It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


An Amendment to Ban Lobbyists from our Government.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:03 PM
Like the idea of Gazrock where he stated we should outlaw money contributions when it comes to petitioning senators or governors, but then again this outlaws campaign contributions aswell. Its a complicated matter, not as cut and dry as the ramblers of election time.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Star and Flag for this simple yet bold ammendment.

Every country has Corporatism affecting it's Government some more than others. The best way to stop it would be to have one place for donations for the elections - an election fund for debates + discussions. So everyone draws from the same fund.

Could it ever be passeed as a law?

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:04 PM
In addition to this amendment, I present that congress persons' phones,e-mali, their office should be tapped. and then the contents should be then put on the web for all to see and hear.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:06 PM
Do not agree...

Go back a few decades and there were NO lobbyists. What happened is the federal government starting passing laws to legislate and govern different types of businesses. Businesses responded that they need to affect any new laws about them, so lobbyists began. You can not blame private industry for wanting to affect laws that affect them.

The problem is the politicians. They can be either above board or choose to do shady things no matter what lobbyists offer.

You can not ban lobbyists. Private industries and unions will still help politicans get elected.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by whatukno

S&F, but I do want to give a response about this.

With all the corruption going on within the government, and really the entire world, any new laws/amendments are going to very easily avoided just like every other law that is bypassed by government officials.

I will bet someone or some group with be made an example of, no doubt about it if this were to be implicated. But after that you probably wont see much going on unless the person(s) involved are very well known to be breaking the laws/amendments. False stories are very easy to cook up within the government, well are all aware of disinfo obviously, so what's to say this sort of amendment is really going to make a change?

I'd rather be more optimistic here, but it's pretty hard to be knowing the corruption within/surrounding our own government.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by highlyoriginal]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:08 PM
Great idea OP, it would be interesting to see the results.

It needs to be implemented here in Oz, in fact in any country with elected leaders.

I would also include banning religions as lobbyists also.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:26 PM
A SUPERB site for researching who is getting what for their vote...
Open Secrets...

For can look at a company like Blue Cross/Blue Shield (health Insurance) and find who got the most money out of all the lawmakers from them this year...

The winner .....Lincoln Blanche...

who just coincidentally flip-flopped from being a supporter of the public option to declaring she would ...

Blanche Lincoln’s Website Still Says She Supports The Public Option

This afternoon, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) announced that she would vote for cloture on the motion to proceed but promised — at least 3 different times — to [u]filibuster reform if it includes a public option. “I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included,” she said.

But Lincoln hasn’t always opposed a public plan. In July, Lincoln wrote in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: “Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan.”

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:26 PM
Something that began as helpful...keeping Washington in touch with business and interest groups, has now gone wrong. It is a weapon. Lobbyists for well-financed economic interests operate on a very lofty scale. Some are better known, better paid, and better staffed than some congressmen. They know how to mobilize, and how to find vulnerable points.

They also have money to contract out some of their work to Washington law firms who have precise and refined savvy in these matters.

There are also "special interest groups" who represent particular groups such as the poor, league of women voters; helping professions, the environmental defense fund and the like, that must depend on favorable press, and do not have the resources/influence to compete with the big corporate lobbyists.

Although at one time this might have been a good idea, like many other things it seems to have gone wrong. They truely are our "invisible government". I would love a big expose of how they really have bought our government.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:35 PM
Or we can take a look at BC/BS number two recipient of money this year...
Chuck Grassley

Grassley: "Public Option And Bipartisanship Just Don't Mix"
Grassley: “We need to make sure that there's no public option.”

In the past 4 years he has raised 4 million...who from?

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Health Professionals
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Hospitals/Nursing Homes

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Damn it. I thought it was an actual amendment. This is just another one of those "this is what it should be" threads. A lot of talking (writing) but most likely no action.

Great words, idea, one discussed many many times on this site. But alas, just that, words.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
I feel federal employee's should be under far stricter operating guidelines. All actions taken that directly benefit geopolitical affective companies should be forbidden outside of public review. Imagine if they were required to acquiesce to official opinion polls taken monthly or bi-monthly on legislature and policy made by everyday people. It would put you and I in control!

Our representatives would no longer retain that title out of formality. It would eliminate special interests completely and would require little change to the physical structure of government. Of course such a thing would never be allowed and supporters of such an apparatus would be smeared and silenced.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:04 PM
Long time reader....

First time poster...

All I can say is Lobbyist = HUGE conflict of interests.

What amazes me is a "donation" of a few measly hundreds of thousands these corperations shell out.

The contracts and profits that ensue are a thousand fold. tens of thousands.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:40 PM
I totally agree. Lobbyists are no different than organized crime figures that pay off politicians and police to ensure that their rackets don't get busted.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:51 PM
Anything that is willfully going to push tax payer money in the direction of making it easier for a company to make more money is wrong.

I absolutely LOATHE lobbyists and would the living crap out of them if i ever met one. Yea

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:40 PM
I was thinking this was a new bill headed for the floor. The old saying; "If it sounds to good to be true then it probably is", comes to mind.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by ViperFoxBat]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:44 PM

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.

sorry I have researched this for years - you are talking out your proverbial. They need to be banned from making contributions - not from having access. Government NEEDS to liaise with business interests, as it does with ALL interests. The problem is that right now the government ONLY considers business - economics have hijacked society.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:46 PM
Campaign Finance Reform.

Make campaigns publicly funded...with tax dollars. Keep corporate and special interests out of and get the criminals to start supporting the general public again!

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Britguy

Originally posted by Kaytagg

If you ban lobbying, doesn't that mean that other regular joes can't converse with their congressman, either?

This sounds like one of those ideas that somebody with a good general knowledge of politics would say to get a chuckle out of the fact that people who agree are essentially demanding that politicians should be isolated from the public. Why not just skip the song and dance and go strait to a dictatorship?


Us "regular Joes" (and Josephines) do not pay thousands of dollars into their bank accounts, disguised as "campaign" donations or send them and their families on all expenses paid fact finding tours to exotic holiday locations.

So a "regular Joe" who donates money to a candidate (I gave $25 to a candidate once) should not be able to talk to that candidate if he or she gets elected?

You would probably reply that $25 is OK. If $25 is ok, then what about $50 dollars? What about $100? I suppose a wealthy private citizen could afford to give $1000. I suppose a wealthy business could afford to donate $5000 or $10,000 to a candidate that they think will be "good for the economy" and therefore good for his business.

At what point do you say it's "lobbying" and not just a group of honest like-minded people donating to a candidate that they think would do a good job?

What about a group like "CARE" who try to stop world hunger? They have lobbyists. What about "UFO Lobbyists"? They exist -- should they be outlawed? There are lobbyists who fight child abuse.

A farmer who grows corn may think it is very important to his livelihood that the "High-fructose corn syrup lobby" has a chance to be heard in Washington, and candidates who would be "good" for corn farmers get elected. The farmer's family may depend on it.

How would an amendment declare which lobbyists are valid and which are bad?

[edit on 12/28/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by David9176
Campaign Finance Reform.

Make campaigns publicly funded...with tax dollars. Keep corporate and special interests out of and get the criminals to start supporting the general public again!

I wonder how many of you American taxpayers check off that "Presidential Election Campaign Fund" box on your tax return (the one that puts $3 of your money into the general election fund available for some Presidential candidates to use).

[edit on 12/28/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by whatukno

The problem never was lobbyists. Its is dishonest elected officials taking and giving kickbacks as they scratch each others backs. The problem is the dishonesty and lack of character.

Lobbyists are a part of free speech. When we write an elected official we are in fact lobbying them for something we want. If we deny a person free speech because they are paid, we are no better. Free Speech must be protected even if it means we have to tolerate the Lobbyists who if used correctly are a good thing. We can't expect good leadership if we cut our leaders off from information from all corners.

What is wrong with our system is illiterate voters. Voters who sell out for hand outs from the government. Voters who are on the Dole picking decent peoples pockets. Voters who vote because their candidate brings home the pork. Nelson will likely win by a landslide for the pork he is bringing home.

The problem is our society has become so dishonest and lacking in character, our elected officials mirror us.

I think Obama could have told us before the election, I'm going to tell all of you lies to get into office then I'm going to ignore all my promises after you elect me and still have won. He went after the illiterate voters for a reason. Most who voted for him don't know or give a damn about anything other than government handouts. Most don't even watch the news or read a paper. Many who voted for him don't even know the Vice Presidents name. That is exactly what he wanted and he got the exact people to vote who were illiterate enough to vote for him. Anyone who voted for him after knowing about Reverend Wright and his associations with Marxists is an illiterate.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in