An Amendment to Ban Lobbyists from our Government.

page: 3
94
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Can you tell us why a corporation or any other entity should not be allowed to petitition the government in support of their interests?


I'm not saying that the following scenario is the norm...but...

Say a corporation is lobbying...the corp. has stock holders....stock holders are citizens of other countries....now you have foreign interests lobbying for U.S. legislation.




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


I don't want to get off topic here but, Corporations are supposed to pay the taxes by which the infrastructure of the country is maintained. Corporations USE and consume MORE natural resources to bring their product or produce to market to PROFIT from it. Therefore, they use OUR natural resources we claim by dominion and right. Corporations were given the status as "person" to reduce the taxes they paid and increase the taxes we pay, because most people believe themselves to be a "person" under the law and not a "Natural person" which is distinctly different. SO we the people in reponse to lobbyists have the interest of the entire country at heart or should have, wherein the corporations have their profit margins at heart, screw the public.

Environmentalists too are used by TPTB to subvert our rights and to close land wherein the Elite go in and steal the resources, such as gold, silver, oil, diamonds and so on. We see it all over the world. Funny how these environmentalists don't even see it. How truly sad for them.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Can you tell us why a corporation or any other entity should not be allowed to petitition the government in support of their interests?


I'm not saying that the following scenario is the norm...but...

Say a corporation is lobbying...the corp. has stock holders....stock holders are citizens of other countries....now you have foreign interests lobbying for U.S. legislation.


And you'd have stockholders who are Americans, employees who are Americans, investors who are Americans and so forth. You'd be hard pressed to show how it doesn't somehow benefit someone in America.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
While restricting lobbying is a good move, I contend that what we need to change things for the better is a new federal employee condition of employment. We need a total personnel surveillance system that at the top echelons may not be as free and democratic as some would like, but serving in a government profession or job has requirements and I contend that to serve the public requires we know everything about you not only before you begin work, but on a 24/7 basis after youre on the job.

For too long criminals within the federal government have been sheltered from scrutity of actions because there are those that contend that people in high office and positions of military authority feel they can disguise or hide their illicit actions behind privacy and the Constitution. I would begin and initiate surveilling for criminals at the top with a sole Government US Intelligence agency like the NSA whos mandate is total information awareness through surveillance of every military member, federal employee and any defense industrial complex company doing business with the federal government. Every federal employee would include the Supreme Court Justices, Directors for FBI, CIA, DEA, DIA, Customs and all the other federal agencies under federal payroll.

We should require that every single person on government payroll and everyone doing business with the government be background investigated, allowed a level of security classification necessary to do certain work and under this numbrella of surveillance, every personal and business email, phone call, text message, meetings and family or business aquaintances and most importantly all financial assets deposited around the world monitored to determine if criminality is the basis for hiding assets. Only by watching those that are entrusted with the assets and safety of America are we ever going to identify and bring to justice those that would defraud or willingly collude with others to pursue agendas against the Constitution of the United States for some bribe, house, stocks or cash consideration..

Stoping the corruption and theft of billions should be enough motivation to realize that to affect such a change requires that those serving in government must be treated to a different standard of surveillance than those of the public sector. Bottom line is that instead of allowing the federal government to watch every citizen under an umbrella of surveillance for terrorism, we should mandate that every one in government must conform to a new level of anti-criminality standards by stating that every federal employee will not be above the law and can not hide behind executive orders or the blatant use of National Security to hide the crimes being committed by criminals entrusted with the safety and welfare of the nation.


The total surveillance of all federal employee to ID and bring criminality to justice will go a long way to reducing if not totally diminishing internal corruption and the pursuit of agendas totally contrary to the US Constitution. We have the technology to pursue such a goal of 24/7 surveillance for all federal employees and those doing business with the federal government.

Lastly I would acknowledge that privacy and rights are important but I dont think there so important that it should prevent us from bringing to justice those that would fracture the rules with impunity just because they feel that no one can touch them.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
I don't want to get off topic here but, Corporations are supposed to pay the taxes by which the infrastructure of the country is maintained. Corporations USE and consume MORE natural resources to bring their product or produce to market to PROFIT from it. Therefore, they use OUR natural resources we claim by dominion and right.


What do you think they are using those resources for? You think they are just burning them to burn them? Who do you think uses the product of those resources?


Originally posted by daddio
SO we the people in reponse to lobbyists have the interest of the entire country at heart or should have, wherein the corporations have their profit margins at heart, screw the public.


So, what it all boils down to is you don't like a certain person or group, their speech or their petitition of grievences, therefore that person or group should not be afforded the same freedoms you enjoy.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Can you tell us why a corporation or any other entity should not be allowed to petitition the government in support of their interests?


I'm not saying that the following scenario is the norm...but...

Say a corporation is lobbying...the corp. has stock holders....stock holders are citizens of other countries....now you have foreign interests lobbying for U.S. legislation.


And you'd have stockholders who are Americans, employees who are Americans, investors who are Americans and so forth. You'd be hard pressed to show how it doesn't somehow benefit someone in America.


True.

However, I get the feeling that if corporate lobbyist are removed from the scenario, then the right decision still gets made for ALL parties involved. I think the ability of congressmen to do the right thing goes up exponentially without the big money to influence them. Surely, corporations need representation, but as of now, they have a disproportionate amount of the representation.

Perhaps citizens should band together and hold fund raisers and then go to D.C. with wheelbarrows of money to counteract the corporate coffers...but we shouldn't have to buy legislation...we the people should be making it.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxBlack
We need a total personnel surveillance system that at the top echelons may not be as free and democratic as some would like...I contend that to serve the public requires we know everything about you not only before you begin work, but on a 24/7 basis after youre on the job.


Undemocratic, unAmerican and a violation of the Constitution.


Originally posted by MaxBlack
For too long criminals within the federal government have been sheltered from scrutity of actions because there are those that contend that people in high office and positions of military authority feel they can disguise or hide their illicit actions behind privacy and the Constitution.


Darn that pesky Constitution getting in the way of making this a better country!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


In effect you are saying that the corporations and special interest groups should maintain the same rights as the individual.
The problem with that is that the situation we now have is the politicians are pimping themselves out to the highest payer. That is neither serving the people nor the country and is simple bribery and corruption.

In the real world private sector taking a bribe is illegal, in politics it's the norm!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
However, I get the feeling that if corporate lobbyist are removed from the scenario, then the right decision still gets made for ALL parties involved.


Still gets made? So you think the right decisions are already being made? So what's the problem?

Oh yeah...someone you don't like is exercising the same freedoms you enjoy.


Originally posted by Aggie Man
Perhaps citizens should band together and hold fund raisers and then go to D.C. with wheelbarrows of money to counteract the corporate coffers...but we shouldn't have to buy legislation...we the people should be making it.


So, you want to lobby and petition Congress to ban lobbying and petititioning. Interesting tactic.

You do realize it won't stop with people you don't like, right?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
In effect you are saying that the corporations and special interest groups should maintain the same rights as the individual.


I certainly am.


Originally posted by Britguy
That is neither serving the people nor the country and is simple bribery and corruption.


So, only when it's a group you agree with, only when they are representing a issue you believe in, it's serving the people and not corruption?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Darn that pesky Constitution getting in the way of making this a better country!


Not much to respond to about that...you are correct. The only thing I can say is that I doubt our forefathers ever conceived the idea of corporations buying legislation. I don't think they intended it to be that way...and because of that, an amendment should be made to limit and oversee such interactions with legislators.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


What you seem to be defending is outright bribery and corruption. Are you suggesting that if we paid bigger bribes than the corporate and foreign interests, we'd get better service for the country and it's people?

Since when was it the job of the politicians to serve big money interests? That is not their job and by accepting any money from those entities, they are automatically showing contempt for the people who put them in office and pay their wages.

This is not a free speech issue but one of ethics, accountability and responsibility.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Not much to respond to about that...you are correct. The only thing I can say is that I doubt our forefathers ever conceived the idea of corporations buying legislation. I don't think they intended it to be that way...


Maybe, maybe not. But what they did intend is that persky Constitution that protects the scumbags, criminals and any other person you don't like also protect you and me.


Originally posted by Aggie Man
and because of that, an amendment should be made to limit and oversee such interactions with legislators.


You do realize that would be an aberration among the rest of the amendments right (aside from Prohibition, but since repealed); instead of guaranteeing freedoms, such an amendment would strip them?

And it would not stop with people you don't like. Put yourself on the other side of the equation. Would you want someone wielding that kind of power over you?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
What you seem to be defending is outright bribery and corruption.

This is not a free speech issue but one of ethics, accountability and responsibility.


What I am defending is my right and everyone else's right to freedom of speech and to petition the government. Because it won't stop at the Evil Corporations, it won't stop for the voices you want to silence. Because we shouldn't regulate freedoms based on how much we like those who are exercising that freedom.

Do you really want the government, or anyone, telling you that you cannot petitition the government because your issue or cause is not the right issue or cause?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
We need a total personnel surveillance system that at the top echelons may not be as free and democratic as some would like...I contend that to serve the public requires we know everything about you not only before you begin work, but on a 24/7 basis after youre on the job.



Undemocratic, unAmerican and a violation of the Constitution.


How so? Where is it written in our constitution that congress shall be entitled to privacy in their public position? Surveillance of a public official meeting a corp. rep. with deep pockets....lots of room for abuse on behalf of the government official....very little room for abuse on behalf of the American people having access to these public meetings, which at the current time are private...

We don't know what kind of deals go on behind closed doors; however, with monitoring we know exactly what's going on...of course any legislation in this direction would also have to make it illegal for legislators to meet with lobbyists outside of "monitoring stations".

Tell me how it is fair to the citizens to NOT have it that way?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
How so? Where is it written in our constitution that congress shall be entitled to privacy in their public position? Surveillance of a public official meeting a corp. rep. with deep pockets....lots of room for abuse on behalf of the government official....very little room for abuse on behalf of the American people having access to these public meetings, which at the current time are private...


It doesn't. But that is not what you were suggesting. You want constant surveillance, 24/7, where there is no privacy. What you were suggesting is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with your explanation, either.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Britguy
What you seem to be defending is outright bribery and corruption.

This is not a free speech issue but one of ethics, accountability and responsibility.


What I am defending is my right and everyone else's right to freedom of speech and to petition the government. Because it won't stop at the Evil Corporations, it won't stop for the voices you want to silence. Because we shouldn't regulate freedoms based on how much we like those who are exercising that freedom.

Do you really want the government, or anyone, telling you that you cannot petitition the government because your issue or cause is not the right issue or cause?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by DoomsdayRex]


I repeat, this is NOT a free speech issue.

Corporations and foreign entities may well be entitled to petition our governments the same as us ordinary citizens, but when support is bought, to the detriment of the country and it's citizens, then that is just plain wrong and has nothing to do with individual rights.

What it comes down to is accountability and transparency in all areas of government, to ensure favours are not being peddled for financial gain by the individuals in power.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Aggie Man
How so? Where is it written in our constitution that congress shall be entitled to privacy in their public position? Surveillance of a public official meeting a corp. rep. with deep pockets....lots of room for abuse on behalf of the government official....very little room for abuse on behalf of the American people having access to these public meetings, which at the current time are private...


It doesn't. But that is not what you were suggesting. You want constant surveillance, 24/7, where there is no privacy. What you were suggesting is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with your explanation, either.


Perhaps the 4th amendment should not be extended to legislators (while acting in an official capacity). Transparency....

If it is a public position, that means the ENTIRE public should have full disclosure and access...the FOIA kind of gives us that...but only documented events...I say that surveillance of legislators (while on the clock) would be an extension of the FOIA. If there is nothing shady going on, then the legislators have nothing to fear.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Government lobby groups should be banned from any state or federal building. They should be banned from talking to, discussing with, or interacting with any federal employee or elected official.

Any group, firm, PAC, or cause found guilty of lobbying members of the government should be tried under RICO and have all assets seized.

Any elected official to have any dealings with lobby groups should be found to have committed a first degree felony punishable by life in prison without possibility of parole.



You are kinder then I am


That would be a good start.



Originally posted by scraze
But how are we to be sure there is no contact between those groups? Aren't both (reasonably) normal persons who could theoretically play at the same golf course, shop at the same grocery store or maybe even live in the same street? If all contact with lobbyists would be illegal, then there would have to be 24x7 monitoring of all those people and their interactions. That implies legalizing the breach of privacy necessary for such 'control'.. Banning lobbyists will only work when the government has 'full observatory access' to their behavior.


@ scraze - Follow the money trail. If it leads to anyone with connections to lobbyists then a full audit would be in order to confirm and prosecute all guilty parties.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Looking back to the 2008 elections I must say I found it rather naive for Obama, McCain, Hillary, Huckabee, Ron Paul (yes him too for many of those ATSers here) and even Kucinich to ramble on about how "lobbyists" need to be removed, or that once they get into office they "would not be welcomed". Its BS ofcourse, we all know it, Im pritty darn sure they know it, but really at that time, at a place it always scores points I guess to walk with the pitch forked crowd... especially during the financial crises and the bail-outs... but really aint "getting the lobbyists out of DC" more a complicated scenario?

The issue of DC "lobbyists" isnt anything new, and lets not forget that there have been attempts in the past to get right of DC corporate lobbyists... Take for example the lobbyist disclosure act 1995 which was intended to bring by the least more transparency from lobbyists especially those of corporate interests but was met with opposition. Groups in defense of these lobbying tactics argued that it didnt matter what "interests" anybody is representing, our first ammendment freedoms with our "rights to petition" cannot be interfered by government... so that was an issue then... and lets not forget about the loopholes where this act excluded smaller donors... so there were complications in that one.

The ofcourse there was the "ethics reform" bill back in 04' although that one was again met with opposition, this time by the NRA, american civil liberties union and national right to life commitee....

So to be clear.... it isnt as simply as getting rid of corporate interests out of Washington. Lets not forget first ammendment rights apply to all, the rights to petition apply to all. As much as I hate to say it, constitutionally speaking, those corporate lobbyists have those same constitutional rights as we do... and it is frustrating at that fact.

Technically lobbyists are still US citizens with constitutional rights to petition and rally senators. Its sad but fact.





new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join