I have heard it said several times that lobbyists promoting certain agendas have gone so far as to write an entire bill for a congressman or senator, and that some of the most important bills fall into this category.

The amount of work this requires is enormous in some cases. There may be hundreds of pages in a single bill. A congressman may have no possibility of writing such a bill. The time involved may be simply too extensive. They may have the ability to read the proposed bill and edit certain matters, but even reading hundreds of complex writing can be tedious or impossible given the demands on a congressman's schedule. (I'm trying not to digress too much by mentioning the time consuming affairs with pages and complications of hiding secret funds in the freezer, but still to keep them in mind.)

Even if a congressman is diligent and reads and edits the lobbyist's work, he might not notice specific, peculiarly worded phrases which are both unhealthy for the country and unfairly benefit the companies which fund the lobbyist.

In the end, the work performed by the lobbyist is not scrutinized appropriately. Instead the bill is promoted on a partisan basis and promoted or squashed primarily on the basis of right or left wing ideology. Media campaigns contribute to the end result because congress is a media driven organization after all. Since the media can be bought by the same firms that promote the special interest bills, there is a good chance of getting bills past if they conform to some collection of partisan nature or perhaps moral high ground, for the greater good.

I suspect that complexity in the bills goes to the benefit of the lobbying companies. The more complex a bill, the less likely that flaws in the structure will be identified and repaired, and the less likely a congressman will scrap the whole thing and start over.

For these reasons I suggest that it might make sense for a policy shift or even a new law to limit or even prohibit a lobbyist or a company engaged in lobby activity from authoring bills for congress or the senate.

isn't it smarter to keep the familiar criminals, rather than create a new forum for unknown ones?

just a question....


i agree that there needs to be MUCH more accountability and scrutiny with these bills and how they are structured, how the language of the law is manipulated and turned into a trojan horse...


it's quite clever actually..but very deceitful

The lobbyist have to go!

Shows you who really runs the country!

Hi Alex

Lobbyists are always going to be around. Telling the people they can not hire representatives to go speak to congressmen for them would be a little like limiting free speech, whatever you say.

However, letting them write the laws does not have to continue.

I think getting congress to act on this matter is unlikely because the alternative to having the lobbyists write the bills is for the lawmakers themselves to write them, which would be an enormous amount of work. Another reason they would not act on this matter is they would hardly like to call attention to their misfeasance along these lines for so many years.

There are so many politicians right now running for president that dont see eye to eye with that philosophy its not funny!

That sounds like someone who is only concerned with how they can benefit from the corporations running our politics!

Not only do these politicians want to eliminate lobbyist from politics but several, Edwards and Obama already refuse donations from them!

Tell me philosopher how do your interest fit in to your view on Lobbyist??

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.

And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.

But cleaning up Washington isn't enough. If we are going to meet the challenges we face and prevail over them, two principles must guide us -- yes, we must end the Washington game, but we must also think as big as the challenges we face. Our ideas must be bold enough to succeed and our government must be free to enact them without compromising principle or sacrificing results.

One without the other isn't good enough. All the big ideas in the world won't make a difference if they have to go through this broken system that remains controlled by big business and their lobbyists. And if we fix the system, but aren't honest with the American people about the scope of our challenges and what's required of each of us to meet them, then we'll be left with the baby steps and incremental measures that are Washington's poor excuse for progress.

As Bobby Kennedy said, "If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors."

But if we do both -- if we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington -- then we will be build the One America we dream of, where every man, woman and child is blessed with the same, great opportunity and held to the same, just rules.

John Edwards, Hanover, New Hampshire, August 23, 2007

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070823-hanover-speech/

Calls on Senator Obama to join him in urging Democratic Party to stop taking Washington lobbyist money

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards renewed his call for the Democratic Party to take a bold step toward reforming the way Washington works by refusing to accept federal lobbyist money from this day forward. In a letter sent earlier today, Edwards asked fellow Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama to join him in leading this important effort by co-signing letters that will be sent to all Democratic campaign committees urging them to end the money game in Washington.

Edwards first issued his lobbyist challenge to fellow candidates at the YearlyKos Presidential Leadership Forum on August 4, 2007.

There, Senator Clinton refused to accept Edwards challenge and went on to say that she would continue to accept donations from federal lobbyists.

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070816-lobbyist-challenge/

One of Edwards' top Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has vowed repeatedly to refuse money from special interests during his run for the White House — a theme he echoed in a debate Monday night.

"We've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests," said Obama, whose campaign in April refunded more than $50,000 in contributions after discovering the donors were lobbyists.

Edwards raised $23.1 million in the first half of 2006. That ranks him third among Democrats, but he lags far behind New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama. As of the quarter ending June 30, Edwards has $13.3 million cash on hand, compared to Clinton and Obama, who have $45.2 million and $36.3 million. Clinton is accepting money from lobbyists.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1646742,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

i see lobbying as nothing more than legalized bribery.

Fanta you missed the point here. I was talking about lobbyists writing legislation for the congress. Lobby money was never mentioned.

People line up to disavow lobby money, yet many of them take it anyway. Don't try to put it off on Republicans either, that is no reflection of reality and I'm not interested in a party line commentary here.

As for my position on lobbyists, I didn't mention that much either, but since you asked... I know a few people who visit politicians in Washington. I'm not sure they are your typical lobbyists, carrying sacks of money to be hidden in freezers, but congressmen occasionally give them a few minutes to speak with them on matters of interest.

These people, if they are fortunate may have the opportunity to discuss a few issues with the politicians from time to time. Most likely they are able to bring up a topic, get the congressman's position and give their own and a few reasons for their position.

These sorts of activities give politicians the opportunity to hear the public's views on matters which affect the public. Outside of that channel are the polls, the letters, and the media, none of which can advance a complete concept as well as a few well chosen words spoken by someone of respectable character.

Fanta, your response were mostly clippings of articles. I thought they were well written thoroughly digested streams to the media, but they were hardly your own comments on the matter I brought up, nor for that matter comments by others about the topic at hand, so please, let's try to keep it on topic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, but spare me the campaign rhetoric. I seldom believe any of that is sincere and it is only designed to swing support from one candidate to the person making the comments. There is no meat and potatoes at the end of the day, just window dressing.

This problem requires a simple yet complex solution...

American should support it's own Criminals and Deport all The International Criminals...

But if America wanted to get rid of Vast amounts od Problems in one fell swoop ???

I would say DEPORT 3 Israli for each person that Violates the American Border and has for the past 30 years...

I tend to think the political Climate might tend to change rather quickly for the better in america...

Boy, you sure to put on the blinders!

I copied and pasted that so I dont have to type all day, but it would seem it wouldn't do any good either way! I could waste hours typing and you would still close your eyes to it! You see only what you want to, what affects you. I think they call it self-serving!

I am an Independent, as I have said at least a thousand times before! John Edwards is a babe in the woods when it comes to this topic, but I'm glad to see a few good politicians who are listening to the people. He started this when he got into politics back in 1998! I have been saying this stuff since 1980, at least!

I said nothing about this being an issue attached along party lines. It isn't my fault that the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton serve their own portfolios, and not the American people! That is a mere coincidence!

I have said it on here before. The biggest problem with politics in this country is the corporate lobbyist. They buy votes, they buy politicians, it is they who are behind NAFTA and the outsourcing of American jobs! If you cant see this, then you have lost sight of reality, you have lost touch with the average Americans problems, and more than likely you are part of the problem!

I have supported pooling all political contributions, and evenly distributing them among all candidates since the idea surface in the early 80's! Like I said Edwards is a newbie to this idea!

If lobbyist are writing these bills themselves then it is just further evidence of the corruption. Have you ever been to the Senate or House they have thousands of Paige's, personal secretaries, and lawyers running around there that have no purpose other than writing bills and running packages and papers and such to be signed and passed out in carbon copies!

No my friend I believe it is you who have missed the point!!

Well Fanta, I started the post, so it is my point we are discussing here. I'm trying to generate some discussion about a matter I consider important.

I don't suppose I'm part of the problem and I'm surprised you would want to suggest that I am. I hardly think you know anything about me to base such an accusation upon.

Pooling all political contributions would be a bad idea in my opinion. First it unfairly supports unpopular candidates. Take for example that idiot Ron Paul. Who would want to give that guy 5 cents that was contributed to support Fred Thompson? Ha ha, did you recognize that as a personal jab?

If I give money to support a candidate and you want to take it and give it to another I consider you a thief and usurper. Its like me giving to a homeless shelter and you take the money and give it to a cancer research program. The cancer research program may need the money and be a noble charity, but I may have a homeless acquaintance that I want to benefit personally.

Unrelated.....There is no conflict of interest in donations to charity, or are there in personal donations to a politician.

I am refering to corporate donation and that is who lobbyist represent, corporation and their interests!

You were talking about Lobbyists and their influence in Washington Politics, am I right!!

As far as this being your post, it is a public forum and if you cant take disagreement Philosopher, maybe you shouldnt post!

Just a thought that might help you with your need for everyone to agree with your opinion!

I happen to own a corporation, and if I choose to contribute to a political campaign for use by one candidate I do not want you taking it for another candidate.

If McCain represents my views and I want to contribute to his campaign, why should you have the right to divert my contribution to Ron Paul.

Fanta, you are not even discussing my opinion here, you are arguing a point that i was not trying to address. The issue is not disagreement, it is topic. Go take some ritalin or whatever and get an attention span.

No. I'm talking about lobbyists writing bills for congressman.

If my corporation makes a contribution to the Romney campaign, it is my choice. It is a personal choice. It comes off the bottom line. If you don't like who I support, start your own corporation, generate a ton of revenue and give it to dweezlebutt, whoever you support. I don't care, just keep your mitts off my money.

Keep your money out of politics! There is a little law of social behavior called ethics! Im glad to hear that you admit why this issue is so dear to your heart though!

Like Edwards says, "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no."

Get off your high horse dude you aren't better than anyone! You've just self-inflated your ego in your own mind! Its not real, money doesn't make you anything, it just gives you a false sense of superiority!!!!!

Keep your money and give it to dumble-**** in Venezuela or somewhere!

Well Fanta, as it happens I am better than some people. I'm certainly more rational than some to. What makes you think you can tell me what to do with my money anyway? Have you noticed that there are groups that opposing issues that others support? When the bigger powerful interests like move-on.org has influence in Washington and you think I should not? I am never going to listen to what you think I should do with my money, so give it up.

I dont care what you do with you so-called money. (if you have any)

But if you do, I'll consider the long shot) quit buying legislation and votes with it!!

If you want to write legislation then run for office! You wouldnt get my vote, but there might be a half-dozen or so that would vote for you!

Rational????
You said so, therefore it must be!!!