This story is archived
The K Street Syndicate »
Posted by: Spadecaller 2 years, 11 months ago"K Street columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online discuss the intersection of business, politics and government. 'Thanks for writing in. I wonder if any of you think that the pending ethics laws in the House and Senate will make much, if any, difference in the way lobbying works.'" Transcript reveals the K Street inside story.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
Welcome to my profile. About me: I'm an artist of several kinds; from bull to painting. I don't spare too many words. Most ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 14
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 17, 2007, 3:52 a.m."It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."
-- Paine
Exposure and "keeping theses issues out in the open" will, at best, keep the embers of our dying democracy alive.
To restore it, is a different matter. It would require unity and enough power to render our counterfeit government powerless by means of a boycott of the funds that we provide it to function, or to pretend to function.
That kind of courage and unity among the American people may have become extinct.
And that, is assuming enough Americans are even aware that our goverment is no longer "ours" -- that it has been bought by corporate lobbyists who direct their representatives who we elect periodically.
This is an issue that too many of us walk around as if it were that dreaded elephant standing in the middle of the room, which it is.
What then remains? Only the words of Paine, a written document, and the memory of a democracy fading.
(continued)
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 17, 2007, 3:58 a.m.Harsher rules and reforms make for good press, but is that what Americans truly want?
I think not!
From everything I hear at the grass roots level is that America wants to abolish lobbying.
It is a cancer to our representative democracy. Every time it has been cut back or reformed in the past, it has come back only to corrupt our system even more.
Lobbying is not a branch of govenrment; it's a tumor, a parasitic mass of cells attached to our Congress and it devours the checks and balances that our Congress is obligated to provide for us.
Are we ready to tell our reprentatives that we want institutionalized bribery outlawed altogether?
-
-
Amazing1
Jan. 17, 2007, 8:29 a.m.Lobbying = Legalized bribery.
Get rid of them all. If our elected "representatives" weren't spending all their time raising campaign funds and jockeying for position, they'd have plenty of time to READ the legislation they are voting on.
However, I think it is going to take all of us to yell, scream, stamp our feet, write letters, demonstrate and otherwise make noise before we get those moneychangers out of the temple.
-
Tango57
Jan. 17, 2007, 9:15 a.m.Just as the Mark Thurman issue, the ethics rules/law will only be as good as the folks in the office want it to be. How many people in the office knew what this guy was up to and did nothing.. How many will want to risk their personal position to do the "right" thing?
It seems to me the only heroes today live in New York City, (reference the man who saved the college student in the subway). Not many people are willing to go to that length for their fellow man, much less then for their country.
-
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 17, 2007, 9:19 a.m.All our little voices are like drops of water; eventually they will bore a hole through the rock, which stands in the way of freedom.
-
krayzdrayzor
Jan. 17, 2007, 10:53 a.m."assuming enough Americans are even aware that our goverment is no longer "ours" -- that it has been bought by corporate lobbyists who direct their representatives who we elect periodically".
This is an important point that was made.
"Every time it[lobbying] has been cut back or reformed in the past, it has come back only to corrupt our system even more".
This comment reminds me of dandelions.
So, with the crux of this problem identifyied what possible solutions are possible? I use possible in its broadest sense, that is, not necessarily workable - but not impossible.
1)Following the credo "follow the money", consumers have to exert their force over the businesses who employ lobbists. The aggregate revenue must fluctuate to an extent to get big business to notice it they, in turn will make better use of their lobbyists to control law makers. cont.
-
krayzdrayzor
Jan. 17, 2007, 11:08 a.m.cont.
2) While in a different "discussion", I was advised to look at an aspect of France's political history, of course I dug deeper.
The idea of term limits in the U.S. surfaces because it is seen as a way of keeping elected officials on a tighter leash, to prevent collusion between self-interest and big money from taking advantage of the masses.
An alternative as I see in the working of France's gov't could be to award one and only one term to any elected official; this term would be for a set period of time. However, if one borrowed the concept of a vote of confidence that could be applied to the elected officials, this too could be as effective in getting their minds off re-election and remembering their constituants interests. The provided check in their behavior with lobbists would be present.
One may never rid their lawn entirely of dandelions but they limit their growth.
-
FrankieT
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:04 p.m.My feelings have always been; we need lobbyists to supply information represtnting thier clients views on an issue. In other words - information. A law should be passed that lobbyist can never supply money, goods, services etc for legislators. No more problem if they would only pass such a law.
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 17, 2007, 12:29 p.m.On this one, my friend, I must say we disagree. Congress works 90 days a year. They can afford to get off their butts and find out all the information that they need about the corporations for which they want to assist, and without having to sacrice our representation in the process.
I've heard that story too from the lobbyists who insist that they provide a great service to our politicians by way of educating them to their goods and services. That same information would be available without establishing networks and pacts, and without inviting the kind of corruption that we continue to have.
Sitting judges must recluse themselves when they have previous relationships with those that come before them in the courts. Should we not hold our politicians to those same standards? Haven't we seen what happens?
-
-
not2needy
Jan. 17, 2007, 4:52 p.m.FrankieT, My feelings exactly, anyone accepting anything from a lobbyist should be brought up on charges and loss of position! 0 Tolerance!
-
FrankieT
Jan. 18, 2007, 7:34 a.m.Spade - The point is, for me, supplying information is like giving your reasons for something and I have no problem with that. We all do that all the time. however, as soon as money, etc. is involved it does become as not2needy suggests, criminal and as we all know, thoroughly destructive to our government.
ciao
Happy daze!
All 14 comments are shown.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
