Obama gives lobbyists the boot

[Robpotter]

I don't think corporations or anything other than individuals should be able to contribute to campaigns. A corporation is not a person and cannot approve or disapprove of a person's poltical stance.

First, corporations by definition are " institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members." By having it's own rights, privledges, and liabilities gives a corporation all the legally granted rights of any person. They are as close to people as we are in the eyes of any (nearly world-wide) country, especially those doing business with the corporations overseas which contributes to our economy.

As far as campaign contributions go, why shouldn't they be able to contribute? If a contributions only given by individuals, we would not have a campaign process as we know it. You would get a poll every four years and not even have heard of any of the candidates. To become noticed, they are willing to become sponsored. Should the contributors receive nothing for the millions they put up? Well of course not. A mountain dew official would not elect Shaun White (pro snowboarder) to receive funding from Mountain Dew if Shaun was not willing to wear a hat with Mountain Dew on it.

But wearing Mountain Dew on his hat, does not change any of his big plans. He might speak at a Mt Dew convention or two, and publicly advertise it.

Now, back to government, but well be back Shaun. If Cell Phones united wanted to pass a law requiring cell phone usage while driving, we would all concider that rediculous ofcourse. But lets say thats what they wanted, and they sat down with Obama during his campaign, and said I want this passed, and we will give you 50 million for your efforts, he would say OK, and instantly pay for his campaign- No one would pass up such an offer.

So Obama gets elected thanks to Cell Phone united, and he introduces this idea to congress. Congress laughs.

Now assume the cell phone company asked Obama to grant them rights for world-wide connection terriff free? It would better the communication system world-wide, and also enable information to pass by easier, greatly improving technology and the economy.

Obama gets elected, brings it to congress.. and bam, passed. Hurt no-one. Obama got enough money to compaign effectivly, Cell Phones United has a large new economy he can tap, increasing the economy of the United States greatly (you have to be a us corporation to donate to political campaigns), as well as improving the standard of living of everyone in the United States, opening up many more jobs, taking down unemployment rates.

My point is the system of checks and balances is in place so that no laws will be passed that is not for the greater good of the country.

Now to Lobbyist, this is the part I have been trying to get to for awhile.

A local senator has been told he has to decide on a very important bill tomorrow. He really doesn't know which way he is going to decide. He goes home, and his wife tells him how she would vote... then his kids. His neighbors. Literally everyone he knows that has an opinion on that bill will discuss with him their views. Who says they should get the only input? If I hire a lobbyist to persuade people to vote one way for a bill, do you think they would do it if it was morally wrong? Lobbyist don't bribe, they persuade. They show the other side of the issue, get the other information into their head. It doesn't mean the lobbyist is trying to persuade a bad thing, and even if he was, the senator has no reason to abide by what he says. A politician is in congress because he is an intelligent man capable of making logically decisions. We put them in office for their ability to make decisions, hard or easy. A lobbyist is just there to present possibly unseen views to each politician.

Alright, I'm done now. I can talk more if you would like, but I am taking a break atleast.

---

Ok, I remembered more I needed to add.

The "transparency of the government".

This is do not understand. Why have a government to be transparent? Why even have a government at all? They are entrusted BY US to improve the standards of our nation. They get paid to do there job.

If anything they need to be more solid. They do not need to guide our lives, just maintain a civil liberty between each individual. Without the government, foreign relations and trade would be near impossible. Plus, without them, our nation would be catastrophically defenseless. Who do you think funds the technology to strike missiles out of the air? Perhaps you don't know who pays the army. My checks came from the National department of the Army, A nationally recognized department of the government.

They are not there to give you hell, they are there to help everyone, and keep everyone having representation, and their own influence over matters directly concerning their life.

---

Oh also, back to the corporations. The corporations don't make the decisions themselves. There are not robots. People make those decisions.