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

2007-06-02 19:12:47 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

9 answers

I think we should eliminate the way lobbyists are aloud to conduct business. They should not be allowed to in any direct or indirect form give any kind of campaign donations or gifts of any nature to an elected official. Once someone has been registered as a lobbyist, not only their name, but all the names of their close relatives and company acquaintances be listed to oversee their "contributions." There should also be a limit as to the amount of time lobbyists should be allowed to have access to elected officials. All officials should have to record their and submit their time to a third party oversight committee.

No doubt lobbyists are and should be protected under the free speech amendment of the Constitution, but speech does not include cars, money, weekend getaways, etc. Any issues raised by lobbyists can be thoroughly presented within a reasonable allotted time. It works when parties are presenting cases of huge magnitude to the Supreme Court, why not members of Congress?

2007-06-02 19:35:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Lobbyists have eliminated the "By the People, for the People". It's now, "By the Corporation, for the Corporation and Special Interests".

2007-06-03 03:44:11 · answer #2 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 0 0

Lobbyists aren't the problem. They are just representing constituents. The problem is with politicians who only grant access to and do the bidding of constituents who can afford lobbyists who throw money at them.

2007-06-03 02:39:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i think jetjr is confused on what a lobbyist is - LOL

2007-06-03 02:16:34 · answer #4 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 0 0

Yeah who needs free speech; after them we can "eliminate" the ministers, talk show hosts and anyone else you don't like.

2007-06-03 02:15:34 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 1 0

not necessarily. ideally they serve as advocates of different causes that most people feel strongly about, but well never be able to directly voice their opinions to their elected offcials.

reform can always curve corruption though.

2007-06-03 02:19:12 · answer #6 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 0 0

it's a laudable notion. But how do you accomplish that without repealing the 1st Amendment?

2007-06-03 04:00:01 · answer #7 · answered by Jack 7 · 0 1

Totally, no, but have some hard and fast regulations, yes.

2007-06-03 02:17:10 · answer #8 · answered by TedEx 7 · 0 0

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

2007-06-03 02:26:17 · answer #9 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers