chase the dollar you should be somebody who does the right thing and actually pays tax. Social concience goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a topic for another thread? This one's about a lobbying ban.

The top 9% of income level pays 50% of the taxes paid. Bottom 50% pays less than none. Like you say, social conscience goes both ways.
 
joG said:
I am really not for this simplistic type of solutions
Click to expand...

What's wrong with simple and clear rules? You work for the government, you can't turn around and use your contacts to line your pockets by setting up future jobs by favoring anyone.

I'm all for fair taxation, and simple. Anything you make above "$X" is taxed at "Y%".

So simple, you don't need a professional hand holder, and it takes you 15-minutes to do your taxes.

It also limits government.

The rules should be as simple as possible, and not any simpler. Then... when broken, throw the book at them.
 
Tim the plumber said:
When you demand that government emplyees do the right thing and not chase the dollar you should be somebody who does the right thing and actually pays tax. Social concience goes both ways.
Click to expand...

If said tax is fair... it should be the same for everyone, regardless of income above "$X".
 
zimmer said:
No dodge. Congress voted to give him a waiver.
Click to expand...

I am as conservative as they get, but I have a problem with having laws then proceeding to ignore them or waiver them away as you see fit. Not only this case, but the Pot laws, Obamacare, and countless others.

What's the point of having laws if you don't intend to enforce them?
 
jimbo said:
I am as conservative as they get, but I have a problem with having laws then proceeding to ignore them or waiver them away as you see fit. Not only this case, but the Pot laws, Obamacare, and countless others.

What's the point of having laws if you don't intend to enforce them?
Click to expand...

Agree, but I also see the ability for Congress to grant a waiver in exceptional cases. Perhaps such waivers should require a Super Majority to pass.

I believe Generals Marshall and Mattis are exceptional cases.
 
zimmer said:
Agree, but I also see the ability for Congress to grant a waiver in exceptional cases. Perhaps such waivers should require a Super Majority to pass.

I believe Generals Marshall and Mattis are exceptional cases.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on Mattis and Marshall. I just think laws should be laws. Don't like the laws, change them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom