An Amendment to Ban Lobbyists from our Government.

sorry wrong thread

[edit on 28-12-2009 by enacae]

Understanding such an amendment would consist of inumerable rules, I must ask this question. Do you suggest a blanket "No Lobbyist" regulation?

If so, you remove the power of the people to combine their voices and political contributions to PACs, i.e. NRA, AARP, etc. Or, do you just limit the corporate lobby?

The current regulations, regarding the registration of lobbyist and an accounting of the money they spend, is a great tool for the voter. If you want to see where a particular candidate's loyalties lie, take a look at from whom he/she is receiving lobby money. It will give you a better insight into what he/she will do while in office, than listening to sound bytes, pundits, campaign ads and speeches.

Would be the best thing that ever happened to America,however, it will never happen!

The single fact that politicians on local, state and federal levels get to keep all of there campaign money when they leave office is criminal, since most of them get full pensions and medical.

Most of them leave multi-millionaires just on the campaign donations.

Originally posted by whatukno
Government lobby groups should be banned from any state or federal building. They should be banned from talking to, discussing with, or interacting with any federal employee or elected official.

Any group, firm, PAC, or cause found guilty of lobbying members of the government should be tried under RICO and have all assets seized.

Any elected official to have any dealings with lobby groups should be found to have committed a first degree felony punishable by life in prison without possibility of parole.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama promise this prier to being elected ?? I agree 5000%. this is the highway being used to control we the people. It is wrong, and need to be STOPED


GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The biggest blunder in history is the ignorance of history. rense.com

Well put. Has no one ever understood that the original 13th Amendment would have prevented lobbyist from ever existing? Has no one done their homework?

www.amendment-13.org...

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

This Article of Amendment is intimately connected to questions of loyalty, honesty, war and national defense. It is designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to powers foreign to the Congress of the United States without stepping across the bold Constitutional line of treason. The authors of the TONA wrote it after some additional experience with how the British Empire, as well as other European nations, actually conduct their affairs. It is a corrective and supplemental measure to go along with Constitutional treason.

So this was the original amendment. I believe New Hampshire's legislature sent letters to the other 49 states to have it re-instated into the Bill of Rights. This would keep the scum out of Washington and the politicinas answerable to the Citizens. If you read the entire article at "barefootsworld", it will enlighten you as to who found it and all that.

S&F although this has been discussed before.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by daddio]

reply to post by whatukno


I couldn't agree with you more, sir. I believe banning lobbyists from Government is a great step in the right direction to brining pure democracy and un-bias decision making to a nation.

To further improve the process, I believe it would be a smart move to have state-funded election campaigns with an equal amount of money allotted to both parties in order for there to be no corporate monetary influence among candidates and for both parties to be able to expose their agendas to the public equally.

reply to post by daddio

from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power

Lobbyists are not emperors, kings, princes, or foreign powers..


So I fail to see how this is suppose to fix anything.

???

yes, very very good initiative, everybody should sustain this !!!! in Europ it is strictly not autorized to accept money from anybody when you are in politics ... sorry for my English because I am French speaking .... so this should be the best solution to avoid personnal enrichment and influence depending of the amount of money you get !!! best for democracy !!! in USA there is much too much influence depending of money you can get to vote or not to vote some laws : example : genetic modified food by ... you know who : that firm can pay lots of money to influence voting in favour of theirs !!!!! or the health bill : lots of money also for influencing the voting against that bill ....
democracy is NOT AT ALL a democracy any longer when you can corrupt those lawmakers with lots of money !! I cann't understand thios is not decided a long time ago !! long live real democracy, forget the manipulations !!!!!

Star and a flag Wukky. I have been saying this since my first days on ATS. Lobbyists bypass the constituency who are after all the ones that Congressmen and women and Senators are supposed to listen to.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by daddio

 

from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power

Lobbyists are not emperors, kings, princes, or foreign powers..


So I fail to see how this is suppose to fix anything.

???

Not quite true.

Prince Bandar, remember him? Fixer of many US government contracts with the Saudis and conduit for bungs in both directions.

AIPAC - Is an Israeli government operation.

I'm sure if you dig there are others.

So much for the Constitution...

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course, people rarely think of their interests as being "special interests" or those groups dedicated to those interests as "lobbyists". It is only those causes that they are not a part of or are against that are "special interests" represented by "lobbyists".

reply to post by Britguy


Well put, most people don't realize that most organizations are funded and controlled by entities outside America. So yes, that would apply. As for corporations internally in America, they too would be deemed as "special interests" . One would have to label them but I think you see the implication if traded on the international stock markets.

reply to post by Kaytagg


How about you visit the website and read the article. The people, professors and such can explain it in great detail, whereas I here am not going to post pages of data when you should take the time to educate yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You beat me to it!

Freedom of speech for all, or freedom of speech for none.

A law banning lobbyists, is a law banning free speech.

I like this idea....hell, I think that ALL government officials should be "sequestered" for their entire term...sounds outlandish to have such a hope....but those that TRULY want to serve the public (as opposed to their pocketbook) should not have a problem with it.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I like this idea....hell, I think that ALL government officials should be "sequestered" for their entire term...sounds outlandish to have such a hope....but those that TRULY want to serve the public (as opposed to their pocketbook) should not have a problem with it.

How can you serve the public interest if you are isolated from that same public?

Originally posted by Carseller4
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

You beat me to it!

Freedom of speech for all, or freedom of speech for none.

A law banning lobbyists, is a law banning free speech.

Do you believe this true if the lobbyist isn't expressing there own voice, but a paid for opinion that is formed by a corporation? Isn't the problem with the free speech aurgument that corporations are treated with the same standing as a person?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
How can you serve the public interest if you are isolated from that same public?

That is the question....BUT, how do you serve the public when corporate interests shovel big money into the hands of these politicians?

Maybe all meetings must be approved by a bipartisan citizen "watchdog" committee AND all such meetings are recorded and broadcast live over the internet.

Originally posted by burlysoft
Do you believe this true if the lobbyist isn't expressing there own voice, but a paid for opinion that is formed by a corporation? Isn't the problem with the free speech aurgument that corporations are treated with the same standing as a person?

So what? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, the right to petitition the government is the right to petitition the government, regardless of who is exercising these freedoms or why. What you want to do is regulate it based on how sincere you think that speech and petititioning are.

Can you tell us why a corporation or any other entity should not be allowed to petitition the government in support of their interests?

And this proves my point. People don't think their interests are "special interests" or those that represent those interests are "lobbyists". It's only the "other guys" who are special interests and lobbyists.


[edit on 28-12-2009 by DoomsdayRex]