Senator Roy Blunt - The man behind the Monsanto Protection Act.

Which senator pushed the rider into the bill? No one stepped forward to claim credit. But since then, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has revealed to Politico that he’s the responsible party. Blunt even told reporteer David Rogers that he “worked with” Monsanto to craft the rider. The admission shines a light on Blunt’s ties to Monsanto, whose office is located in the senator’s home state.

Blunt’s connections to lobbyists extend to his family. His wife, Abigail Blunt, serves as head of US government affairs for the processed food giant Kraft. The two met while Abigail Blunt was serving as a prominent lobbyist for tobacco giant Philip Morris in the early 2000s.

Li nk

Bluntly speaking, the man is a perfect example of a corporate shill. The kind that has taken over the U.S Congress. The kind that holds the needs of corporations above the needs of the people.

A Republican crafted the bill and a Democrat signed the bill into law. This is a perfect example of how Corporations run the U.S. Government

It's not like it snuck by quietly though. If I'm not mistaken, one senator actually spoke out against it in front of the entire senate. But money always speaks louder than words in this case.

I'd love to hear one of his colleagues refer to him in session as the Senator from Monsanto, because that is apparently what the Mo. after his title refers to rather than Missouri.

Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

So it's anti-american to have the needs of the people above the needs of mega corporations? The Monsanto protection act does nothing but prevent federal courts from halting the sale of genetically engineered crops. Basically the laws do not apply to Monsanto.

Since when is being against corruption considered anti-american?

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

So it's anti-american to have the needs of the people above the needs of mega corporations?

The Monsanto protection act does nothing but prevent federal courts from halting the sale of genetically engineered crops. Basically the laws do not apply to Monsanto.

Since when is being against corruption considered anti-american?

Have you looked at any other legislation this man has been involved with or what his voting record is like or are you basing all your conclusions about him upon this one bill?

How do you know that he is not also addressing the needs of the people while also addressing Monsanto? Congressmen oftentimes address the needs of corporations or entities outside of the constituency for a various number of reasons.

Maybe they want a new plant in their state to provide jobs or to tax it....maybe they are corrupt and have been offered a job with the company after they retire....who knows, my point is that you rather seem to be jumping to conclusions that there is something nefarious going on here.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the legislation or not liking the company and their business but I believe its incorrect to say this man has sold out to Monsanto just because he sponsored a bill.

reply to post by muse7


Roy Blunt is guilty of treason.

Monsanto is an undeniable threat to this country and the world. Everyone involved has done America a great disservice.

That company needs to be disassembled piece by piece and the executives need to be imprisoned.... of course it will never happen.

Must be nice to be above the law.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

of course...they should have the same access, no more, no less, than the average person. and, the should not be allowed to give more in contributions than the average person. and, as with any law, they need to show that their actions do not harm others in the name of profits. saying that a business owner cannot participate in our elections is a false argument. it's the power of corporate dollars influencing an elected official that is the problem, and you are smart enough to know it.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

of course...they should have the same access, no more, no less, than the average person. and, the should not be allowed to give more in contributions than the average person. and, as with any law, they need to show that their actions do not harm others in the name of profits. saying that a business owner cannot participate in our elections is a false argument. it's the power of corporate dollars influencing an elected official that is the problem, and you are smart enough to know it.

That is a very fair argument and totally correct.

I have no issue with limiting a corporation to the same power an individual has whatsoever. I was simply arguing my point to those that would say because Monsanto did happen to get their agenda addressed that it is somehow an act of treachery.

It is not.

reply to post by Hopechest

I was simply arguing my point to those that would say because Monsanto did happen to get their agenda addressed that it is somehow an act of treachery.

The way they did it is an act of treachery. They used a lobbyist shill to anonymously attach their little law to the back of an unrelated bill by using monetary bribes. As Jon Stewart said the other day, it was more anonymous than an internet post. The only reason we now know he was behind it is because he admitted it. Your point about corporations having equal say as any individual is not even up for debate here, no one would argue against that. You're simply bringing up non-related issues and arguments to side step the real issue and make it some how seem fair or just. I'm afraid that your activity in this and other threads has finally earned you a place on my foe list.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Hopechest

 

I was simply arguing my point to those that would say because Monsanto did happen to get their agenda addressed that it is somehow an act of treachery.

The way they did it is an act of treachery. They used a lobbyist shill to anonymously attach their little law to the back of an unrelated bill by using monetary bribes. As Jon Stewart said the other day, it was more anonymous than an internet post. The only reason we now know he was behind it is because he admitted it. Your point about corporations having equal say as any individual is not even up for debate here, no one would argue against that. You're simply bringing up non-related issues and arguments to side step the real issue and make it some how seem fair or just. I'm afraid that your activity in this and other threads has finally earned you a place on my foe list.

Is attaching things to bills actually against a law? How can you claim treachery if its within the law?

It seems you should be holding the people that did not read the bill accountable rather than the corporation or the Congressperson that attached it.

I'm simply saying that your rage is misdirected. You don't "sneak" anything into a bill that nobody knows is in there if they bothered to look before they voted.

reply to post by Hopechest

How can you claim treachery if its within the law?

Oh yes it may be within the law but that doesn't mean it's not some sick immoral practice that needs to be outlawed. The fact that this type of lobbying is still legal is treachery in my mind, it should have been outlawed a long time ago and any rational person can see that. It gives powerful companies a direct back door into crafting legislation merely with the power of their wallets. It's nothing short of disgusting.

79% of congress members who left office since 1998 have worked as lobbyists

I'm just surprised there isn't anything in the constitution which says congress and other members of the Government must not accept monetary bribes to carry out corporate interests. How has the Government so easily been warped into this vending machine where corporations can insert a coin and get what they want out of it?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Well how about you outlaw it than and claim treachery once a Congressman breaks the law?

That seems the logical route to take.

And what exactly was the lobbying practice the corporation used? How much money came out of their wallets exactly?

I'm sure you know since you wouldn't be accusing them if you didn't have proof.

Right?

reply to post by Hopechest

Well how about you outlaw it than and claim treachery once a Congressman breaks the law?

Well I wasn't the one who initially said it was treachery... but regardless of the law these people in the Government who take corporate BRIBES should instinctively understand how immoral it is and how it puts corporate interests above the interests of the people. Law or no law, they understand the sinister nature of it yet they still do it, that makes it treachery to me because they put the needs of the people who they are meant to serve in 2nd place below the needs of companies.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Well how about you outlaw it than and claim treachery once a Congressman breaks the law?

Well I wasn't the one who initially said it was treachery... but regardless of the law these people in the Government who take corporate BRIBES should instinctively understand how immoral it is and how it puts corporate interests above the interests of the people. Law or no law, they understand the sinister nature of it yet they still do it, that makes it treachery to me because they put the needs of the people who they are meant to serve in 2nd place below the needs of companies.

What corporate bribes are you talking about?

Do you think people meet Congressmen in back alleys with bags full of money or something? People throw out this phrase before they even think about it.

Have you any idea how lobbying actually works? No Congressman or woman leaves Congress wealthy if they didn't arrive there that way first. The money comes long after they've retired from public service through either jobs with companies, speaking tours......what have you.

And very few people in Congress actually even get offered this. Only those with heavy influence through time spent in Congress or those on the top committees. This bribery you speak of is not what you've been led to believe it is.

But if you have proof of widescale bribery going on I would love to see it so I can change my views on the matter.

reply to post by muse7


Blunt is a tool. Bought and paid for.

Instead of kick-backs from Monsanto, maybe we can get a collection together to get him a spine.

And yes, Muse, hell must have frozen over because a)I agree with you and, b)I flagged and starred you.

reply to post by Hopechest

Do you think people meet Congressmen in back alleys with bags full of money or something?

Maybe not back alleys, but there certainly are back room deals and there certainly is a lot of dirty money floating around in those deals. If you fail to even understand that much there is no hope for you. What do you think they just push the corporate agenda in return for imaginary unicorns? There's always money involved in these deals whether it's on or off the books.

And of course it's limited to a few powerful politicians with a lot of power, I never said it was "wide spread" among most politicians. The extent of it isn't the problem, the problem is that it's allowed to happen in the first place. Once again you're trying to undermine the true problem by focusing on side issues.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

Hopechest,

We meet and disagree again. I enjoyed our last debate immensely. It was civil and well pointed. I look forward to this one too.

I disagree for a myriad of reasons, but the main one is that when corporations act a synthetic people and petition the government like you or I can, there is a specific environment that emerges.

Basically, when larger corporations petition the government, it is seldom for political, but rather business purposes. They're trying to hamper their competition by altering the natural habitat of those companies (the market). When you have a natural habitat that is so altered by regulation, you cease to have companies who thrive and do well because they do well for their customers with superior services or produce superior products, but do well because they have adapted to their environment and have geared themselves almost wholly to negotiating the regulatory landscape. So instead of being strong companies, they have become experts at penetrating bureaucracy and dodging regulation.

This annihilates small businesses that happen to fall into or overlap the same "market" that is being altered even though they pose no threat to the company lobbying for the change.

So in that sense, it kills the market, and is rather anti-capitalist/American

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Do you think people meet Congressmen in back alleys with bags full of money or something?

Maybe not back alleys, but there certainly are back room deals and there certainly is a lot of dirty money floating around in those deals. If you fail to even understand that much there is no hope for you. What do you think they just push the corporate agenda in return for imaginary unicorns? There's always money involved in these deals whether it's on or off the books.

And of course it's limited to a few powerful politicians with a lot of power, I never said it was "wide spread" among most politicians. The extent of it isn't the problem, the problem is that it's allowed to happen in the first place. Once again you're trying to undermine the true problem by focusing on side issues.

Maybe this Congressman actually believes in Monsanto. Did you ever consider that?

There's certainly as much evidence for that view as the one your proposing...which is none. Your accusing him of being on the take, as if nobody in Congress actually would ever think Monsanto is good.

Maybe they do and that is why they are helping them. Not everyone in the world shares your view of this company you know.

reply to post by Hopechest

Maybe this Congressman actually believes in Monsanto. Did you ever consider that?

Oh yes, that must be it. He did it out of the kindness of his heart because he believes Monsanto are saviors of the world.


We are done here.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Are you implying that corporations should have no say in laws that are made which affect their business?

That seems almost, anti-american.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd say "YES" I am implying that "corporations" should NOT have any say with respect to legislation and IMO, it's NOT anti-american in way. If anything, it's pro-american.

Corporations are NOT people! They are not born of a live birth, they do not have the right to vote, They cannot join the armed services and defend our country, they don't bleed, they don't cry, and they can't be sent to jail.

We are supposed to have a government that's "Of, By & For" the "people" it governs. It's the will of the "people" that should define the laws of this nation and if corporations wish to operate here, they must conform to those laws. NOT the other way around! Furthermore, I challenge you to find the word corporation anywhere within the text of our Constitution.

IMO, a constitutional amendment to repeal the supreme court's "Citizen's United" decision is a very good place to start the process of taking our government back and outlawing all paid lobbying of elected officials would be a great "step two" in that process.

Originally posted by Hopechest
If you owned a business wouldn't you want law that allowed your business to grow and expand and become more profitable or would you simply say, "well I'm a business owner now so I no longer get to participate in our elections."

You may not like this company but they certainly have a right to appeal to Congress to address their needs. The same as you or I do.

You, in no way lose your right to participate in elections. That's a "straw-man" argument if I ever heard one! You still have the right to personally redress your concerns with your elected officials and you still have the right to vote. Corporations cannot even register to vote, much less actually vote. So, how does it become "pro-american" to allow non-voting entities to have more influence over our legislators than actual voters?

What you shouldn't get to do by virtue of your business ownership and wealth is to utilize paid lobbyist to amplify your voice to the point that it drowns out the voice of the common american individual.