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
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
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
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]