To me, lobbying is just a euphemism for bribery. Why not have a set amount of money funded by taxpayers for campaigns? This way the disparity between the haves and have nots would not be so great. In addition, influence by corps would not be such a big factor come time when the candidates vote on legislation. Thus they will hopefully make decisions that are influenced by the people they represent and not those that made the largest contributions.
2007-07-11 10:24:16 · 2 answers · asked by MDuck06 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
While much of your argument makes sense, I disagree with the government being involved in paying for political campaigns. Who decides who gets how much? How do you deal with the fact we have about 20 active candidates right now between the dems and republicans and a whole bunch more independents?
Instead, I support limiting the maximum donation to much smaller amounts, say no more than $500 per contributor.
2007-07-11 10:33:35 · answer #1 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no doubt that there is too much money in politics and it's not getting us much.
However, lobbying is not a dirty word. When you call or write your Congressperson or Senator, you are lobbying.
When a politician talks to any group of people with any common interest about what they want or what would help them, that is lobbying. That is not bad. That is good. It's one way the elected officials find out what the people they represent want them to do.
It shouldn't be surprising that a Member of Congress's issue are concerns line with what the primary industry in their state is. Why? Lots of people in the state make their living off of that industry and protecting it is a high priority to them.
2007-07-11 17:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by katydid13 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋