lobbyists

[happythoughts 0]

The necessity is simple.

10,000 people who agree on a topic cannot show up and each spend 2 hours talking to their congressman.
Also, people with the opposite opinion would want equal time.

They get a representative to do that for them. "I represent xyz organization, which has 10,000 members, and here are our views."
Then, the abc organization lobbyist shows up and presents the opposite viewpoint.
The information is presented in the most efficient manner.

People aren't upset that there are lobbyists.
They are upset that their opposition also has them.

The NRA is pro-gun. Hangun Control is anti-gun.

The AARP is retirees who don't want their taxes to go up to support new schools. The school lobbyist will ask for increases in taxes to raise teachers salaries.

The religious groups want to teach evolution in schools.
The non-religious groups don't want religion mentioned in schools.
...and so on, ad nauseum.

Business, religion, recreation... everything has an opposing viewpoint.

Even skydivers. Closing GA airports? Special health insurance rates? After 9/11?

We have special interest issues that need to be addressed also.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

People aren't upset that there are lobbyists.
They are upset that their opposition also has them.

More often I think people are upset that special interests have them, but the opposing view is not represented equally, even when the majority of a Congressman's constituency hold that opposing view. Well funded minority positions can, and often do, receive disproportionate representation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

People aren't upset that there are lobbyists.
They are upset that their opposition also has them.

More often I think people are upset that special interests have them, but the opposing view is not represented equally, even when the majority of a Congressman's constituency hold that opposing view. Well funded minority positions can, and often do, receive disproportionate representation.

You two are close, but not quite.

Special interests are bad when your opposing viewpoint is more effective than your's. Doesn't matter if the reason why is because your side sucks. (What special interests are you claiming overwhelm a majority opposition?)

Why is the NRA so much more effective than gun control outfits? They have millions of dues paying members, while the million mom march was no where near a million, and most of the funding comes from a few rich people like Soros.

Why is Big Tobacco Big? It has well over 50 million customers. Though they are not directly choosing to contribute to the political interests, they are buying the products.

AARP's influence may be most potent in its ability to direct its membership in voting.

All three of these get their strength from their membership size.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What special interests are you claiming overwhelm a majority opposition?

The one that initially comes to mind is the oil/coal industry, and their use of pseudo-science to attempt to obfuscate the facts of global warming. Never mind that they skip the step involving peer reviewed studies in established scientific journals, or that the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with the position that most energy companies hold on global warming.

The Intelligent Design advocates also seem to have bit too much lobbying power, considering that there is zero, zip, nada in the way of evidence supporting their assertion of a supernatural creator, and they lack a scientific hypothesis for scientists to test.

Big Tobacco had the Tobacco Institute in the seventies, in an attempt to cloud the publics perception about the dangers of smoking tobacco.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[butlerhr 0]

What is most bothersome about lobbyists is the way they use money to get the legislators attention instead of the merit of the position that they represent.

[Gawain 0]

Spot on.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

all of those you list have millions of supporters
1) everyone who consumes oil (essentially 100% of the people)
2) lots of christians out there, many fundamentalists
3) already covered.

[kschilk 0]

Alnog with lobbying, I think there are some serious "conflict of interest" issues, with most of our reps. Should any person in a position of power, be ruling on things pertaining to an industry, that they are heavily invested in? Look at Cheney and Haliburton...the gov't. bid system was circumvented, contracts were given out on a seemingly "just send us a bill" basis. If I had somehow circumvented the bid system, while purchasing for the military....they'd be burying my a*s, at Leavenworth.

"T'was ever thus."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

all of those you list have millions of supporters
1) everyone who consumes oil (essentially 100% of the people)
2) lots of christians out there, many fundamentalists
3) already covered.

1) everyone who consumes oil < everyone who lives in Earth's environment

2) That doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no scientific basis for intelligent design.

3) Well, I agree that it was already spun, but it wasn't covered.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cumplidor 0]

The defense industry has many lobbyists too, that certainly support the purchase/use of their products- what is their opposition?

Foreign countries control some of the largest lobbies that exist (AIPAC and ADL) What is their opposition? Do you think that these lobbies represent the interests of 'regular' Americans or the country giving them their money and their chosen 'friends' that support their (Middle-East) policies? Those countries with the largest lobbies sure do get the biggest parts of our budget dedicated to foreign countries.

I firmly believe these lobbies bear much of the responsibility for many of the problems facing our country today. These lobbies don't represent the interests of the majority of American people and could very well be part of the removal of anything Christian from what seems like everything around us. you know, stuff like- "Merry Christmas" being offensive, no 10 Commandments on govt property, no prayer in schools, etc. Worship of Jesus Christ is obviously not something they would want to support...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What is most bothersome about lobbyists is the way they use money to get the legislators attention instead of the merit of the position that they represent.

What other way is there?

I could do this "I've got a job position for you - you can be my secretary, where you'll be doing some good in the world helping plenty of people and keeping me organized in a fine professional setting. Want the job?"

Or, I could do this: "Wanted - legal secretary. $20 per hour plus benefits."

Gues which one will get the most attention? Forget the merits - what's in it for me?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,029]

>Foreign countries control some of the largest lobbies that exist (AIPAC
>and ADL) What is their opposition?

In terms of labor? UAW and the Teamsters come to mind.

In terms of foreign policy? The Arab Lobby.

>Worship of Jesus Christ is obviously not something they would want to support...

And I bet that worship of Allah or Vishnu is something YOU would not want to support. Fortunately, we have the US constitution, that says quite clearly that the US government will not support (or suppress) ANY of them.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The defense industry has many lobbyists too, that certainly support the purchase/use of their products- what is their opposition?

Foreign countries control some of the largest lobbies that exist (AIPAC and ADL) What is their opposition?

W/r/t AIPAC & ADL, are you familiar w/John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which received a fair bit of mainstream (as opposed to academic/think-tank/wonkish) press when an exceprt was published in 2006 in the London Review of Books?

You are correct in that the State Department doesn't have lobbyists.

And that the Defense Industry has some of the best and most well-connected lobbyists ... globally.

Some of them are lobbying for US commercial interests, e.g.,

From DoD Armed Forces Press Service:

“Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates landed here today looking to expand on what one official said already is one of the best military-to-military relationships the United States has with any country in the world.



“With India’s full military modernization program under way and billions of dollars at stake, defense trade is key among the secretary’s talking points in his meetings here, a senior DoD official told reporters on background. India last year issued a request for proposals from potential manufacturers for 126 multi-role combat aircraft for its air force. The deal, estimated at about $10 billion, would be the world’s largest single external defense procurement in history, DoD officials believe. Last month, India sent out another request for proposals for 312 helicopters for its air force and army. That deal is expected to be worth about $1 billion.

“Also in January, India closed a $1 billion deal with Lockheed Martin for six C-130J Hercules aircraft for its special forces. This deal was a first for the United States and India. Since 1999, India's military purchases reportedly have been worth $25 billion, and the country is likely to spend another $30 billion by 2012.

“‘We have tried for some years now to get a seat at the table, and we’re finally there,’ the Defense Department official said, adding that Gates will tell officials here that U.S. defense trade offers the ‘full package.’

“‘When you go into joint production (and) cooperative development (with the United States), you’re getting not only the best product in the world, but you have the best support system, the best maintenance package over the life of the product,’ the official said. ‘You also have companies that operate with integrity, which is different than what India has seen with other partners in the world. We’re very transparent.’

“Some of the details to be talked through are the two countries’ bureaucratic buying and selling processes, the official said.

“Another senior official was quick to point out that the meetings are not all about defense procurement.

“‘We’re just getting into the defense trade business, (but) we have more well-rounded defense relationships with India than any other country,’ the official said.



“The United States is India's largest trading partner. Bilateral trade in 2006 was $32 billion, according to the U.S. State Department.”

----- ---- -----

The quip used to be that ‘what’s good for General Motors was good for the US’; who is the corporate leader today?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I firmly believe these lobbies bear much of the responsibility for many of the problems facing our country today. These lobbies don't represent the interests of the majority of American people and could very well be part of the removal of anything Christian from what seems like everything around us. you know, stuff like- "Merry Christmas" being offensive, no 10 Commandments on govt property, no prayer in schools, etc. Worship of Jesus Christ is obviously not something they would want to support...

The anti Christian lobbyists aren't that particularly powerful, given that there is little money involved in separation of state. I'd say they have considerably less power than the collective of church funded lobbyists trying their best to maintain unequal rights.

This is why most civil rights improvements come from the Supreme Court, not Congress. The Constitution trumps $$ eventually.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The anti Christian lobbyists aren't that particularly powerful, given that there is little money involved in separation of state. I'd say they have considerably less power than the collective of church funded lobbyists trying their best to maintain unequal rights.

This is why most civil rights improvements come from the Supreme Court, not Congress. The Constitution trumps $$ eventually.

That is the strategy. Either donate money to change laws or hire lawyers to change the interpretation of the law.

That is why state court decisions are essentially valueless. State courts are just a stepping stone in the process to reach the SC.

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

>Foreign countries control some of the largest lobbies that exist (AIPAC
>and ADL) What is their opposition?

In terms of labor? UAW and the Teamsters come to mind.

In terms of foreign policy? The Arab Lobby.

Come on Bill, that is borderline hilarious. AIPAC and ADL's opposition is UAW and Teamsters? This isn't the 20's dude. Goto their websites and you will see what they stand for and support. Which, coincidentally is also the current direction of our government, ie: Palestinians=bad people, Islam=bad religion, Iran= bad country, etc. ad nauseum. The parallels between their stated views on their websites and what the media in the US presents to the public are mind blowing if you take the time to look.

BTW- if Teamsters and UAW were all that powerful, would we have exported most of the mfg jobs out of country, (to avoid them) and then also in process of doing that now with the trucking and longshoremen?

And the Arab lobby OBVIOUSLY has zero influence. compared to the previously mentioned.

Quote

>Worship of Jesus Christ is obviously not something they would want to support...

And I bet that worship of Allah or Vishnu is something YOU would not want to support. Fortunately, we have the US constitution, that says quite clearly that the US government will not support (or suppress) ANY of them.

Well, obviously not, but I certainly have no problem with those that want to, and will not tell them they are wrong. I am just not that good to know.

But you know, the folks who WROTE the US Constitution didn't support Vishnu or Allah either! They prayed to the Christian 'God' to help guide them with what they did. Heck I consider the US revolution and the DoI, Bill of Rights, etc to have been an act of God in a way. These free men did not understand why they had to be controlled by the powers overseas. The odds were TOTALLY stacked against them. They HAD to have help from the God they prayed to. They were able to overcome incredible odds and create a concept of government unique and unparalleled where the PEOPLE had the power. But it is obviously not that form of government anymore...

BTW- What about the opposite of the Defense lobby?

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

W/r/t AIPAC & ADL, are you familiar w/John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which received a fair bit of mainstream

Haven't read it, as I am not a big reader of books, but am familiar.

Quote

Some of them are lobbying for US commercial interests, e.g.,

But doesn't this then dictate policy here in the US to a degree? How long before these huge defense contractors follow Halliburton and head off to Dubai? When Russia starts making stuff cheaper? Is a policy of peace profitable to the defense industry? To what lengths would they go to protect their multi billion dollar contracts?

That to me is enough to question their motives and actions, and put those corporations under close scrutiny. Much closer than what exists today.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

BTW- if Teamsters and UAW were all that powerful, would we have exported most of the mfg jobs out of country, (to avoid them) and then also in process of doing that now with the trucking and longshoremen?

NAFTA -

Bill and Hillary ("The Co-Presidents") promoted it.
Now Hillary publicly states that it was a bad idea.
It's ok for her to say, "my bad", she still has a job.

Since 2004, Hillary has been the Co-Chair of the Senate Indian Caucus. That is the next step, offshoring any jobs that she hasn't sold already.

[cumplidor 0]

Quote

Bill and Hillary ("The Co-Presidents") promoted it.
Now Hillary publicly states that it was a bad idea.
It's ok for her to say, "my bad", she still has a job.

Sad thing she technically didn't have a job when it started and she was given a job afterwards... like a doggie treat or something...

But wasn't this plan was hatched long before the Billary tag-team of the 90s? India has tons of poor people who would gladly work for a buck a day. Maybe the bigger countries just take a little longer to get control of their (slave) labor force... or maybe they are trying to diversify their (slave) labor from the more volitile/unfriendly South American and Chinese regions?

[billvon 3,029]

>Well, obviously not, but I certainly have no problem with those that want
>to, and will not tell them they are wrong.

So far, so good.

>But you know, the folks who WROTE the US Constitution didn't support
>Vishnu or Allah either! They prayed to the Christian 'God' to help guide
>them with what they did.

Some did, some didn't - just like today.

> They HAD to have help from the God they prayed to. They were able to
>overcome incredible odds . . .

If "overcoming incredible odds and succeeding" requires divine assistance, then Allah is currently the leading deity when it comes to helping people out - the 9/11 hijackers pulled off an attack against the US against pretty steep odds in "his name."

Personally I think ascribing successes (or failures) to deities is something of a dead end.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Bill and Hillary ("The Co-Presidents") promoted it.
Now Hillary publicly states that it was a bad idea.
It's ok for her to say, "my bad", she still has a job.

Sad thing she technically didn't have a job when it started and she was given a job afterwards... like a doggie treat or something...

But wasn't this plan was hatched long before the Billary tag-team of the 90s? India has tons of poor people who would gladly work for a buck a day. Maybe the bigger countries just take a little longer to get control of their (slave) labor force... or maybe they are trying to diversify their (slave) labor from the more volitile/unfriendly South American and Chinese regions?

You asked who moved the Teamsters jobs, I was answering that question. The architects of NAFTA.
(Which HC now says was a mistake)

Hillary now promotes India because of the several millions of dollars of campaign contributions. She once actually referred to herself as the "Senator from Punjab" at a fundraiser sponsored by Indian-American business groups.

Her husband also has financial ties to billing center companies in India.

They are promoting a Bangalore version of NAFTA now.
They made the mistake once in North America, now they are selling their souls again.

[kallend 2,057]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bill and Hillary ("The Co-Presidents") promoted it.
Now Hillary publicly states that it was a bad idea.
It's ok for her to say, "my bad", she still has a job.

Sad thing she technically didn't have a job when it started and she was given a job afterwards... like a doggie treat or something...

But wasn't this plan was hatched long before the Billary tag-team of the 90s? India has tons of poor people who would gladly work for a buck a day. Maybe the bigger countries just take a little longer to get control of their (slave) labor force... or maybe they are trying to diversify their (slave) labor from the more volitile/unfriendly South American and Chinese regions?

You asked who moved the Teamsters jobs, I was answering that question. The architects of NAFTA.
(Which HC now says was a mistake)

Hillary now promotes India because of the several millions of dollars of campaign contributions. She once actually referred to herself as the "Senator from Punjab" at a fundraiser sponsored by Indian-American business groups.

Her husband also has financial ties to billing center companies in India.

They are promoting a Bangalore version of NAFTA now.
They made the mistake once in North America, now they are selling their souls again.

NAFTA was negotiated and signed under BUSH(41), pushed by the GOP, Senate ratification was promoted by Bill C., supported by Hill C. Plenty of blame to go around, if blame's the game.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cumplidor 0]

Here's a good one!

Labor Union to Protest War


While this seems a great idea on the surface, one has to wonder about the timing. Had they of done this 6 months ago, I believe it could have been effective. However, since W has allowed the Mexican trucks to roll in the US, this move may rather expeditiously move those jobs to the newly opened ports in Mexico.

So I have to ask who they are really trying to help? They are NOT going to end a very profitable war just cuz some union goes on strike.

[pirana 0]

Quote

all of those you list have millions of supporters
1) everyone who consumes oil (essentially 100% of the people)
2) lots of christians out there, many fundamentalists
3) already covered.

An inherent flaw in a democratic system is that a larger number of short-sighted well meaning idiots can hold sway over a small number of intelligent visionaries. This was recognized even by the earliest proponents of democracy. A capital-based economy only compounds the problem.

I'm not citing any specific parties or issues here, just pointing out that having more people on one side of an issue, or it's proponents having more money, adds no merit to their cause.

For all it's weaknesses however, it still appears like the best option going, . . . for the time being.

What's the line? Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have to eat. Liberty is the sheep showing up for dinner armed to the teeth.

We seem to be going down the path of having a lot of wolves making up the menu and not enough armed sheep.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

My point was that lobbyists rarely have much power without a considerable number of people (directly or indirectly via purchases) behind the issue.

Democracy is always at threat from the mob, but the mob's lobbyist is not an antidemocratic element of government.