Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An Amendment to Ban Lobbyists from our Government.

page: 6
94
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex
I have long thought that the legislative branch of our government
was just bought and paid for, and that every four years the
administration changes, but the old cronies in the house
and senate just keep on filling their pockets with the help
of said lobbyists getting them reelected.


Anyone here considered term-limits instead of stripping away our Constitutional rights?




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I have no way the intentions of derailing this thread but this was sent to me by my father who is a retired Lt.Col. from the Air Force and just turns colors when discussing our government and I thought it made alot of sense

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

A friend sent this along to me. I can't think of a reason to disagree.

I am sending this to virtually everybody on my e-mail list and that includes conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I count all of you as friends. My friend and neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2009". It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American hero's..


Thanks,

A Fellow American

***********************************






Congressional Reform Act of 2010


1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.





2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.





3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.



4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.




5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.



6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.



7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.



8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11 .

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
On another note, do you actually think a living individual and a creation of business is the same? Please explain if you would...


Corporations and lobbyists are not synonymous. What you all are proposing is not allowing anyone to petition the government, stripping our fundamental rights from us, and using terms like "corporation" and "special interests" as scare terms.

Again, let me ask you, and maybe someone will finally answer instead of ranting and raving about corporations. What causes and issues do you support? Do you think they should not be allowed to lobby the government?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by geo1066
 


I like these ideas, Geo. They are much better than stripping away our Constitutional rights. Though perhaps the term of our representatives should be increased from 2 to 4 years; it seems that having to campaign every 2 years only encourages corruption.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Janky Red
On another note, do you actually think a living individual and a creation of business is the same? Please explain if you would...


Corporations and lobbyists are not synonymous. What you all are proposing is not allowing anyone to petition the government, stripping our fundamental rights from us, and using terms like "corporation" and "special interests" as scare terms.


There is a case that is currently being considered by the supreme court assessing the current tensions between special interests/big money and the idea of constitutional rights..

I agree with Justice Ginsberg in response to yourself and others general argument that corporations qualify under freedom of speech.



"Robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech," said Theodore Olson, the lawyer for the conservative nonprofit corporation Citizens United and former President George W. Bush's solicitor general, during oral arguments. "Yet that is precisely the dialogue that the government has prohibited if practiced by unions or corporations, any union or any corporation."

A corporation, however, "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded. "So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for the purpose of campaign finance?"

www.opensecrets.org...

As opposed to individuals who have a diversity of values and interests, corporations are soley responsible for and motivated by economic factors...profit and loss.

This distinction combined with the incredible financial leverage corporations weild over our politicians means the public interest will always be a distant secondary consideration to the economic interests of big corporations and the wealthy elite who head those corporations.

This case is due to be decided soon and could open the floodgates for even more influence by big corporations by overturning the modest restrictions that are currently in place.

Supreme Court Poised to Overhaul Parts of Campaign Finance System
www.opensecrets.org...



[edit on 29-12-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



Corporations and lobbyists are not synonymous. What you all are proposing is not allowing anyone to petition the government, stripping our fundamental rights from us, and using terms like "corporation" and "special interests" as scare terms.


I don't think you understood my intent quite correctly. I believe that individuals should be able to petition and lobby our representatives. But I don't think that professional lobby groups that represent large national interests should be allowed to influence the representatives from my state. My representatives in Washington should be influenced by the people of my state singularly and vote in the way their constituency has dictated to them. Why should the voices of the people of my state fall of deaf ears to our representatives?


Again, let me ask you, and maybe someone will finally answer instead of ranting and raving about corporations. What causes and issues do you support? Do you think they should not be allowed to lobby the government?


Like I said above, the causes and issues that I support I should myself lobby for. I and every other individual with those same causes and issues. We should petition our government ourselves and not large lobby groups. We the People should be able to lobby our government not lobby groups. The voice of the constituency should have always been larger than that of special interests. My voice should be heard, every voter's voice should be heard, but as it is now, it falls on deaf ears thanks to the clink of coin in campaign coffers.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


sums it up for me:


545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered; if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
Nancy Pelosi.
She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , It's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

(end of part 1)



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Like I said above, the causes and issues that I support I should myself lobby for. I and every other individual with those same causes and issues. We should petition our government ourselves and not large lobby groups. We the People should be able to lobby our government not lobby groups.


But why shouldn't a group of like-minded people be allowed to pool their resources to petition the government?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
________________________________________________________________

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

NOT ONE of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
never believe in laws... laws is made in human... so money can arrange eveything.. including law... thats what happened in my country now... a clear example about how law can be buyed, manipulated, and controlled...

lol



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
you did say the real thing : the rex of doomsday doesn't even understand the POWER of $$$$$$ - think he must be joking or very stupid .....


It's not about money, how much one has or doesn't, it's about our fundamental rights. Because it won't stop with corporations or those with big pockets or any other group you don't like. It will keep going. It always keeps going.

By the way, if you're going to call someone stupid, you might want to be sure and use proper grammar and capitalization, as well as use the ellipsis right.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



But why shouldn't a group of like-minded people be allowed to pool their resources to petition the government?


Why can't they team up together and call individually, write individually, email individually, and petition the government that way? Why do lobby groups get to have the ear of our representatives more than the constituency that elected them? If more individuals express a demand to vote one way than another set of individuals, shouldn't that dictate which way that representative should vote? But instead, now we have a small minority leading the majority without the majorities consent. The majority can tell their representatives what they would like to do, but the $$$ in the election campaign fund tells the representative to vote another way.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by whatukno
Like I said above, the causes and issues that I support I should myself lobby for. I and every other individual with those same causes and issues. We should petition our government ourselves and not large lobby groups. We the People should be able to lobby our government not lobby groups.


But why shouldn't a group of like-minded people be allowed to pool their resources to petition the government?


Exactly.

If a dairy farmer is concerned about the future of dairy farming (and therefore concerned about providing for his family), shouldn't an organized group of dairy farmers, or representatives from that group, be able to talk to Congressmen and Senators? Shouldn't they be allowed to give money to the campaigns for candidates who they feel may pass laws that are good for dairy farmers?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



Exactly.

If a dairy farmer is concerned about the future of dairy farming (and therefore concerned about providing for his family), shouldn't an organized group of dairy farmers, or representatives from that group, be able to talk to Congressmen and Senators? Shouldn't they be allowed to give money to the campaigns for candidates who they feel may pass laws that are good for dairy farmers?


What if there was a large multinational conglomerate of lactose intolerant people, and they decided to petition all the representatives to push through a law making all dairy products illegal? None of these people are residents of your state, however, somehow they are allowed to petition your representatives. Why is that allowed? I can't demand anything from a representative from another state, I am not his constituent. I can address my representatives in my state, but large lobby groups can lobby members from all states. How is that equitable?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

It's not illegal for you to talk to a legislator from another state. If that legislator listens to out-of-state lobbyists but does not want to listen to you, then the problem is with the legislator and not with the lobbyists.

I'm not saying that all lobbyists are good or that the system is perfect -- there are definitely problems. However, banning groups of people from being able to talk to and/or financially support a candidate is not the answer.

How can you tell an honest citizen that he and a group of like-minded citizens can't get together on a particular issue then appoint a person who will make sure that their position on that issue is heard in Washington?
How do you ban that group from contributing money to a candidate that they think will do a good job for them?

If a law can be written that only stops corrupt lobbyists, then that is a worthy law. However, how do you write a law banning some lobbyists but allowing organized groups of like-minded honest citizens from being heard/financially supporting a candidate.

Stopping "all groups" from petitioning the government is not the answer.



[edit on 12/29/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



It's not illegal for you to talk to a legislator from another state. If that legislator listens to out-of-state lobbyists but does not want to listen to you, then the problem is with the legislator and not with the lobbyists.


It's not illegal, but that person from out of state is not that elected officials constituent. The people from that representatives state are the people he/she works for, not me. This is why he/she shouldn't listen to me. He/She should refer me to my own representative, the ones that are directly responsible for listening to the concerns of the people of state they are chosen to represent.


I'm not saying that all lobbyists are good or that the system is perfect -- there are definitely problems. However, banning groups of people from being able to talk to and/or financially support a candidate is not the answer.


Put it this way, if you were a representative of a state of say 10,000, and 9,999 of those people tell you to vote one way, but 1 person tels you to vote another way and gives you a ton of money to do so, and you vote the way of that 1 person, aren't you disrespecting the concerns of the other 9,999 constituents of your state? This is what is like what is going on now.


How can you tell an honest citizen that he and a group of like-minded citizens can't get together on a particular issue then appoint a person who will make sure that their position on that issue is heard in Washington?


Because that 1 person is representing a small minority of people, yes these people are like minded, and all feel that they are doing the right thing, but have they asked a majority of the people of the state? It's not that groups concern to find out what the majority of the people of the state want. It's the representative. This is what is wrong with lobby groups. That small concern levies more power and influence than the majority.


How do you ban that group from contributing money to a candidate that they think will do a good job for them?


Because that can be considered a bribe.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

How do you ban that group from contributing money to a candidate that they think will do a good job for them?


Because that can be considered a bribe.

Only if you can demonstrate a quid pro quo agreement.
I agree that a quid pro quo is wrong. However, simply giving money to a candidate's election fund s not always wrong.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
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.



This I love! An idea on how to get this started!


BOYCOTT ALL TAXES UNTIL THEY DRAFT CLEAR AND CONSISE BILL!!!!!

READ ALL BILLS AND HAVE SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN SIGN OFF ON THEM SWEARING UNDER OATH THAT THEY HAVE READ THEM AND THAT THEIR STATE AND DISTRICT AGREES WITH THE WAY THEY WILL VOTE ON THE BILL.

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO CLEAN THAT HOUSE!

If the American people read the current health care bill as is, they would revolt in full force.

GREAT THEAD!

Eye of Eagle



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


my post anyway has been removed, I do not understand why but yes that's also democracy guess ... sorry for my english as I am french speeking yeah ... from Europ where we certainly do not accept that politicians get money from firms or anybody .... only a legal party can receive money, and it is limited, not a individual politician - he would go to jail ! have a nice day and I hope you can change much laws and bills in favour of the Sixpack Joe and all the poor up there with all those dollars. Peace.





new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join