Obama gives lobbyists the boot

[Autumnlicious]

Cash maggot: The only kind of maggot I would like to bathe in

They'd get under your skin and consume whatever they can find. That not only feels like an unpleasant scratching, itching and wriggling beneath the skin in a perpetual feeling of 'crawling' but probably will breed a bacterial infestation when your immune system kills the damn buggers and you got chunks of maggot in every private and public orifice. Leaving a cash trail is even worse - every time you sit down it sounds like a resting home ruffling all their newspapers collectively.

[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.

[theblindferrengi]

Being a lobbyist is a temporary occupation, not permanent, and does not mean that person should be discriminated against. But if the said lobbyists are still on some sort of lobbyist payroll, then conflict of interest is a major concern that should be guarded against.

Throughout history, people have always found ways of "bending the rules". In hindsight we often refer to this as corruption. Back in the 1800s with big business trusts and cartels is one example, and regulations against them were made, so people found a new corruption with the stock markets. At the time there was no rules regarding insider trading and what we now call investment fraud. Regulations in that area were made only after those problems caused a worldwide economic depression. There have been a few other instances since then, but this change brought about by President Obama is just yet another of these regulations to guard against corruption.

[Robpotter]

Stopping lobbyist doesn't protect against corruption.

A lobbyist gains nothing from government actions, its not his job. His employer, is big business... did you read my post? I feel like im just about to restate myself for clarification.

[Meatball]

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.

That's my point. This is a problem.

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.

...which is a good thing.

You would get a poll every four years and not even have heard of any of the candidates.

..because the media has disappeared?

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.

Except a large portion of congress is also on the Cell Phone United payroll and they actually pass the law and fuck over the majority of americans.

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.

Are you serious? Congress is considered a system of checks and balances? No laws are passed that aren't for the 'greater good'? You're seriously on crack.

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.

They have a constitutionally-protected right to petition the government. The problem is that while a corporation has no problem allocating millions of dollars to spend getting lobbyists into powerful advisory committees and fighting for it's best interests, it's not as easy for me to do that. They have a distinct advantage and it shows in our lawmaking process. Why do you think the healthcare debate is as skewed as it is? You don't find it odd that such a large number of these intelligent men and women arrive at the logical solution that the insurance companies deserve a monopoly, that the government has no right to offer health insurance (even alongside private companies), that financial companies should function under little-to-no regulation (despite evidence that it doesn't work)? Either we ended up with a bad batch of logicians or there's something influencing their logic, like the documented millions of dollars they receive from lobbying groups, for example.

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.

You have no understanding of what transparency is.

I can't think of any rational argument against increased government transparency.

[Robpotter]

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.

That's my point. This is a problem.

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.

...which is a good thing.

You would get a poll every four years and not even have heard of any of the candidates.

..because the media has disappeared?

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.

Except a large portion of congress is also on the Cell Phone United payroll and they actually pass the law and fuck over the majority of americans.

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.

Are you serious? Congress is considered a system of checks and balances? No laws are passed that aren't for the 'greater good'? You're seriously on crack.

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.

They have a constitutionally-protected right to petition the government. The problem is that while a corporation has no problem allocating millions of dollars to spend getting lobbyists into powerful advisory committees and fighting for it's best interests, it's not as easy for me to do that. They have a distinct advantage and it shows in our lawmaking process. Why do you think the healthcare debate is as skewed as it is? You don't find it odd that such a large number of these intelligent men and women arrive at the logical solution that the insurance companies deserve a monopoly, that the government has no right to offer health insurance (even alongside private companies), that financial companies should function under little-to-no regulation (despite evidence that it doesn't work)? Either we ended up with a bad batch of logicians or there's something influencing their logic, like the documented millions of dollars they receive from lobbying groups, for example.

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.

You have no understanding of what transparency is.

I can't think of any rational argument against increased government transparency.

First, your statements contradict each other. You want more transparency of the government... but you also want corporations to not be able to make campaign contributions... although im sure you don't get the connection yet meatball, I will explain your error.

You would like the people to make the decisions, as to not "fuck up [themselves]" correct? Who do you think that corporation is? It is made up from people all across America, relying on that paycheck to come through. They do make the laws. If you want the government to be more invisible, you would keep corporation contributions. This aligns the laws of the state to be akin to those of the people.

Also, you are not broad enough visioned. You would never make a good politician. Say they do accept a bribe, and pass a horrible law that truly hurts the United States. BAM, next state election everyone of those men who voted for the new bill is gone. Never to be elected again. Our government officials are much smarter then that.

and to just riddle your theory with bullet holes, do you really expect a law based solely on a corporation, that hinders all of America, to make it through BOTH houses of congress, and the president? Now you'l say it can pass without president approval, which is true if congress grants a 2/3 vote (a super majority, that is rarely seen on controversal laws). and then, the supreme court (which never is effected by campaign contributions... they dont take any) can easily scratch that law from existence declaring it unconstitutional (which it would be if it truly hindered America).

And now the media is the entire source of public opinion. How many commercials do you see for president elctions? tons. How do you think that each politician would even be noticed if they didn't even have the money to pay for a good marketer?

You say Im on crack as well? Well, since crack is a derivative of cocaine which is a powerful stimulant, encouraging thought, I see myself one leg up from you.. the mentally incompetent.

[Meatball]

First, your statements contradict each other. You want more transparency of the government... but you also want corporations to not be able to make campaign contributions... although im sure you don't get the connection yet meatball, I will explain your error.

You're absolutely right, I don't see any contradiction in those positions. Perhaps you could explain what exactly you think government transparency is?

You would like the people to make the decisions, as to not "fuck up [themselves]" correct? Who do you think that corporation is? It is made up from people all across America, relying on that paycheck to come through.

This is true, however in some cases the positions corporations would want to lobby for would greatly benefit the fat cats at the top of the ladder, while not doing much for (or even detrimenting) those waiting for the paycheque.

Look at the current healthcare debate. Insurance lobbies successfully destroyed the public healthcare option. This benefits the health insurance companies greatly. The people that lobbied for this are trying to maximize their profits, not provide better healthcare for America. There are very few people in America who truly benefit from such a legislative decision. A couple hundred executives, mostly. This is an example of how a lobby represents a corporation, but a corporation doesn't represent all it's members.

You would never make a good politician.

Thank you.

and to just riddle your theory with bullet holes, do you really expect a law based solely on a corporation, that hinders all of America, to make it through BOTH houses of congress, and the president? Now you'l say it can pass without president approval, which is true if congress grants a 2/3 vote (a super majority, that is rarely seen on controversal laws). and then, the supreme court (which never is effected by campaign contributions... they dont take any) can easily scratch that law from existence declaring it unconstitutional (which it would be if it truly hindered America).

Thanks for the civics lesson, but garbage passes right through the legislative system all. the. time. Not in the blatant way your strawman implies, but it does.

You say Im on crack as well? Well, since crack is a derivative of cocaine which is a powerful stimulant, encouraging thought, I see myself one leg up from you.. the mentally incompetent.

Great job.

[theblindferrengi]

Stopping lobbyist doesn't protect against corruption.

A lobbyist gains nothing from government actions, its not his job. His employer, is big business... did you read my post? I feel like im just about to restate myself for clarification.

That is exactly my point. This is just another regulation, but corruption will continue. It does however give Obama the illusion of getting something done.

[Meatball]

Apparantly Robpotter is on the Supreme Court.

They just made a ruling that since corporations are people in the eyes of the law, to limit political advertisment or funding would be in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Keith Olbermann gave a Chicken Little speech referencing facism and violent revolution, but it's actually not far from possible if nothing is done.

Alan Grayson introduced a few bills last week to try to counteract this decision, and Barney Frank was on Rachel Maddow explaining how they can limit this via corporate legislation, so it's certainly not the end of the road.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

A corporation is not a person

Err,actually,in the US and all other developed countries, corporation is indeed legally a person. This was determined in the US by the Supreme court in the C19th.The purpose was to allow joint stock companies to buy,sell and own and property in their own right.



00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[3] and they are often responsible for human rights violations.[4] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[5] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation