If you believe lobbying and monetary influences are the problem with US policies

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Follow the money is good advice, but dont stop at the lobbyists.

Connect the corporate dots. When you follow that rabbit hole, you'll be amazed at the small handful of corporations/people that are really pulling the strings.

I agree, but they are getting to our Politicians via the lobbyist and we need to close that door. It took them a while to convert the door from a regular house size to a Vehicle Assembly size door at KSC.

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Follow the money is good advice, but dont stop at the lobbyists.

Connect the corporate dots. When you follow that rabbit hole, you'll be amazed at the small handful of corporations/people that are really pulling the strings.

I agree, but they are getting to our Politicians via the lobbyist and we need to close that door. It took them a while to convert the door from a regular house size to a Vehicle Assembly size door at KSC.

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the current lobbyist system doesnt need to be dealt with, but make no mistake, they are the cough, not the cold.

You may be able to take some nyquil to slow down the cough, but the cold still has hundreds of ways to make sure its presence is felt.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Follow the money is good advice, but dont stop at the lobbyists.

Connect the corporate dots. When you follow that rabbit hole, you'll be amazed at the small handful of corporations/people that are really pulling the strings.

I agree, but they are getting to our Politicians via the lobbyist and we need to close that door. It took them a while to convert the door from a regular house size to a Vehicle Assembly size door at KSC.

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the current lobbyist system doesnt need to be dealt with, but make no mistake, they are the cough, not the cold.

You may be able to take some nyquil to slow down the cough, but the cold still has hundreds of ways to make sure its presence is felt.

I know exactly what you mean and don't disagree with you, but we got to start somewhere or we just give up?

I think tackling the most obvious and legal means for our politicians to be persuaded by money is via the lobbyist industry. We need to make it harder and clearly illegal for them to do it in order to increase their risk and accountability when trying to throw money at our politicians.

There are plenty of very good lobbying groups out there also you know. For every Monsanto lobbyist there is one from the other side lobbying against them.

The AMA has lobbied on behalf of doctors who thought that a particular bill would hurt patients or cost them too much money....don't forget also that people in Congress often lobby corporations themselves. In a situation where a new plant is going to be built you will often see a scramble of congressmen trying to outbid or influence the corporation to come to their state because it means jobs and revenue.

Lobbying is not necessarily a bad thing. You also might be surprised to know that it isn't really all that effective. Many here believe that politicians are simply blank slates when they run for office and the highest bidder gets to fill in their agenda. Nothing is further from the truth.

Politicians run on a set of ideas they have and get elected based upon them. The politicians top priority it to get re-elected and therefore he must stay somewhat close to the positions that got him there. No amount of lobbying or donations is going to alter that.

This is why you will never see certain corporations pushing a certain agenda targeting people on the opposite side of the aisle. Because its pointless.

Also, have you ever wondered why a corporation doesn't simply grab two of the lackeys, run one as a democrat and one as a republican, fund them both, and ensure a victory either way?

Its because there is a lot more detail involved than just throwing money around. It is still ultimately the voters who decide who gets into office, not the size of the checkbook.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Lobbying is not necessarily a bad thing. You also might be surprised to know that it isn't really all that effective. Many here believe that politicians are simply blank slates when they run for office and the highest bidder gets to fill in their agenda. Nothing is further from the truth.

See my other post where I said that lobbying is not the problem. Its how they have made it into the highest bidder getting heard, that is the problem. We have the technology to make everyone voice equal regardless of how deep your pockets are.

If it wasn't effective ,then they are some seriously mentally challenged group of people with lots of money to waste. Billions are spent each year on lobbying for something so ineffective.

Politicians run on a set of ideas they have and get elected based upon them. The politicians top priority it to get re-elected and therefore he must stay somewhat close to the positions that got him there. No amount of lobbying or donations is going to alter that.

What does it take to get re-elected? I will give you a hint its the same green paper stuff that the lobbyist industry throws at our politicians. Those lobbyist are also hired by the same large groups that run the campaign fund raisers, pacs, donations,etc.

This is why you will never see certain corporations pushing a certain agenda targeting people on the opposite side of the aisle. Because its pointless.

It's just a hypercritical coincidence that Mark Rubio voted against Republican ideals when he voted against state rights, free market, and consumer rights with his vote to prevent a state from deciding if it should inform its constituents if they are buying genetically engineered food or the NDAA act?

Its just a hypercritical coincidence that Obama, has continued the war despite his opposition against it.

Is it coincidence that on both those issues the large corporations and industries lobbying for those things are on the winning side?

Also, have you ever wondered why a corporation doesn't simply grab two of the lackeys, run one as a democrat and one as a republican, fund them both, and ensure a victory either way?

NO i don't wonder , because that is exactly what they are doing. That is why you see Republicans acting like democrats and vice versa.

Do you ever wonder why republicans haven't significantly shrunk gov't or deregulated anything. or decreased taxes when they have had majority control? Note, democrats fit in to their model of bigger gov't so its harder to catch them going against their core values.

Is it coincidence that if you controll a gov't you can in essence controll the consumer and the market? Two things the large lobbyiest groups really don't care and I'm sure their morals and coincious wouldn't take advantage off.

It is still ultimately the voters who decide who gets into office, not the size of the checkbook.

Really, so media controlled by the same large entities with the deepest pockets who lobby, have no impact on the issues or the candidates filtered for you to select from?


If lobbying is so ineffective then the lobbyist clients should welcome a system where it doesn't take money to get heard but rather the peoples voice, Right? Thats billions of dollars that could be saved a year for all the clients.

reply to post by Hopechest

Lobbying can be defined very simply as the legalized bribery of a person in a position to change the legislative or political landscape. I am all for citizen interaction but the problem occurs when groups such as corporations, unions, social groups, foreign groups, etc. exert undue pressure on the system. What happens is the voice of the lobbyists for these larger groups becomes 99% of anything heard by their political targets. In effect rendering the voice of the collective pointless. At the present time through lobbying, 1% of the population has 99% of the voice and 99% of the population has 1%.

If there were no greed or avarice in politics and all matters were treated with equal and due care, there would not be a problem. That is not the case, decisions in politics are skewed by the color of the lobbyist's money and let the taxpayers be damned. Like I said in a previous post, if a politician does harm to the citizens by enacting unfair laws or political direction, treat them as traitors, give them their day in court and if found guilty, hang them. The problem is this corrupt system favors the corrupt, they are not going to change the laws to sign their own death warrants.

Haven't we all had enough of the criminals in our governments, the bankers and the lobbyists? Haven't we taken it so far up the "ying yang" that were beginning to taste our own colons?

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by Hopechest
There are plenty of very good lobbying groups out there also you know. For every Monsanto lobbyist there is one from the other side lobbying against them.

Providing politicians with a way to "game" the system, basically a bidding war where the politician can't lose, is not a way to keep lobbyists and politician' greed in check. I think you inadvertently showed one of the major flaws in this scam of legalized bribery.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


I don't understand how people overlook how the billions in lobbying spent each year doesn’t effect our officials voting compass? Why are billions spent if its in effective?

I think Hopechest has a chest full of hope that our politicians will do the right thing despite what history has proven.

Originally posted by interupt42


Lobbying in reality is not a bad thing , Its a way to get your government to hear you. What makes it bad in today’s society is the amount of money required to be heard. This was done purposely by the large corporate and special interest groups who turned it into a highest bidder business model where the common man can't be heard.

This.
Lobbying is fine and is freedom of speech, but when it involves money, it infringes on the rights of others that do not have the money to buy politicians.

The most effective thing we can do is to remind the elected that they are in fact elected is to vote every single one of them out asap. What sense is there in being loyal to a party, whether Republican or Democrat... when they clearly are not loyal to us?

reply to post by interupt42


I'm sorry but whatever way the cookie crumbles in democracy lobbying (connecting money to political influence) can not be see as anything but corruption of the process and ultimately the root cause of the cancer that is US policies today. Policies are designed toward monetary interests not the people's interests.

The best example of how the process is destructive can be seen in regard to anything that is a common shared good (that is not monetized yet), like water or air (from quality to access to it) or even copyright (the way the public granting of a right to creators has been turned into its head to the detriment of all except those that profit from intellectual production, from what a very small part are indeed creators and get to create a quasi-monopolistic structure) the downside is observed to the way public domain gets no attention or even protection...

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by interupt42


Lobbying in reality is not a bad thing , Its a way to get your government to hear you. What makes it bad in today’s society is the amount of money required to be heard. This was done purposely by the large corporate and special interest groups who turned it into a highest bidder business model where the common man can't be heard.

This.
Lobbying is fine and is freedom of speech, but when it involves money, it infringes on the rights of others that do not have the money to buy politicians.

nicely put.

reply to post by Panic2k11


Agreed, Money as the means to get our politicians is not a good thing. That is why I proposed that both republicans and democrats unite on what should be a common goal and demand that we use technology to enable everyone an equal voice.

Originally posted by Kali74
The most effective thing we can do is to remind the elected that they are in fact elected is to vote every single one of them out asap. What sense is there in being loyal to a party, whether Republican or Democrat... when they clearly are not loyal to us?

Unfortunately, people think its republican versus democrats when in reality its Corporation and special interest groups versus the majority of us including republicans and democrats.

Unfortunately, I don't even have faith on the voting process. The DNC and the RNC pretty much narrow down which candidates it supporters can vote for and the Media markets them to the people like a pair of Nike shoes.

I can't imagine that the large special interest groups and the lobbyist haven't figured out that if they can legally $upport both the RNC and the DNC then they can pretty much always be on the winning side.

Then, those same lobbyist and special interest groups go and buy the expensive national adds on the news station if they aren't already part owners of them

The people are to busy to think for themselves or investigate the candidates. They simply go with who the RNC and the DNC selects for them.

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

I don't understand how people overlook how the billions in lobbying spent each year doesn’t effect our officials voting compass? Why are billions spent if its in effective?

I think Hopechest has a chest full of hope that our politicians will do the right thing despite what history has proven.

edit on 31-5-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

I hear you, politicians take in billions for what, their favorite charity, that being themselves? In order to propagate the cycle of corruption they have to get re-elected, so they continue accepting bribes to fund their campaigns to get re-elected so they can continue taking bribes, etc... As we both know, this ain't rocket science. It's plain and simple systemic greed and avarice operating within a self sustaining system of corruption, supported and managed by the corrupt.

If it looks like treason, sounds like treason and smells like treason, give 'em their day in court and hang the bastards if they're found guilty.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by interupt42


Youngsters always think that the purer the democracy, the faster we'll solve our problems. Like many here, I get a little exhausted at recommending to everyone that they read the Federalist Papers, so the only remaining solution is to start linking to them.

All these grand schemes have already been addressed and their advantages and shortcomings weighed. There's a reason we don't have a pure democracy: It's as self-destructive as the current Fascist oligarchy, and works even faster in its destruction. Here, in Federalist No. 10, is James Madison's take on pure democracy:

The Utility of Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

Give it a read; highly recommended....

Most lobbying firms give money to both parties to hedge their bets. You know how to nullify this?

Add more parties.

If you vote for the Republicans or Democrats, you are voting for the status quo. You add more parties and you make the lobbyists either spend more money trying to hedge their bets, in doing so making them weaker, or they spend less money all together, and only back candidates that will vote their way.

No laws need to be changed. Just vote for someone else.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Exactly...
2nd

reply to post by interupt42


Technology isn't there yet... There is ample examples that we would get more of the same but this time even harder to detect...

I believe that democracy is dead and it really has not been fully accomplished in the modern world. It was a good concept to promote the republican system (rule by the people) but it has been usurped from the beginning by larger groups (mostly the same that already presided at the table of power) that have no other objective than serve themselves or at least to serve themselves first

This deception was intentional in the design. A democracy to function requires that all participants to be at the same level of knowledge to have the chance to be equally effective not only on understanding the policies but to be able to promote their own. Considering the level in illiteracy and those that had control over knowledge we can clearly see that the plain-field was skewed from the beginning. It was an advance but not by far it removed some power from a top minority and permitted the burgessy (middle class) higher participation, this was not even a political reform it was systemic imposition (a technological requirement), burgessy rose in importance due the increased complexity of human society...

I'm not trying to radically change our system or overthrow the gov't nor claim which system is best.

What I'm trying to do is simply make the grey area between our elected officials and the lobbying industry a top issue in the debates.

this is a baby step that is a requirement for everything else. As long as the politicians are not working for us the people but rather the lobbying and special interest groups nothing will be accomplished in our best interest and the same issues will continue to exist.

Making the grey area an issue is the first step to waking up the herd.

So if you don't agree then what first baby step must we take to get back control of the gov't.