Fine, but those activities are not in and of themselves "lobbying" nor are they required for lobbying. So if you are complaining about donations, you should say donations, not lobbying, because you can have lobbying without donations, and vice versa.
I thought just a few posts ago we agreed to use the dictionary definition of lobbying rather than your special definition because you didn't provide another word that describes the activity under discussion and because the dictionary definition is often a reasonable definition to use.
:shrug:
Since corporate and union money is already legally banned as a source of funds for candidates, further discussion is required.
This would be one of those good times for you to provide some additional information. Like some sort of a citation which elaborates and confirms your assertion. Because, that money is getting into the revenue stream somehow. Just because it has to jump through hoops or be funneled into another entity on its way or w/e doesn't really negate its practical impact.
So, if you can, please provide some educational information in this area.
Nothing enjoys an end-run around the electorate. All votes and proceedings in Congress (save a few national security items) are public record.
As I have been pointing out, this is insufficient. The costs of securing this information effectively renders it secluded and obscured to the general public. Hence the wonky things that occur.
I have discussed this in multiple posts relating to
rational ignorance and
rational irrationality. If you want to use a different phrase to describe the fact that the general electorate remains ignorant of these things and there's not much incentive for either the lobbying side nor the legislative side to fill them in on them, feel free. But end run around seems adequate.
I blame the electorate for any lack of motivation.
Of course you do. And rather than work on a way to involve the electorate and improve the country, you'd rather continue a system which benefits your profession at the expense of the electorate and the nation. To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, "Who do they think they are?" It
's almost as if members of the electorate think that just power is derived from the consent of the governed--the uppity little ****s.
Sure it is. Happens every day. List an issue and I'll find a group that's working on it.
Go for it. You can start with the example most recently listed of the Fanjul family. What lobbying group is specifically against that agenda and why are they failing?
And then you can explain the significance of the needing to hire
even more lobbyists to effectively influence our public servants rather than have them be inherently more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Why should we prefer to have even more lobbyists rather than a more responsive govt?
You don't need to golf with him. You can write him, or meet him at a town meeting, or even visit his office in DC or at home and talk to his staff. I've done all these as a private citizen.
Your response to the charge that my influence as a citizen is less than the influence of a lobbyist is to suggest things which are less effective than what lobbyists do. It's obvious that these things are less effective, or else lobbyists wouldn't have to do the other things that they do. That doesn't actually seem like much of a rebuttal--more of a chiming in.
