Should lobbyist's be legal?

Question

After all aren't they hired by companies to influence the decisions in our elected officials? Maybe I am wrong but this sounds like bribery to me and that is illegal.

Answer 1

Often times we only hear about bad lobbyist's. There's plenty of good ones too. There are social workers become lobbyists for children's rights (for example), animal rights, worker's rights, etc. They're not all evil, but you're right, some of them are just out to gain power and money.

Answer 2

Yes. Lobbyists should have just as much right to get their issues to politicians as anyone else.

Politicians are laughing all the way to the bank with lobby money. We as voters need to realize this and vote for less corrupt officials. Otherwise, the joke's on us.

That goes for both parties.

Answer 3

yeah.. but if the elected officials are strong in moral character it doesn't matter what the lobbyists do... so do you punish them for what we vote in?

I see your problem with lobbyists.. and I agree .. it's a big problem.. especially when they take advantage of their position.. but there are good lobbyists also.. with good causes.. that help get good things done.

I agree that things need to change.. but I don't agree that we should get rid of them all together.

Answer 4

Lobbyists are legal. They represent interests who can afford to have their message presented. It is political free speech.

Answer 5

Not just companies. Unions and other special interest groups too. I would prefer they didn't exist but I'm not sure of the legality of denying their existence.

Answer 6

Yes they are... ask Guliani about it, his law firm specialized in lobbying. They should be illegal I believe. Let their reps come speak to all of congress about their concerns instead of paying off certain ones to secure their interests.

Answer 7

The definition of bribery

noun
the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage


[edit]United States
Main article: Lobbying in the United States
Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S. Code, Chapter 26), most persons who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year.
However, there are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on citizens' attempts to influence or "lobby" policymakers, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the "right to petition" government officials, which is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
For example, in January 2007, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 110th Congress.
Another controversial bill, the "Executive Branch Reform Act, H.R. 984, would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, under the proposal, anyone who contacts a covered government official is in effect deemed to be a lobbyist, unless the communicator is another government official or government staff person. The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." The bill is supported by some organizations as an expansion of "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the right to petition by making it impossible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues without having their names and viewpoints entered into a government database.[2] The U.S. Department of Justice has raised constitutional and other objections to the bill.[3]
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected congressional efforts to regulate grassroots communications as a form of “lobbying," on constitutional grounds. In 1953, in a suit involving a congressional resolution authorizing a committee to investigate “all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation,” the Supreme Court narrowly construed “lobbying activities” to mean only “direct” lobbying (which the Court described as “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees”), and rejected a broader interpretation of “lobbying” out of First Amendment concerns. [United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953).] The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the earlier decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which said:
In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . . [Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173-174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952).]

Answer 8

Colbert was talking about this last night.

Answer 9

N f'n O........................................................!