FWIS3

So the idea that lobbyists needed to be transparent goes out the window now. The new trend is industry concealing itself and pushing forth propaganda tactics instead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... l_politics

I wonder why?
Are the politicians asking too much money to have their opinions bought?

It's about a number of factors. First, it hides the money. Obviously, if you know that corn syrup refiners are funding a scientific study you might question whether the money paid for a bias. Can't have people questioning the validity of a study just because it was paid for by the people who want the study to say their product is safe. Secondly, it's always good if you can get what appears to be an unbiased scientist saying what you want them to say. And thirdly, there is the fact that lobbyists have a tarnished image. So, if you can get a nice non-profit with a great name like "American's for public health and safety" saying that your product is safe and non-toxic it has way better public image than a lobbyist. Icky nasty lobbyists will push a bill in Congress just because the industry that hires them tell them to. But those American's for Public Health & Safety can be trusted because they have scientific studies to prove what they say is true. And they really care about the public health and safety too! <insert sarcasm smiley here>

Great story on NPR's Fresh Air about this yesterday.

The really interesting thing about lobbying is that it actually can serve a good purpose. A few years back when I worked for the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) I was a helper bee at our annual legislative day activity for a couple of years. Each year the WSNA promotes this. We basically show up to the state capitol and have some educational seminars. We invite nursing schools, nurses, nurses associations, nursing unions, and other allied health professionals. Sometimes we can get pretty high ranking people to come and be a guest speaker.

Part of the activities involved include setting up appointments with the state legislators to lobby them on nursing issues such as mandatory overtime, patient safety issues, and etc. WSNA even employs a person who is the PR, media and lobbyist for the association.

WSNA lobbying efforts were instrumental in getting a law passed that severely restricted mandatory overtime for nurses. Lobbying was part of our strategy to get this law passed.

I think this is one of the reasons its so hard to get rid of lobbying. It can actually serve a good purpose.

SciFiFisher wrote:I think this is one of the reasons its so hard to get rid of lobbying. It can actually serve a good purpose.

So can corruption but that doesn't mean it should be regularly practiced or even legal.

FZR1KG wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:I think this is one of the reasons its so hard to get rid of lobbying. It can actually serve a good purpose.

So can corruption but that doesn't mean it should be regularly practiced or even legal.

I don't think it's lobbying that is the problem. Lobbying is a form of trying to infleunce opinions by educating people about a topic. As long as the lobbying is above board and transparent there shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that with lobbying comes gifts. You might even call them bribes. Congressman X I will contribute $1 million to your campaign just for listening my pitch on why Corporation Y should get a tax break for sending jobs overseas.

The more insideous version is Congressman Z I will create 10,000 jobs in your district if you can help pass a little piece of legislation that makes it ok for Corporation Y to pay no taxes in your district. After all, it will increase tax revenues in your district because you will get to tax all the individuals who get new jobs we create.

In fact, I am lobbying you right now to change your opinion on lobbying. Of course, I don't have a bribe to offer but have I told you what a beautiful wife you have? And that is an awesome boat too. In fact, your family is pretty incredible. I even like your cats.


pssst... How do you feel about lobbying now?

edited to fix spelling error.

Of course that's not how lobbying works in practice.

I'll agree to this however; have as much lobbying as you want but if anyone is found attempting to buy a decision or lobby outside official lobby times when the public is present that they, the people they represent and the person they are lobbying are charged with treason on the spot and lose their positions and have their assets frozen till found not guilty.
After all, trying to perverse the course of the country for your own gain is the ultimate betrayal of the people is it not.

That I could support if implemented better than what I simply described above.

Otherwise lets just call it by its practical name, bribery.

FZR1KG wrote:Of course that's not how lobbying works in practice.

I'll agree to this however; have as much lobbying as you want but if anyone is found attempting to buy a decision or lobby outside official lobby times when the public is present that they, the people they represent and the person they are lobbying are charged with treason on the spot and lose their positions and have their assets frozen till found not guilty.
After all, trying to perverse the course of the country for your own gain is the ultimate betrayal of the people is it not.

That I could support if implemented better than what I simply described above.

Otherwise lets just call it by its practical name, bribery.

I definitely agree that when Superpacs, Corporations, and lots of money get involved that lobbying does NOT work as intended. Unless the intent really is to buy influence and serve short sighted interests that do not serve the public good.

I think we do need more transparency and stronger laws that would prevent lobbying from being perverted into influence peddling and bribery. The same probably goes for campaign finances.

I guess I remain cautiously optimistic that big money has not completely bought the entire country and the voting process. If that were true would we really have seen Obama get elected?

SciFiFisher wrote:I guess I remain cautiously optimistic that big money has not completely bought the entire country and the voting process. If that were true would we really have seen Obama get elected?

Yep. Because it makes no difference to them who gets in. They hedge their bets on both parties and both are under their control.
I'm not talking corporations like GM or Ford. They are small fry. Think big finance.
They don't particularly care who is in because it's all been bought and paid for long ago.
Follow the money, the USA is in debt to the tune of trillions.
Who is it in debt to and why?
Then you'll know who controls your government and its not the public. That much we know.