Reid Lobbying Amendment Fails

from JoeUser Forums
An amendment to ban gifts from lobbyist's has failed to pass the Senate.
It was such a surprise that Republicans were the ones to vote it down.
politics
7,703 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I believe what we need to do in response to lobbyists is to stop allowing public money to support lobbyists. The group "Americans for Prosperity" has proposed legislation to that effect, and I am a signatory to the pledge to support that legislation.

As for banning gifts from lobbyists, I hate to say it, but both political parties have their hands in THAT till.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Could you please, please post links to what you are talking about when you write an article about it. Please?
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, I will look for links.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
No offense intended, but believe it or not some of us aren't omniscient about what goes on. I read a lot, but a lot of this stuff doesn't rise to the top with other things are going on. When you posted this yesterday I did a quick search and couldn't find much about it that gave any detail why Republicans opposed it.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure where my comment went to. But I commented saying, I took no offense. Sometimes I get to watch the votes while they are happening. I know I should link more and I just posted a blog with a link.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I believe what we need to do in response to lobbyists is to stop allowing public money to support lobbyists.


What public money supports lobbyists?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Link

Here's one example. I could find more, but I don't want to take the thread too far off topic.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently my previous reply jacked the entire thread. My apologies. It basically said:

Yes, Gid, I agree. I don't want to hijack. But I do feel the need to point out that the majority of lobbyist don't represent "public" interest or take public money. So this is really a very small slice of the pie.

Also, I heard today that they've passed a rule to ban all meal gifts. (Sorry Baker, I have no link, just got the info word of mouth).
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Also, I heard today that they've passed a rule to ban all meal gifts. (Sorry Baker, I have no link, just got the info word of mouth)."


I'm not fan of lobbyist influence (sorry), but I think this is going to be abused more than used. Every time a COngressman goes out to dinner, he's going to have to make sure he isn't sitting next to someone he might regret. Every Congressman's wife is going to have to go alone to all those charity fundraisers, because the Congressman will find himself in the paper the next day, accused of schmoozing.

I think we need more tools to stop influence peddling, but I don't think they need to be well-made enough to ensure they aren't just used to lynch people every time elections roll around.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every time a COngressman goes out to dinner, he's going to have to make sure he isn't sitting next to someone he might regret. Every Congressman's wife is going to have to go alone to all those charity fundraisers, because the Congressman will find himself in the paper the next day, accused of schmoozing.


I feel like there is a huge chasm between reality and what other people thinks happens. Charity fundraisers are not lobbying events and aren't paid for by lobbyists so wouldn't be effected.

Sure there are some lobbyists that are just "peddling influence" but for the most part, lobbyist spend their time educating congress about issues (they'd be better termed as "advocates"). For example, if the American Lung Association wants to get Congress to support something and they send a member of their own staff to talk it up--it's called advocacy. But if they pay someone who "advocates" for a living, it's lobbying.

Everyone has a picture of the well-to-do, powerful lobbyist in their mind when they have this conversation--it's simply not the case. Sure, there are some, I'm not going to deny that--but lobbying rules aren't going to deter them (I mean, Abramoff ignored all the rules that were in place).
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I feel like there is a huge chasm between reality and what other people thinks happens. Charity fundraisers are not lobbying events and aren't paid for by lobbyists so wouldn't be effected."


You miss my point. Many charities both fundraise, AND lobby. I know they wouldn't be VIOLATING this, but they'd be accused of it. You are invited to speak at a dinner for some cause, and if you actually eat something on your plate you are then dragged through the briars. I think there is a huge chasm between what people think SHOULD happen and what DOES happen. This should be a way to make politics more clean, but in reality I think it will just be a way to bring up sham accusations and form endless investigative subcommittees.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many charities both fundraise, AND lobby.


No, actually they don't. It's against the law and the IRS code. If a 501(3)(c) lobbys they will lose their status as a charity.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
semantics. You don't consider it lobbying unless you are a professional lobbyist. I'm thinking they won't be that sticky on the definitions. They'll cry corruption just as quick when an 'advocate' buys a Senator lunch, bank on it.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
semantics. You don't consider it lobbying unless you are a professional lobbyist.


It's not semantics--the rules only applied to registered lobbyists. And if a nonprofit/charity is cited for lobbying, they lose their status. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LOBBY. And they are sticky on the definition--there are certain criteria that you have to meet to have to register as a lobbyist, and once you are registered you have certain rules that you must follow.

Like I said, there's is a chasm between what people think happens inside the beltway and what actually happens inside the beltway. I think I'll stick to what I know, rather than what people "think" might/should happen.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
lol, yes, I'm sure there is a huge difference between having a free lunch with a 'lobbyist' and having a free lunch with an 'advocate'. Forgive me if the court ettiquite played 'inside the beltway' doesn't impress me. The point isn't if the lobbyist gets paid or not, it's whether the Congressman gets reimbursed for their influence. It could be a guy in a clownsuit for all I care.

You think these rules differentiate this behavior from that, when they both share the same problems. You might as well say it is only wrong if the guy is wearing a green shirt as far as the annoyance of most Americans goes. This is the disconnect that people 'inside the beltway' don't understand I think. You can scream "But he's and advocate, not a lobbyist" until you are blue in the face, but that kind of doublespeak in and of itself is what causes much of the anger we feel.

I don't like this law because of how it can be abused. I'm not the only one saying it, feel free to read what the people who opposed this had to say. I do, however, think that both advocates and lobbyists have far, far too much access and it should be cut back drastically. The main "interests" a legislator should concern themseles are the voters as a whole, not little segments that don't represent the whole.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
ensure they aren't just used to lynch people every time elections roll around.


These are incumbents, Baker - they'll never allow that to happen.

And I don't think we need more rules. Appears there were plenty of rules already available to nab Abramoff. Think "Campaign Finance Reform" & you'll understand what I mean.