Personally I would like to see everyone go who took money and lavish trips from Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but we all know that will never happen. When it boils down to it, not matter what side they are on, politicians look out for each other when it comes to money(Just look how they vote for their own pay raises)

Questions for debate:

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

1. In my ideal world lobbyists would not be removed from the process, their $$ money would be. I also would like to see an emphasis on lobbying efforts (without the money) on lobbying for real constituents only.

2. One should be able to have the same rights as any other constituent (ideally) or at least private citizen. It is fine to speak on behalf of an interest that includes a for profit organization, they are part of the country, too. But in my dream world the money would be removed. Then we would have volunteer lobbyists instead of employees that were part of planned spending campaigns to influence the legislative process.

Whenever companies invest money they are expecting a return. Now look at the money spent by corporations for lobbying and do the math. We have a bunch of bought politicians. Lobbyists get between my due amount of access with my elected representative and me. Bad idea, Bad system. $$$ should not equal speech. Individually expressions should equal speech.

Questions for debate:

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process. Yes, by vastly reducing the role of government itself in our society, thus reducing the importance of government decisions on private entities. Given that such an ideal isn't likely to come to pass anytime soon, the pragmatic part of me says "No." Doing so would require amending the Constitution to prohibit people from participating in the political process. Lobbyists are a natural consequence of specialization. Most people do not have the time or skills to dedicate to "politicking", so those with sufficient interest and resources hire others to do so for them. Lobbyists are nothing more than hired advocates.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations? That is one of the most repellent, tyrannical and illiberal concepts I've ever heard. Simply because a group of people get together for the purpose of making money, they should be excluded from the political process? Oh, well, I suppose that means unions shouldn't be allowed to lobby either, right? And, of course, a builder seeking a zoning variance couldn't hire somebody to represent him before the zoning commision? What possible Constitutional or moral basis is there for barring profit seekers?

As a practical matter, most lobbyists represent non-profit organizations. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers and Distributors is a non-profit. AAWMD does not exist in order to make a profit anymore than does the National Education Association. Their membership may very well be profit motivated, but the organization itself (theoretically) isn't.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

Probably not- we are a representive society- and it is not feasible for a senator or legislator to see every constituent with a beef, nor is it feasible for them to go door to door.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

Bikerdad made a good point- and in reality, especially in local goverment- the folks that you would consider "for profit lobbyists" may very well be the best ones with the most information for something good for thier area- though that is frequently subverted as well- see Bikerdad's comment on zoning and such- should a developer not be able to lobby the assemblyman on the zoning commitee?

I think that we are messing with the wrong end of the equation actually- we should hogtie the elected officials better.

We should tie an elected officials salary and housing to something like- teachers salaries in thier district- where they can not recieve any more gifts or money or perks than the teachers in thier district, and thier own pay is determined at the same scale and rate as the teachers in thier district.

If you wish to take the vote buying out of politics- make it unproffitable to sell the vote!

I doubt very much we would have Bush's or Gores or Kerry's if they knew it would cost them thier entire fortune!

I am all for this actually- it is time to stop making being an elected official such an inviting job for our societies sociopaths

However, that being said- I would like to see it made illegal for anyone that holds a SEC license for being an official board member of a company barred from private or closed door meetings with elected officials- and instead make them do thier lobbying in a public forum. I would be for the same for Unions as well.

Back room deals is one of the cornerstone's of the lobbyist job- you take that away- you take away a great deal of what we are talking about.

Perhaps we should make it illegal for anyone representing anyone other than themselves to meet privately with an elected official- and an elected offical can accept NO gifts, not even a corn seed, from anyone while in office.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

No. Lobbyists are a symptom of a problem in Washington. The problem is that the government has stuck its nose into everything throughout the entire country. They regulate everything from candy to gambling to drugs to car safety to fuel efficiency to....the list never ends.

Bill Gates once thought that he did not need lobbyists. He thought that if he left Washington (DC that is) alone then Washington would leave him alone. In fact, Microsoft had no lobbyists until they became the target of a government anti-trust investigation. All of a sudden Bill realized that the government could (and would!!) regulate his business no matter if he was involved or not. What entity would allow laws to be passed governing their conduct without a voice in the process?



If the government is going to be involved in every conceivable private transaction, then the parties being regulated need to have a voice in the process: lobbyists.

I agree with Bikerdad that the solution is to get the government out of many of these areas. We all know that ain't gonna happen...

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

Next we will make sure religious leaders are not involved in freedom of religion cases or blacks are excluded from discrimination cases...

I'm sorry Sleeper, but it is patently ridiculous to exclude anyone from the political process simply based upon a group they are from.

I'm just tired of seeing the corruption in our elected officials. There are VERY few good public servants anymore. The reason I say for profit, is I want to see the money out of the equation. But then again even non-profit organizations throw money at elected officials from their donation/dues coffers so it really was a bad thought process on my part.

Hello. This is my first post. I am ttrying to find a political message board I like...so we will see how this goes.

I think the the people that gave their stollen money back did the right thing. I am asshamed that I live in a state (WA) where the state senator has "no intention" on giving back the $50,000 some odd dollars in campaign contributions she received.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

Sleeper,

I can apporeciate where you are coming from on this.

It wouldn’t bother me if all the lobbyists just went poof and disappeared, but I think we would have a problem getting rid of them because of the clause in the 1st Amendment that gives people (including lobbyists) the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

I think it would be better to put some teeth into some of the wining and dining practices lobbyists engage in and to limit or eliminate the money they can contribute to office holders.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

I think it is hard to understand what Lobbyists truly do unless you are involved in the Fed. (or state) government process. Lobbyists make a democracy work because they convey to the lawmakers the needs of the people. If there were not lobbyists Government would be even more chaotic than it is now. Most lobbyists are not corrupt and a man like Abramoff does not represent AT ALL the normal DC lobbyists. Most lobbyists are honest and hard working people that are trying to protect their clients interests.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

How can they not represent "for profit organizations"? Why is one fair and one not? For profit or not for profit everyone should have the right to influence their government.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

Yes and no. Paying polticians should certainly be off-limits, IMO. Even corporate or pressure groups making campaign contributions make me nervous.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

I have a different idea here. Any body that pays tax - as for-profit businesses do when they make a profit (or at least they should) - should perhaps have a vote. One business, one vote (with one vote only for the parent company of however many divisions there are, to prevent the creation of a bazillion subdivisions to fix the polls).

No taxation without representation, remember? Individuals, no matter how rich or poor they are, only have one vote each. Why not businesses too?

This leaves not-for-profit lobby groups (charities, trade bodies, etc) - maybe representing large numbers of small businesses - which cannot generally afford to indulge in the bribery of legislators to carry on more or less as now.

But it means Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates have as much influence on public policy that affects their business as the guy who runs the general store in the way of the new interstate spur. (OK, Murdoch is a bad example, as he can just tell Fox News to attack whichever party annoys him, but reform to media ownership laws isn't the matter at hand.). Just as they, as private citizens, have as much influence on the political process, with their single votes, as Bill Jones or Rupert Q Citizen do.

Not perfect, and it would raise as many issues as it solves, but I think it might lead to cleaner government, if not maybe better government.

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

Not completely removed from the process but strictly controlled. Lobbyist shouldn’t have access to a single legislator instead they should make their case in front of committees. Any dinners, gifts, trips, etc…, which should only be taken in groups, should be public knowledge and published in a manner that J Public Voter can readily access.

I want to know who’s trying to buy my legislators vote and why.

And the same should apply to supreme court justices. It really got under my skin last year when Scalia was seen having lunch with the leaders of the gambling industry.

2. If you don't believe so.. Should they at least not be allowed to represent for profit organizations?

Every citizen and organization should have access, as BoF stated “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The vote is reserved to natural citizens. The problem with your idea is exactly the same as the problem with denying lobbyists to businesses. Our Constitution guarantees us both the right of assembly, equality under the law and a right to participate in the political process. Denying non-profits (voluntary assemblies) their right to participate amounts to unequal treatment. It is viewpoint discrimination.

As opposed to having lunch with the leaders of the "civil rights" industry (ACLU, Ginsberg knoshing with her old cronies), or snacking with the leaders of the litigation industry (ABA)? The freedom of assembly isn't suspended for SCOTUS folks.

Yes, transparency is something I would support in these matters, but must raise this question: how does one justify such transparency versus the right to privacy?

1. Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

I'd love to see them disappear tomorrow but I just don't think that is very realistic. Even if someone made a law banning lobbying it would be virtually impossible to enforce. We've had the equivalent of lobbying in our political systems for as long as humans have come together in groups to govern.

I think that what we need to do is regulate it much more heavily and make sure there is much more daylight on the process. I also think that real penalties which will be enforced need to be involved.

Right now the rules are very loose about what you have to report, and there really isn't any enforcement of that in the first place. Lobbying firms are supposed to file a report with the Senate every six months. The reports though don't really even account for all expenditures. They are also very light on information, they report total dollar amounts not who got the benefit of the lobbying. Here's the site where you can see that information. If you take a look at it and search for the records you'll see that it is nothing more than scanned copies of paper forms. In other words this is the typical impossible to use government site containing information of public interest. You couldn't find anything of value there if you tried, and if you are posting here at you are a savvy internet user. This site would be completely inaccessible for the average person.

The only site of any value that I've found which compiles this information in a legible format is called Lobby Watch. That link goes to Microsoft's profile. And by the way Amlord, if you look at that profile you'll see that Gates isn't being entirely truthful about their lobbying practices. They very well may have been lured in by the anti-trust suit (I can't confirm or deny that since the records on this site don't go back further than 1998 and that is when the suit was filed), but they have certainly spent more time and money on other issues. You'll notice that only 11 of their several hundred filings have been about anti-trust issues, of course that doesn't count stuff under the table and not reported. Anti-trust may have drawn them in but they've become a big player for the same reasons everyone else does it.

So I think there are two avenues of attack here. Congress needs to completely overhaul the rules for lobbying. There is going to be a big scramble in this upcoming session of Congress to reform lobbying because politicians on both sides know it'll be a hot issue. There are already 3 competing bills I know about being worked on. One by McCain and Lieberman, one by Feingold and one being authored by Frist and Santorum. There are some corresponding House bills for these as well. Feingold's bill is the strongest, and the McCain-Lieberman bill is a watered down version. The Frist-Santorum bill will be interesting because Santorum is one of the key people involved with the K Street project which has in large part created this mess in the first place - expect their bill to introduce more loopholes than fixes. Secondly, If you don't like these practices then as a consumer you should use your power to pressure companies not to lobby, in big enough numbers it will have an impact. I'm personally planning to work on several lobbying-related projects this year.

The article (and the view expressed therein) was from 1997 which was before the data you linked even started (nice find for that site, though, very informative!!) I am sure Microsoft's attitude towards a laissez-faire government interaction has changed since then.

Businesses absolutely NEED to lobby. The government is not going to stop making laws regarding commerce and the businesses represent the other side of the coin which must be represented. The simplest solution would be for government to get out of business. Then business would have no stake in lobbying the government. Again, that isn't going to happen.

Should lobbyists be removed from our political process.

Both BD and Eeyore have made good points. Afterall, it isn't the lobbyists who are necessarily the problem but the Congress-critters who allow themselves to be corrupted (similar to: guns don't kill people; people kill people). I've been thinking about this issue for a while and I have a solution in mind which may work: create an independent panel for ethics investigations.

The Senate would appoint for a lifetime term an independent ethics panel. Each member of this panel would require a supermajority for confirmation. Similarly, a supermajority would be required to impeach a member of this panel. The panel would have a very narrow aegis: to investigate ethics violations of federally elected officials. While the panel could not censure/impeach/etc. an elected member of federal government, any findings of ethics violations would require legally enforceable arbitration.

Anyway, I'm sure there are holes in this proposal but I believe the idea is sound.

I believe it’s a larger issue that lobbyist or leaders of industry are given access to Supreme Court justices.

The examples you’ve given (noshing with the ACLU and the ABA) are in my mind completely different. I’ve always considered the ACLU the independent muscle for the Supreme Court and they will stand by anyone who they feel is having their civil rights violated, not just Ginsberg and her liberal cronies, unless you consider Rush Limbaugh a liberal. The ABA is a professional organization that all members of SCOTUS join early in their careers. It’s a fine line but easily distinguishable.

To qualify these meetings as freedom of assembly might be a stretch. If I understand your interpretation, than you’re saying there’s nothing ethically/professionally wrong with a member of the FBI/CIA/DHS noshing with terrorists under the guise of “freedom of assembly”.

"Given" access? I wasn't aware that we locked the justices away in a monastery. Since we don't, equal treatment under the law means that if Clem Claddidlehopper, old grade school buddy of David Souter can have lunch with David, then so can Daddy Warbucks.

Wow. WOW! If I considered the ACLU "independent muscle" of SCOTUS, then I would do absolutely everything in my power to remove any justice who thought the same, as well as put every leader of the ACLU either in jail or in the ground. Fortunately, while I realize that Ginsberg is an ACLU activist on the bench, the court as a whole is not, nor do the majority of justices consider the ACLU to be "independent muscle." Frankly, your failure to see the potential for bias that lunching with the ACLU could bring is striking, scary in fact, especially given how many more times the ACLU ends up before the Court than the gambling industry.

When the ACLU, or even its state affiliates, will defend the right to keep and bear arms, will advocate for equality under the law of all parents, etc, etc, then maybe your argument that they'll stand by anyone who's civil rights are being violated will have some credibility. Until then, they're nothing more than another advocacy organization.

So what if its a professional organization? So is the NEA, the AMA, the APA, etc, etc. And as such, they serve as advocates for certain positions, positions that may come before the Court. From their mission statement:

Goal I
To promote improvements in the American system of justice. Improvements as they define them.

Goal III
To provide ongoing leadership in improving the law to serve the changing needs of society. Again, as they define both the needs, and improvements. Undoubtedly, they're assessment of both will be biased by their own self-interest, just like every other professional organization.

Goal VI
To serve as the national representative of the legal profession.

And, in the time honored fashion of all guild systems, the ABA seeks to restrict competition.

Now, all the forgoing is not meant to cast the ABA as a villianous collection of slimeballs (although they do a superb job of protecting slimeballs in their midst), but simply to rebut the contention that they are nothing more than a professional organization. The ABA has its own agendas. If you still doubt, then I suggest that you ponder the following:

ABA Legislative and Government Advocacy
Each Congress, the ABA lobbies on about 100 issues, reflecting the breadth and diversity of the interest of the legal profession. The ABA Board of Governors establishes approximately ten annual Legislative and Governmental Priorities, based on a survey of bar leaders and on the advice of the ABA Standing Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Well, actually, we'd like our FBI/CIA/DHS folks noshing with terrorists, it'll make the terrorists much easier to find. Otherwise, your example doesn't hold up, because the GMen are supposed to be in an adversarial relationship with terrorists. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be in an adversarial relationship with anybody.

So, by its own admission, the ABA lobbies, yet you have no problem with their leadership sharing snackage with a SCOTUS justice, or members of Congress, but you do have a problem if Steve Wynn does so?

BTW, I couldn't find any reference to this scandalous lunch meeting, gotta link?

I believe that if you made a law against lobbyists, a good counter-argument would be that it would violate the first amendment. While lobbyists woo politicians with lots of money, many average people contribute to them. Just look at the NRA, the unions, as well as other groups. I also believe the argument could be made that it wasn't the money that influenced positions, but rather, it was politicians who found the lobbyists they ideologically agreed with, that lead to the ensuing flow of money into their pockets.



I'm not certain if non-profit or for profit is an important distinction. Why would it be? I think a stringent plan would be that pretty much anything and everything isf air game, but all of it has to be painstickingly documented and submitted by both the lobbyist and the politician. You then have serious fines if any discrepancies are found and then people have transparency to the whole process.

It was news footage showing Alito entering a DC eatery (I do remember an AD chat was going on at the time). I don’t recall the issue, but something large was before the court and they were trying to get a statement, the story wasn’t about who he was eating with. There was no fuss.


First, using your example with Clem and D Warbucks, it’s a matter of ethics. If I have a case before the Supreme Court I shouldn’t be lunching with the justices, friend or foe, rich or poor.

And the more important issue here is why does a Supreme Court judge feel they need to meet with outside interest? If the leaders of a particular industry feel the laws aren’t in their favor they should be working with their representative, not attempting to influence the decision of a judge.

If a Supreme court judge needs help understanding the law, precedent and facts before them, they shouldn’t be there in the first place.


My position wasn’t entirely clear. As a professional organization that all judges are members, I have no issues if they are meeting in the capacity of a professional organization (guest speaking, writing an article, etc…).

If the story wasn't about his choice of lunch buds, then on what basis do you claim he was breaking bread with gaming industry folks?

Seriously, by the standard you seem to advocate, I would never qualify for any public office. I've had convicted bookies buy me lunch dozens of times. And, gasp, I've also lunched with other bookies in, gasp, a casino! Oh, and the governor of our state would likewise be barred, because just a couple months ago, he and I were seen at adjacent tables... hmmm, perhaps I was lobbying him on behalf of my bookie friends?

Pasturepucks! @tm You've already greenlighted lunching with the ACLU, and no organization outside of the government has more cases before the Supreme Court.

Hmmm, maybe because SCOTUS Justices have outside interests? At least, I hope they do.

I must partly disagree. While the Supreme shouldn't need help understanding the law and precedent, they do, else they wouldn't have a bevy of law clerks available to them. Yes, perhaps the clerks are simply doing scutwork, but they are there. More importantly though is the matter of fact. Unfortunately, judges today are often called upon to rule upon highly technical subjects that lie completely beyond their fields of expertise. Any judge that isn't willing to seek clarification from outside sources is, in my opinion, a fool.

Yes, but that's clearly not what we were discussing. We were discussing noshing.