It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missouri Bill Would Require Lobbyists To Disclose Sex With Lawmakers

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
talkingpointsmemo.com...



A bill introduced Wednesday in the Missouri legislature would force a lobbyist to disclose if he or she is having "sexual relations" with a lawmaker or a member of a lawmaker's staff, according to a report from the Kansas City Star.

State Rep. Bart Korman's (R) proposal would define the sexual relationship as a "gift" on monthly ethics disclosures. The gift would not require "a dollar valuation," the bill states.

Here's the bill's language, from the Star:

For purposes of subdivision (2) of this subsection, the term "gift" shall include sexual relations between a registered lobbyist and a member of the general assembly or his or her staff. Relations between married persons or between persons who entered into a relationship prior to the registration of the lobbyist, the election of the member to the general assembly, or the employment of the staff person shall not be reportable under this subdivision. The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.


What the hell is this, brought to us by a republican no less? Who knows where this bill will go but still, what is this? I think my political mind has just been blown!




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

So if a married man or woman lobbyist and a married man or woman in the general assembly's office get together, they do not have to report it? Seems like an out for a lot of them.


As far as the whole concept goes, it certainly goes way above the traditional office relationships policies that I've seen in some of the corporate employers that I worked at.


Who gets to draw up the definition of a sexual relationship, will a Clinton be handling that?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: evc1shop

Who in DC working with lobbyists isn't married? Is this some kind of loophole to this nutty new bill?

We're so worried about getting money out of politics we never asked if we should get sex out of politics to!

edit on 10-1-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

HA! I saw this on Rachael Maddow. She had a form that she and her staff mocked up asking ridiculous questions like "What positions were used?" and "On a scale from 1 - 5, how would you rate this experience?"

The proposed bill doesn't put a dollar amount on the exchange, but it sure does legitimatize sex in exchange for favors.


edit on 10-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

When is it going to be time to clean house in DC? It's a cesspool of corruption and all around weirdness!



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

sounds like a good idea to me, i would take it a step further and say absolutely no contact at all between a lobbyist and lawmaker out side of business hours and then during those business hours more than two witnesses from both sides of the fence.

that there would slow down a lot of the shady deals.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Nah, because you'd have to count on both parties to not break the rules and we all know they would because who would be watching them? Will DC also implement a task force to enforce this?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Sounds like they are legalizing prostitution.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This could make liars out of many people !!!!




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod




The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.


Exactly!



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Why are they putting the onus on the lobbyist?

If a lawmaker is getting sex as a payment or partial payment for favors....or as they put it..."gifts", why not put the onus on the lawmaker to disclose this, too!

Is this bill just a way to say to those lawmakers that are receiving these "gifts" that "we are on to you"?

Washington! I am sick of the whole lot of them!



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Accountability for the 'legal' prostitution that occurs between government and the highest bidders.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills


as you say, if we clean UP the government at the state and fed level, you know you can't trust the any politician or most lobbyist,there would have to be some kind of oversight.

first i would look for the lawmakers that add pork to bills, then go from there. then maybe look for the ones that start to amass greater fortune than they had when they were elected, you know like going from making a couple of hundred thousand to making millions.

granted there would be work that would be needed to be done to ensure that there could be a system developed to monitor both lobbyist and the politicians, but when it was completed and the crooks thrown in jail every time, pretty soon they would stop, or at the very least slow down.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I wonder if corporations will claim they are bisexual?




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Transgender?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Those lobbyists will report themselves at the same frequency felons turn themselves in when in illegal possession of a firearm.

Truth be told, I'd much rather see a felon with a gun.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

It's an in-kind contribution. According to campaign finance laws, any such donation is within their authority.

I have been waiting for in-kind contributions to be recognized by the IRS for citizens.

For example, if you let a friend stay in your house or you give them a meal, they should owe the IRS money for the in-kind contribution.

Sounds great right?

It is exactly the same logic and it doesn't surprise me at all.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Sounds to me like, apparently, these "gifts" were happening often enough that they felt the need to try to combat the problem with a new law.


NEWSFLASH:

Politicians and corporate lobbyists are so far down the rabbit hole of corruption that nothing will stop them from getting what they want. Nothing.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Swills

sounds like a good idea to me, i would take it a step further and say absolutely no contact at all between a lobbyist and lawmaker out side of business hours and then during those business hours more than two witnesses from both sides of the fence.

that there would slow down a lot of the shady deals.



How about no contact at all between lobbyists & lawmakers?

The only way "the people's" voice will ever be heard again in government is to totally eliminate the voice of special interest that's currently drowning them out.

All paid lobbying has to be outlawed!

With respect to the OP, Missouri Repeblicans are as crazy as they come. Almost as crazy as the batch we currently have dominating our legislature here in Texas.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I get his image of a bunch of gorgeous, scantily-clad women taking our Congressmen by the hand and saying;
"Is there someplace private? I REALLY want to talk to you about this new bill".


edit on 11-1-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join