I don't attempt to buy votes, so don't bother trying to change my words. I do try to get the ideas I have to the ears of politicians. This costs money in some cases and time in some cases. If you don't like it, spend your own money and time to try to change things. I hardly think you would be addressing the same issues as I am, so it doesn't matter to me anyway. I'm interested in matters that affect my own company and its markets. If you don't like that, tough beans. I'm doing it anyway. My efforts won't hurt you though. If anything, if I prevail, it will benefit you economically. That's my opinion. But since I am not sharing my issues with you, once again, tough beans. Spend your own money.

Philosopher,

I just want to confirm two things about this post.

First, you wrote:

"... 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."

Am I to understand that you're suggesting in fact, that lobbyists are actually 'writing entire bill for congressman or senator' ???


And secondly, given the fact that '... lobbyists writing bills for congressmen and senators (most important ones at that!!!) '

... You propose and suggest the following:

"... 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."


I just want to make sure I understand your topic, and the question to which you are asking us to reply !

Hi voileazur

Haven't seen you for a while

Yes Voil, that is the thrust of the issue here as I see it.

I do not think all bills are written this way, and I expect the congressmen at least have some input, setting up the framework, whatever, but if the meat of the wording is contributed by a lobbyist, that meets the criteria I am setting up here for being objectionable.

Maybe you have some different information or ideas about the matter?

Philosopher,

What you are stating as commonplace:

"...lobbyists writing bills for congressmen and senators",

... is the number 1 criminal corruption issue of every western 'democratic' nations, which includes the US.

You suggest new laws to prohibit this 'Lobbyists bill writing practice'?!!?! The practice has long been made illegal!!! If proven in court , undue influence and conflict of interest laws will put corrupt lobbyists, and collaborating politicians and legislators behind bars.

There is no point in discussing whether or not lobbyists should or shouldn't write bills, IT'S A CRIMINAL ACT!!! They can't, they shouldn't, and if caught, they go to jail.

Undue influence is the problem. It is the single biggest threat to our democratic principles and institutions bar none. It highjacks and corrupts the universal democratic process of equality: one person = one vote.

On that point, you replied to Fanta:
"... Fanta you missed the point here. I was talking about lobbyists writing legislation for the congress. Lobby money was never mentioned."

'Lobbyists writing laws' is a criminal act. The statement is never meant at the first degree. Lobbyists do not litterally 'write the laws', but the link between the money they contribute, and the 'legislator's' position is highly suspect!!!

Maybe this erroneous 'perspective' you presented is at the source of misinterpreting Fanta's most pertinent input regarding your post. 'Copy-pasted' or otherwise, Fanta brought up the 'hypocrisy' and double standards practiced on the hill, where 'MONEY OF THE FEW' almost automatically translates into LAWS, through the hands of friendly and 'richer' legislators , which LAWS (and corrupt legislators), the 'MANY'(the rest of us) get unwillingly stuck with.

It is no secret to anyone that the 'HEALTH INDUSTRY money' unduly corrupts the Democrats 'health reform platform', and that the 'WAR AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES money' unduly corrupts the Republicans 'fight for freedom' agenda.

There is corruption. There is no doubt about that. But it is CORRUPTION!!! The practice is already criminal!

Fanta brought the exchange on the proper grounds. Summed up in my own words: Lobbyists Money used to corrupt congressmen (legislators), provide undemocratic access and influence with the legislators (whom should always remain at the service of ALL THE PEOPLE). The 'money' should be tackled at its source: financial contributions to individual politicians and parties, causing blatant conflicts of interest, must be scrutinized and capped.
There is no other way. You will never get 'democratic process' out of a context where the money bags of the SELF-SERVING FEW' (corporations mostly), control the GREEDY LEGISLATORS, responsible for the 'laws' governing the MANY: 'WE THE PEOPLE'.

As you suggest Philosopher, lobbyists may very be around for the long run, in one shape or other, but the 'money bags' must go (that is what Fanta implied IMO when stating '... the lobbysists (in their current 'money bag' form) must go'.

Capping, and accounting for contributions is the direction several western nations are adopting to curb corruption and restore due democratic process.

It is my understanding that Fanta is suggesting it is High Noon for the US to urgently adopt such policy.

Of interest!!!

40 minutes!!! That's all that was needed to turn a 'House' losing vote into a 'House' winning vote.

It could have been democrats, but in this case it was 2 Rebublicans whom changed their 'NO' vote, into a 'YES' vote.

I'll bet my 'XKE' that the 2 republicans were not swayed by 'moralistic', or 'higher principle' arguments. I strongly suspect that only 'money' works this fast!!!

This short article provides a salient 'on the field' example of the issues raised in this topic.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/13/1359253

Hello 'invisible'!

You wrote:
"...Hi voileazur, Haven't seen you for a while."

Been sailing, ...refreshes one's mind!!!


:)

You may be right, but if there is such a law I do not know about it. Perhaps the laws you refer to are in France or England or some other country. In any case I think such a law is a good idea, which is the point of the topic.

As for Fanta and missing his point, I didn't miss his point. I was just not interested in that point as it is already much discussed and beyond the scope of the discussion I was attempting to raise.

Lobbyists spend money on political campaigns and other things to promote their interests. I'm willing to live with that to some extent because sometimes corporate interests also support the greater good, and the politicians are supposed to sort out the difference.

As for whether bills are presently written by lobbyists, try a search in Google on "bill written by lobbyists" (include the quote marks) and see what you come up with. Apparently the practice is rather widespread from what I can see. My attention was brought to the matter when I heard some commentary regarding the recent bankruptcy bill being written by lobbyists for the credit card industry. Whether it is true or not, I don't know. I'm much more involved with my own business than in the business of congress.

I just think that for lobbyists to write the bill goes beyond the normal influence that is attained by their spending habits.

I'll make a point here that is counter to my argument though. In the case of a particularly complicated legislative matter a politician might find a real need to get some information from lobbyists. For example, if you were to legislate storage and handling of waste nuclear material, a congressman might not be able to differentiate between what is desirable, what is possible and what is practical, so writing the related laws could have the effect of creating a speed limit that nobody could stay within.

Also google search "bills written by lobbyists" include the quote marks again.

thats why we have all this ~CHINA~ crap in the usa now!

Yes I think Lobbyists have influenced the trade bills.

I also know that as long as you can buy something in China for a dollar that costs you 5 dollars here, people will buy from China.

There are currency issues that are not being addressed that have a large effect on such relative costs.

Another thing. As long as you can buy finished products in China for less than the cost of materials here, there is no incentive to manufacture here. This scenario means that a competitor can buy finished products cheaper than the parts for your similar product.

I buy stuff from China now for my products. If I want to sell I have no choice. If I don't buy at least some of my stuff from China, my products are too expensive for the market.

If you don't like that, its too bad, because every time I sell a product, my customers go search the internet for cheaper prices. For most of them, if they can save 12 cents off a 20,000 dollar purchase they will do it.

This is way off topic, but its a pet peeve of mine so I'm responding anyway.

For the record we are trying to move some manufacturing to Viet Nam to get it out of China. Korea and Japan are too expensive. Mexico has a reputation for quality problems, but otherwise I would rather have some things built there. We will be trying to get more of our mechanical stuff built there in the future.

so true...

Hey captain voileazur!!

You are once again right on the mark!

The way I see it, Philosopher understood what I was saying as well. Only while I see the issue as one that needs to be attacked and fixed at all costs, he is content to join the trend.

From reading his posts I gather that philosopher agrees that lobbyist are a problem, but rather than fight, he is choosing to switch sides in the name of survival.

I am like a pit-bull or a boxer, I would rather go down swinging and biting! Perhaps this is why I am only one of the masses and not the elite!

Not exactly it Fanta. I think that some lobby activities are harmful, but the legal stuff serves in some measure to communicate the needs of the people to the congress. So I'm not a turncoat to my principles, I simply see things differently.

I'll take a moment to mention that there is enough graft in the economy to buy all the politicians many times over. For this reason I expect we are unlikely to know a lot about who is getting money from where.

The average Joe does not have the chance to go see his politicians. Somebody has to fill that need. But if you think that means I forgive somebody giving a politician hundreds of thousands under the table for his support on a particular issue, no way. Discussions with your congressmen have to stand up on their own merit. If they don't, then you need to not waste his time. If they do, then graft won't be necessary.

I am an average joe, and I have talked with the then vice president candidate and NC Senator John Edwards before!

I had went to his office wherein someone there took my message and even though he was busy. He took the time to call my house.

We talked for at least 30 min, and he was quite sincere!

We talked about INS and their lack of concern with the hiring of illegal immigrants. See, I sacrificed when confronted with my entire crew being laid off, just so the owner could save money by hiring cheap labor!

All I had to do was run the crew and train them. The boss was even hiring a bilingual assistant to help me, but I informed him of the laws and refused to be a part of the problem! He fired me, the Pitt-bull came out and I did everything I could to have his ass fined and punished!

Stupid me, I was making over $20.00 an hour!!

Gee we have lawyers writting laws, serving in congress and passing laws and sitting on the bench and administering the law. What could possibly be wrong with this system

Seriously though I think lobbying should be totally eliminated and campaign financing should be totally reformed so that lobby money could not be used but that is a dream world and I am going to wake up in a few minutes and be back in this one. The system is broke but I don't think anyone can fix it.