Why do "democratic" societies allow lobbying?

It has been apparent to me for many years that the worlds poster boy for "democracy" the USA, has a very funny way of going about the democratic process.
If capitalism allows (the ultra rich) to promote the candidate they feel will best represent their aims, how can that be democratic? And why do the people stand for it?
To be truly democratic, all is needed is that a law is brought in to take a portion of income tax to be split evenly for all political campaigns. This would end lobbying and give people a legitimate leader..
We have seen that lobbying only ensures all presidents are bought and paid for and ultimately are not working on behalf of the people. yet their oath is "by the people for the people". And as a consequence nothing ever changes but gets worse in terms of corporate greed and destruction of the planet.
the same thing happens in the UK, where Rupert Murdoch (SATAN) basically had every election for the last 30 years sewn up in advance, as he picked the winners through his propaganda machine. A media empire he should never have been allowed to dominate, yet he was. he does the same thing in the states, yet there are supposed to be rules to stop someone dominating the media.
Why is nobody stopping this lobbying and the buying of our leaders, they are not leading us just using us?
WHY.

Because its GOOD Business.......

And GREAT Money to be had..............

reply to post by sonnny1


It may be a capitalist system but everyone knows that capitalism does not drive real progress, it only drives profit. if it drove progress, every fast food outlet would sell healthy food not poison.
the same thing goes with polotics, so why do the people continually allow it. Capitalism should be out of polotics. fine you can have a capitalist system, but it has no place in the buying of presidents.
the people should absolutely call to outlaw this activity immidiatley.
it would solve a lot of problems right away.

Originally posted by splitlevel
It has been apparent to me for many years that the worlds poster boy for "democracy" the USA, has a very funny way of going about the democratic process.
If capitalism allows (the ultra rich) to promote the candidate they feel will best represent their aims, how can that be democratic? And why do the people stand for it?
To be truly democratic, all is needed is that a law is brought in to take a portion of income tax to be split evenly for all political campaigns. This would end lobbying and give people a legitimate leader..
We have seen that lobbying only ensures all presidents are bought and paid for and ultimately are not working on behalf of the people. yet their oath is "by the people for the people". And as a consequence nothing ever changes but gets worse in terms of corporate greed and destruction of the planet.
the same thing happens in the UK, where Rupert Murdoch (SATAN) basically had every election for the last 30 years sewn up in advance, as he picked the winners through his propaganda machine. A media empire he should never have been allowed to dominate, yet he was. he does the same thing in the states, yet there are supposed to be rules to stop someone dominating the media.
Why is nobody stopping this lobbying and the buying of our leaders, they are not leading us just using us?
WHY.

edit on 20-4-2012 by splitlevel because: (no reason given)

Ummm... yeah. I'm not going to outline everything I think you have wrong, rather I will just post what others have said about this very topic, and include a little history.

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly. And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic.
What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefore, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.
Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic.

America: Republic or Democracy?
by William P. Meyers
www.williampmeyers.org...

So, is America a true democracy? Should it be?

BTW... Lobbying is essential, especially with the diverse undertakings that individuals today must have to deal with because of the size and strength that we've allowed governance to become.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Well i could be stupid...but....lobbyists shovel money at who they wish to win an election. Right.
this means the guy with most campaign contributions gets to make the most TV commercials. Right again.
The more your in the media, the more the public are aware of your message. So obviously shoveling campaign money at a candidate, gives him a far greater chance of winning an election.
look at Ron Paul for example, the only place he is getting any real attention in on the net, and you have to already know about him to look him up. HUGE DIFFERENCE. The big corporations hate the guy and dont want him to win, therefore he is not in the public eye, or the public consciousness anywhere near the level of the chosen few .
This ultimately means anyone half human will never lead America, nor the UK.

reply to post by splitlevel


I agree. I was being sarcastic,actually .

Hence,the wink.......

Originally posted by splitlevel
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Well i could be stupid...but....lobbyists shovel money at who they wish to win an election. Right.
this means the guy with most campaign contributions gets to make the most TV commercials. Right again.
The more your in the media, the more the public are aware of your message. So obviously shoveling campaign money at a candidate, gives him a far greater chance of winning an election.
look at Ron Paul for example, the only place he is getting any real attention in on the net, and you have to already know about him to look him up. HUGE DIFFERENCE. The big corporations hate the guy and dont want him to win, therefore he is not in the public eye, or the public consciousness anywhere near the level of the chosen few .
This ultimately means anyone half human will never lead America, nor the UK.

edit on 20-4-2012 by splitlevel because: (no reason given)

I'm not going to pretend that allowing for lobbying, doesn't allow for any corruption or what have you... but that's possible in every aspect in the relationship between the government and the people, which is only strengthened when the workings of capitalism and economy become ruled by government.

But before you get all conspiratorial... maybe a quote shall suffice:

"Lobbyists are in many cases expert technicians capable of examining complex and difficult subjects in clear, understandable fashion. They engage in personal discussion with members of Congress in which they explain in detail the reasons for the positions they advocate...Because our congressional representation is based upon geographical boundaries, the lobbyists who speak for the various economic, commercial and other functional interests of the country serve a useful purpose and have assumed an important role in the legislative process." Senator John F. Kennedy, 1956

Link:
What is a lobbyist - Top Washington Lobbyists
LOBBYIST & LOBBYING

www.meyersandassociates.com...

Unless that is, you think his words carry little weight for he may just be 'one of them'...