English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Heres the way I see it, here in the US and many other democracies, the politicians are 20% beholden to the voters, and 80% to the lobbyists who make their enormous campaigns possible. It's not entirely their fault they sell us out in favor or corporations, they lose their jobs if they don't.

How do we get rid of lobbyists power? We stay a step ahead, we cut off a politicians need for hundred million dollar campaigns, we ban ads in print, radio, television. That will force the politicians to work with reporters and debate in order to get elected, instead of attack ads.

How do you feel about this as a start, what additional ideas/legislation could be passed to make this possible and more effective?

Halliburton, Exxon, Pfizer, you're welcome to chime in as well.

2007-02-12 02:24:04 · 5 answers · asked by badbadboy6979 4 in Politics & Government Politics

You're right, lobbyists do advance the issues, and I never suggested that we outlaw lobbyists.

When I write congress, technically, I am a lobbyist. They are essential to politics. However, now there seems to be less focus on the merits of the lobbyists argument, and moe empasis placed on the check that accompanies it.

2007-02-12 02:48:34 · update #1

5 answers

Your point is valid...and it would be a good first step. But in the American spirit of bigger, faster, stronger, the citizens would not be interested in a political race that didn't include the flash.

2007-02-12 02:30:02 · answer #1 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0 0

It is a great idea but it is not just lobbyists that create the financial situation. Look at the extremely expensive dinner fund raisers each party holds. These are not attended by lobbyists but business people, friends, other politicians in specific states, and so on. These people give large sums of money to campaigns also.

Society somehow created the situation where you had to have wealth to run for office. The good, smart, average guy/gal could no longer represent their district unless the 'party machine' was behind them with cash. Otherwise there would be no way for them to have TV ads, newspaper ads, flyers, etc. to get their message out. I like the idea just how do we get it done.

2007-02-12 10:49:58 · answer #2 · answered by Margaret K 3 · 0 0

Don't forget that it is not just corporations that are lobbyists. The Democrats are also beholden to Teachers Unions, Labor Unions, Public Employee Unions, Trial Lawyers, Environmentalists, etc

But I don't trust the media enough to be solely responsible for interpreting the candidates. Considering in the Big Media (ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC NYTimes, WaPo, LAT, etc) newsrooms over 80% of the people vote Democrat, it would be obvious that there would be significant natural bias.

Actually, what should be done is to remove all limits on donations, ads, advocacy campaigns, etc. and also eliminate federal matching funds. But with one caveat - all political efforts must be transparent. I.e. their funding and spending must be open to the public, on the internet.

Because ANY limitations on how and what and when people may exercise their 1st Amendment rights is abhorrent and completely contrary to the very basic concept of freedoms and rights this country was founded upon.

2007-02-12 11:09:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

lets first get rid of the idea that lobbyists are always evil. everybody somehow is being represented by a lobbyist about something. its through your local government, your trade union, your business assoc., your church, or groups like AAA or AARP. its almost impossable for a private citizen to have impact without lobbying.why is it that every time some crook pol get caught its because of a lobbyist. if the people we elect were honest crooked lobbyists would be unable to be crooked. lets face they don't make the pols accept the money, gifts, and trips at gunpoint. the plos scream at the lobbyists and scream crooks whenever one of their own gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. its a nice easy way to deflect attention away from the real crook.

2007-02-12 10:36:49 · answer #4 · answered by glen t 4 · 0 1

You would have a little problem with the 1st amendment.

2007-02-12 12:23:00 · answer #5 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers