Why does the World Tolerate Special Interest Groups

Is there anyone who can give a good valid reason as to why we should tolerate special interest groups?

We all know most have only one thing in mind and that is money for their own pockets.

Look at the ACLU they have collected millions from both state and federal governments fighting as they claim to protect the rights of a few rather then the majority as they should be. Essentially what they have done is take away the rights of the majority by refusing to let them display a cross along the road side as a memorial.

What you probably don't know is that the ACLU is using your money to do it – such as when it received close to half a million taxpayer dollars after successfully suing to have the 10 Commandments removed from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's courthouse.

That's the stunning, in-depth, investigative story told for the first time in the December edition of Whistleblower, titled "EXTORTION: How the ACLU is destroying America using your money."

The headlines assault us daily: "Silent Night" can't be sung at school; the Defense Department must stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops; a tiny Christian cross must be removed from the Los Angeles County seal; Nativity scenes on a courthouse lawn are unconstitutional. Americans' heads are spinning, as they wonder what the next judicial outrage will be: Removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency? Firing all military chaplains? Expunging all references to God in America's founding documents?

Source

I recommend reading the entire article from the whistle blowers they make some very valid points.

Now moving along to show some figures

This is just a sampling of many read the source to see them all.

[edit on 8/26/2006 by shots]Source

The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a “morally straight”


$615,500 = Florida Supreme Court

The Florida Supreme Court established the Florida Bar Foundation and then commissioned the foundation to provide $615,500 to the ACLU of Florida between the years of 1990 and 1997.

$277,000 = Kentucky

The ACLU was awarded a whopping $277,000 after suing to overturn a state law against abortion in 1994.

$299,500 = Kentucky

In 2001, the ACLU was awarded more than $299,500 after suing to overturn abortion regulations in Kentucky.

$175,000 = Alabama

Following the lawsuit, involving former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, state taxpayers were forced to pay nearly $550,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Of that, $175,000 went to the ACLU.

$74,462 = Habersham County (Ga.)

The ACLU received $74,462 from Georgia taxpayers after suing to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Habersham County (Ga.) Courthouse.

$135,000 = Cobb County (Ga.)

The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”

$75,000 = Pasco (Wash.)

The city of Pasco, Washington was forced to pay the ACLU $75,000 after they lost a lawsuit to remove the painting of a naked woman from the Pasco City Hall.

$6,000,000 = American taxpayers

The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.


$110,000 = Multnomah County (Oregon)

Incredibly, Multnomah County taxpayers were asked to pay a whopping $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses.

Now I ask you, do you want to let the ACLU rape your tax dollars off to fill their coffers? I know I do not. :shk:

I used the ACLU as my prime example because they appear to be the worst of them all, but I am sure some others are probably other special interest groups right on their heals money wise.



[edit on 8/26/2006 by shots]

[edit on 29-8-2006 by asala]

Moving along I now have examples of others that simply think the easiest way to end obesity is to sue sue, and sue again.

Ten Dumbest Food Cop Ideas

"We're going to sue them and sue them and sue them."

"…and Sue Their Parents and Sue Their Doctors… "

In an attempt to address childhood obesity, politicians in Texas, New York, Philadelphia, California and elsewhere have removed soft drinks from schools. But in their frenzy to control our kids' diets, they have also banned diet soda -- a zero-calorie drink, last time we checked -- along with everything else. Of course, the schools are still allowed to sell fruit juice, which often contains more calories than regular soda.

All of this comes without a shred of credible evidence linking soda -- let alone diet soda -- to childhood obesity. In fact, a recent study by six Harvard researchers found just the opposite.

They then move onto mentioning rezoning areas so restaurants cannot be built near schools while others are suggesting that proof of age must be presented when purchasing candy. Oh and let us not forget the mother who does not want children serving sweets at a birthday party in a school.

Kindly note the one common thing all have, they are tied in with lawyers which have only one intent and that is to sue the dickens out of the world just to fill their own pockets. :shk:

There is one more link I wanted to post but I seem to have missplaced it, but I will when I can find it. In that the article states that one of the Lawers (I think it is the one with the vanity plate SueBast) even wants a piece of the action when others sue using the same premise as he did in the past and get this even though he will not be part of the suit he wants a certain percentage (I think it was 5%) from each suit that results in a cash settlement or judgement.


Now again I ask, why does society tolerate these fanatics?

edit to add found the

Link

It was not the one with vanity plates but another by the name of Dynard.

We're not doing this to make trial lawyers rich," insisted Richard Daynard at PHAI's 2003 conference. This from a man who, according to Boston Magazine in 2003, "got more than $1 million" for his tobacco attack, from which he draws inspiration to assail food. And Daynard later sued two attorneys for a bigger share of litigation settlements, claiming he made a handshake agreement for five percent of a multi-billion-dollar windfall in legal fees. Rebuffing this money grab, Daynard's fellow trial lawyer called him "greedy."

[edit on 8/27/2006 by shots]

IMO the phrase "special interest group" has been used of late by conservatives to defame certain groups they do not take a liking to. ACLU, unions, etc.
Let us remember, however, the Chamber of Commerce is a special interest group. I doubt very much a conservative would defame them.

The "special interest" of a union is workers, whereas the "special interest" of the CofC is business/employers.
The "special interest" of a group suing over health is at odds with the "special interest" of a group made up of purveyors (corporations usually) of that which is claimed to be unhealthy items.

I was in an accident recently and chose not to sue. Why? Because I had health insurance that would cover the costs of medical treatment. An uninsured person probably would have to resort to suing to have medical bills paid.

Lawyers are lawyers regardless if they work for an individual or a corporation. I guess the question is "Are you a good lawyer or a bad lawyer?" One has opinions based on which side they sit.

Hey, I remember when the ACLU took flack for defending a Nazi group in the 1970's.

Originally posted by desert
IMO the phrase "special interest group" has been used of late by conservatives to defame certain groups they do not take a liking to. ACLU, unions, etc.

This is not a party based issue, it is based on the correct definition of a Special interest Group versus an activist/activism. One group lobbies/sues the government. The other Protests or in some cases resort to acts of violence.

Def. Activism

Def. Special Interest

Well, I'd like to announce right here and now that I am a proud Benefactor Member of the National Rifle Association, perhaps the quintessential special interest group.

Own a gun? If you live in the US, you can pretty much thank us for protecting that right.

Rather depend on the police to save your butt? You can thank us, too. National Rifle Association trained instructors help to train virtually every police officer in the country.

As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

www.nrahq.org...

[edit on 2006/8/27 by GradyPhilpott]

Interes groups?

Can we talk about lobbyist also? that are corrupting politicians and robbing America from keeping the government for the Americans?

Right you are, Shots, with the definition. ACLU, Chamber of Congress, NRA (thank you, Grady!) all are special interest groups. Boy, does the list go on & on...
The NRA has taken flack over the years, as well as a teachers union (when the Education Secretary called them a terrorist organization).

This is one of the ways our NRA grassroots campaigns work. When there is an issue that impacts the Second Amendment, we send out cards to the membership for them to sign and send to the appropriate legislators. Imagine the impact of 3-4 million of these in your mail room.



[edit on 2006/8/28 by GradyPhilpott]

I thought special interest groups were groups that want certain
things for a certain group, like how the NAACP was one in the
60's to get equal rights for african-americans.

As for the article about the ACLU, I had no problem with any
of the cases mentioned, however that's not to say I agree with
all there cases.
However, I do completely disagree with the whole removing soda
machines from schools, forcing restautrants to be a certain distance
from a school and age verification for buying candy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, I'd like to announce right here and now that I am a proud Benefactor Member of the National Rifle Association, perhaps the quintessential special interest group.

Own a gun? If you live in the US, you can pretty much thank us for protecting that right.

I totally agree the NRA is one of the good groups.

-------

posted by marg6043
Can we talk about lobbyist also? that are corrupting politicians and robbing America from keeping the government for the Americans?

Marg special interest groups are lobbyist and why I labeled the thread as I did because activism/activists protest and or resort to violence.

[edit on 8/27/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
Marg special interest groups are lobbyist and why I labeled the thread as I did because activism/activists protest and or resort to violence.

I thought you were talking about certain groups.

Well lobbyist in the government are worse and more dangerous to the public that anything else.

That is how I see it.

Specially when a lot of money is channeled to their cause via targeting our own elected officials.

Originally posted by marg6043
I thought you were talking about certain groups.

No Not at all. I just singled out what I thought was one of, if not the worst offenders when it comes to raping the public of millions of dollars in tax dollars by suing our government on behalf of only a select few individuals while claiming they are protecting our rights when in reality they are denying us some of our rights.

Here are just some of the things they have taken away from us.

We no longer can have a nativity scene is our schools because a few anesthetists do not like it. We can no longer say Merry Christmas because Christ is involved.

Putting up any kind of cross on public property is a no no according the the ACLU even when they are meant to be a memorial for someone that died in a accident or perhaps got killed by someone with a gun and we are talking generic crosses without Christ on them.

The same goes for any religious symbols used by any faith they can no longer put them up in or around schools and heaven forbid if all faiths get together and put up several in on public property all hell would break loose just because a few do not believe in god. What about those that do believe in Christ or any form of deity don't we have the right to say god bless you or hand out a valentine in school that mentions christ on it?

I could go on for pages as you well know with examples of what they have taken away from us just in the form of a cross alone along with the expression of in God we Trust, but I am sure you get my drift.

Now what I want to know is why do people tolerate their actions?

Is The ACLU the worst? Honestly I am not sure, but I do know they have managed to remove more rights then they have protected (at Least as I see it).

Well lobbyist in the government are worse and more dangerous to the public that anything else.

I agree with you to a point, but I think the ACLU is by far one of the worst.

I have no problem with groups petitioning government for action on issues. What I do object most strongly to are groups that make donations to political parties or governemnt individuals, as campaign funds, in order to gain favour.
That is a fundamental breach of any trust placed on those politicians by the voting public, who's interests are put on the back burner in favour of the paying lobbyists.

I personally believe that ANY politician, from the national to local level of government who is found to have taken a single penny should be barred for life from representation.
The people pay the wages of the politicians, and we expect those politicians to be accountable to us, as they should be.
Political campaigns should not have to cost Millions of Pounds or Dollars, the policies should be the deciding factors and there is just no need for all the big money. Especially from big business or special interest groups.

The sooner the practice is outlawed, the better. I just won't hold my breath waiting

Originally posted by Britguy
I personally believe that ANY politician, from the national to local level of government who is found to have taken a single penny should be barred for life from representation.

I'm not sure that that is a good plan, but I think that if television and radio advertising were eliminated from political campaigns, then the level of political discourse could be raised. In order to be informed of the issues, voters would have to buy newspapers and attend rallies for their candidates who would have to stump just as they did before television.

I am too young to remember politics before television, but in my judgement, it is television advertising that has reduced political campaign discourse to sound bites and increased the incidence of policy-barren, mudslinging advertising campaigns.

I say take campaigning back to the 18th century and we would all benefit, both politically and in terms of the entertainment value of television, which is virtually unwatchable during political campaigns.

Political debates should be televised and carried on radio, as this just provides a wider audience to an age-old form of voter education.

[edit on 2006/8/28 by GradyPhilpott]

And let us not forget the brilliant statement by Arnold Schwarnegger, when he called nurses, teachers and firefighters "special interest groups"; this is when he proposed to take away the pension program for teachers, nurses and firefighters.

Originally posted by forestlady
And let us not forget the brilliant statement by Arnold Schwarnegger, when he called nurses, teachers and firefighters "special interest groups"....

These people do constitute special interest groups. They organize and pay lobbyists to advocate their interests. "Special interest group" is not a negative term, except that it has been made one by those who have sought to limit the activity of lobbyist who support causes they oppose.

Everyone has a special interest and my guess is that there is a group out there who advocates for that interest. My suggestion is to join one before you try to smear them all.

Lobbyism or Collective action is defined as “the investment of resources by individuals or organisations and the bringing together of these individuals or organisations in the collective pursuit of common interest, which may result in selective or collective benefits.

en.wikipedia.org...

Abuses do exist within the lobbying process, but the process is a very effective and is open to anyone who wants to participate in collective action.

[edit on 2006/8/28 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by forestlady
And let us not forget the brilliant statement by Arnold Schwarnegger, when he called nurses, teachers and firefighters "special interest groups"; this is when he proposed to take away the pension program for teachers, nurses and firefighters.

Do you bye chance have a link to a story that contains the statement? I would like to comment on the teachers however do not want to insert foot in my mouth until I read his full statement in context.

Why would he call nurses and firefighters "special interest groups"

Here's a quote that probably prompted forestlady's post:

Schwarzenegger's mistake was to take on nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters. All at the same time.

"Governor Schwarzenegger, you ought to take your promises on education as seriously as we do," one teacher said in an advert sponsored by the California Teachers' Association.

"Our governor called nurses special interests after he stopped the new nurses' staffing law," a nurse said in another ad. "But Schwarzenegger doesn't say a word about his own donations from the big drug and insurance companies: the real special interests that run Sacramento."

www.guardian.co.uk

I really don't know what to say. Teachers and other groups spend a lot of money doing their best to influence legislation, but they oppose the term being applied to them, but liberally apply the term to other groups such as drug companies and insurance companies. Apparently, the more money a group has, the more likely they are to be called a special interest group, regardless of the fact that there are many special interest groups.

People should note that my special interest group, arguably the most effective special interest group in history, draws all its money from our membership, a bunch of ordinary people like yourself, who champion a cause and pool our resources to preserve the rights we all enjoy.

I think this thread could be more effective if we could come up with a rational definition of special interest group, instead of throwing it around as if it were the "F word."


[edit on 2006/8/28 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by forestlady
And let us not forget the brilliant statement by Arnold Schwarnegger, when he called nurses, teachers and firefighters "special interest groups"; this is when he proposed to take away the pension program for teachers, nurses and firefighters.

Do you bye chance have a link to a story that contains the statement? I would like to comment on the teachers however do not want to insert foot in my mouth until I read his full statement in context.

Why would he call nurses and firefighters "special interest groups"

Here is one:
www.arnoldwatch.org...
Excerpt:
Roger Salazar, spokesman for the coalition, which also includes the Parent-Teacher Association and an association of school boards, said the ads resonate with voters who see cash-strapped districts forced to lay off teachers and increase class sizes.

"This isn't a Sacramento thing. These are schoolteachers and principals the public deals with every day," he said. "The governor is spitting in the wind when he tries to define teachers and principals as special interests."
****************
Also try:
www.commondreams.org...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
These people do constitute special interest groups. They organize and pay lobbyists to advocate their interests. "Special interest group" is not a negative term, except that it has been made one by those who have sought to limit the activity of lobbyist who support causes they oppose.

Everyone has a special interest and my guess is that there is a group out there who advocates for that interest. My suggestion is to join one before you try to smear them all.

Huh? How did you get that I was "smearing them all"? I wasn't smearing any group. I was talking about how Schwarzenegger calls teachers, firefighters and nurses "special interest". How can they be? These are people who serve everyone, not just a small group. They lobby for the health care, education, safety and interests of ALL citizens. One of the things the nurses lobbied for were more nurses in hospitals, California has far too few nurses. Finally it was a judge who ruled against Arnold saying that there should be more nurses in hospitals to keep up the safety of patients, just one thing that the nurses lobbied for in the interests of the public.
Nor do I think that the term "special interest" is a pejorative one, it's a term to describe lobbyists who lobby on behalf of their own narrow interests instead of on the welfare of the entire community. The nurses, teachers and firefighters were incensed at being called a special interest group because they fight so hard for the public's welfare.