Out of control, lobbying where does it end?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Last year special interests spent 2.51 billion dollars lobbying our legislators. That amounts to about 4.7 million dollars per congressman and senator. For every legislator, there are 25 lobbyists. That translates to 13,310 lobbyists in Washington last year pushing their agendas.

    This needs to stop. We need a government that works for the people not the special interests. Special interests are not forking out this kind of money unless it produces results - special favors.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

    I think the first choice needs to be to get rid of these leaches. But baring that, we should tax the hell out the industry. I think we could pay off the national debt. The annual interest on the public debt is about 200 billion dollars. The amount special interests pay is a about 1.5 percent of the annual interest on debt. I think we are selling out our government to cheaply.
    I think it fair to assume that if they are getting back much more in benefits than what they are spending on lobbying.

    A study done at University of Kansas showed a 22,000 percent return for every dollar spent on lobbying activities. That is huge! Every study I have read shows lobbying has a huge return on investment. So is it any wonder that so much money is spent on lobbying?

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/uok-tlp040609.php

    If lobbyists want to lobby, they should pay at least 75 percent of the amount they gain through their lobbying efforts (not what hey spend) back to the national treasury in the form of taxation. I think this would fix our national debt problem and may even yield a much better government.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Perhaps we should amend the constitution to allow a line item veto.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Lobbying will end with presidents who are all pro-corporation with very similar foreign policies. It will end with ever increasing centralization of power in both the public and private sectors. It will end will nearly all portions of the commons privately owned. It will end with a few media conglomerates controlling most news. It will end with oversight and regulatory bodies being made up of industry 'experts' and having their policies dictated and written by industry PR people.

    It will end...I mean it has ended. The end will just continue, worse in degree.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Presently the U.S. Media considers Lobby work as an income producing Economy for the country similar to Health Care Expenses. This provides jobs!

    Until that mentality changes...nothing will happen.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    You can make laws that prevent lobbying from happening but you'll never be able to really prevent lobbying from going on behind closed doors. It has been around since governments were formed thousands of years ago. It has just gotten so out of control today that many people feel that there needs will ever get met, only large corporations will get there way.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    It's all the same ... only the names have changed

    Indeed. In a prior era, these might have been called courtiers.
     
  10. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.

    Isn't it up to voters to select candidates which represent their values, and then hold those candidates liable for their decisions? I mean, when you call your senator or congressman expressing an opinion, aren't you lobbying them for a vote?

    And, don't ALL special interests lobby members of congress? So, for example, for every NRA lobbyist, there's a Sierra Club lobbyist, or is it that lopsided? I mean, aren't organizations like the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and AARP sending lobbyists to congress as well? So, for example, if there's a senator who is undecided on voting for a bill, isn't it likely that he'll be lobbied by both sides of the debate?

    I guess I must be naive about the way things work, but it seems to me that lobbyists have a limited amount of control over the way a senator or representative votes, and that the two sides tend to balance each other out.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    At the very least we should be able to tax these folks. I can think of few endeavors that yield any higher return on investment. These special interests should pay a fair price for the favors they receive from our government...bottom line.
     
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Are they exempt from income tax?
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    In my book a lobbyist is a lobbyist no matter who they represent. Special interests would not be funding lobbying efforts to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars per year if it did not yield a good rate of return. And independent studies have shown, lobbying produces extrodinary returns on investment. I am just think the people (who in theory own the government) should get a fair price for the favors extended to special interests.

    Lobbying is a paid activity, calling up your congressman and expressing your opinion is not lobbying. Your congressman is supposed to be representing you, not the special interests. Congressmen should not be putting the interests of the special interest groups above the interests on the nation (the stockholders if you will).

    If perfect information existed, then the activities of lobbyists would be corrected at the ballot polls. And I think you are a smart enough guy to figure that out. Unfortunately, in our society money and advertising can turn a pig into a beauty queen. When a few dollars in advertising can turn your average rock into a collectable (pet rocks), you know the true power of spin and advertising.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2010
  14. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    How do you define ``interests of the nation'', and who determines what the best interests are? Isn't that what you elect your congressman to decide?

    Essentially, what you are saying is that you don't trust your congressman to research the issues and come to a decision by himself. Yes?
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Are you under the impression that everyone is stupider than you when it comes to seeing through stuff like this?
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, I am saying that people are people and can be manipulated with a good marketing campaign. If you doubt that fact, why do companies spend so much on advertising? Why can you not watch network television longer than 10-15 minutes with seeing some kind of advertising.

    To believe that profit seeking corporations waste money on advertising just because they want to spend shareholder money is frankly STUPID. Special intersts would not be spending money unless they got a good return on investment. And if you read the link in the OP the case in point yielded a 22 thousand fold return on investment.

    So continue to engage in ad hominem because that is the best you can do. Hopefully there are folks around who can still use their minds to reason.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I don't think it takes a rocke scientist to figure out what is in the interests of the nation. Do you think the No Bid provisions of Medicare Prescription Drug program was in the interest of the nation? Do you think think the Medicare Prescription Drug program withoout provisions to pay for it were good for the nation? Do you think engaging in two unfunded wars was good for the nation? Do you think making the importation of prescription drugs from other countries like Canada illegal is in the interests of free markets and the country? Do you think deregulation (repeal of Glass-Stegal) was good for the nation?

    Essentially, what I am saying is I would trust my congressman to research issues and come to a decision if he was not threatened or rewarded with special interest money and favors.

    I suggest that congressmen should be held to the same conflict of interest standards a private company would expect of its employees.
     
  18. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Well, let's see what the link says:

    So we offer companies a tax break to put their money in American banks? So that there were less US dollars in the hands of foreign nationals? Which would make the dollar stronger? Am I missing something?

    Sounds like a pretty solid policy decision, to me.

    Sorry, where did I engage in ad hominem attacks?

    Are you confusing issues here? Do you have any evidence that there were lobbyists working for the...ummm...Go-to-war-in-Iraq companies? I mean, didn't the declaration of war pass by something like 96 votes? Were all the lobbyists working together on that one?

    Well, it sounds like you need to find a better congressman to vote for, then.

    But, let's turn the debate around a bit---let's suppose we have congressman joepistole. Do you think you, as a congressman, could make decisions based on your conscience?

    Are those standardized? What are the standards in the business world? I was under the impression that lobbying occurs there as well---for example, when a company is seeking a big contract, don't they try to wine and dine the people in charge of rubber stamping the bid?
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Out of control, lobbying where does it end?​


    Yes were does it end, certianly not in the Obama administration.

    Here is a list of former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

    http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/02/04/the-list-of-lobbyists-in-the-obama-administration/

    •Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].

    •Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

    •William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

    •William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

    •David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

    •Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

    •Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

    •Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

    •Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

    •Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

    •Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

    •Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

    Yes, move them out of K Street right into the White House, save travel time.
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You are. First the reason I raised the issue was to show the cost return benefit of lobbying, not the merrits of the actual issue at hand. And two there was a cost to the transaction, lost revenue to the Treasury...signficant lost revenue. You assume that were it not for the expemption the money would have not be repatriated to the US. Do you have any proof of same? The reason for the lobbying effort was industry wanted already to repatriate the money.
    Does this ring any bells,"stupider than you"?

    Since lobbyist conduct a lot of what they do in secret, it is difficult to know exactly what roll they had in instigating the wars. But a leading lobbyist at the time had advance knowledge of the war (Abramoff, now serving jail time).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

    And you neglected to mention in your response my other examples. I repeat for your benefit:

    - No bid provisions in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program (rules allowing insurance companies and drug companies to charge the Treasury whatever the want and forcing the government to accept those prices and forbidding the government to negotiate price.

    How does that serve the public good? And many of those inside our government including the congressman acting on behalf of the industry to get the bill passed later resigned from government to accept multimillion dollar salaries as drug lobbyists.

    - How about forcing individuals to pay whatever price a drug maker wants to sell the product for in the US? And forbiding buyers from purchasing the same drug from a country like Canada? How is that in the public interest?

    If you want to turn the issue around, go for it. But I am not playing that game. I am not a congressman, nor to I plan to be one. I repeat what I said earlier, I wouid be much more confident in government if my representatives were not rewarded with or punished by monied interests.
    I am not sure what you are asking here. But , most if not all major companies have a code of conduct and a code of ethics. Additionally, if a corporation conducts international business there are legal ethics statues than must be adhered too.

    I suggest you go visit a corporate web site and look at their code of ethics. Those ethics are in place to mitigate potential liability and to ensure that employees are acting in the interests of the employer.

    I take it you have never been invited to a vendor sponsored event. If you had, you would know that there is no free wining and dining. Participents, sales prospects, are asked to pay a fee for a ticket which covers the cost of the event. Additionally, an occasional medium priced meal is not generally a problem for business, nor are token gifts/trinkets. But you get much more than that then you start having ethics problems.

    For 4.7 million dollars you can sure buy a lot of averge priced meals for one congressman in a year.
     
  21. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    You are blatantly ignoring the fact that the law may have actually been in the public interest. Simply because some companies benefited from the law does not mean that it is a bad thing. You understand, right?

    Short term loss, long term gain...are you that short sighted? We can continue discussing this, but it is rather tangential to your OP, which I will admit. I just wanted to make the point that good policy decisions often mean that some people win and some people lose. You assume that anything that benefits a corporation with lobbyists is automatically bad, and I am pointing out the fallacy.

    Should I have said ``less intelligent than you''? Would that make you feel better?

    I don't know about these issues so I didn't comment on them. I'm sure there are other people here who are much more well-versed than I am in these things

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm giving you an example. You're presuming that the people you elect to office are already corrupted somehow by the time they get there. I don't know if this is the case or not, and was using you as an example. If you don't want to play along, just say so. But in so doing you acknowledge that you somehow are different from the people who you've elected.

    I'm asking for you to back up your claims with something besides...err...your claims.

    Hmmm, no. Again, it would be nice to see some sort of evidence for this.

    Sure, if that's all you were buying

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Of course, lobbyists have offices and secretaries and salaries themselves, right? I'd guess that a large chunk of that figure goes into something OTHER than buying dinners for congressmen.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I am ignoring nothing. You are refusing to acknowledge that the public interest is not the point. If it were, I would not have lumped all lobbyists in the same bucket. I did not say all lobbyists, except those that argue in the public interest.

    I would expect that anyone elected to public office could figure out what is in the public good without the benefit of 4.7 milllion dollars and junkets to Europe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay#Jack_Abramoff_scandal

    "DeLay received gifts from Abramoff, including paid golfing holidays to Scotland, concert tickets, and the use of Abramoff's private skyboxes for fundraisers. In May 2000, ARMPAC received the free use of one of Abramoff's private skyboxes to host a political fundraiser. ".

    So I repeat. The issue is not wither the final result results in the public good or not. Because if elected officials are acting in the public good they should come to that conclusion without lobbyists.

    I don't know why you find that such a hard concept to understand.


    This is the arguement you want me to make. But it is not the arguement I made. I challenge you to show me where I said or made the assumption that anything that benefits a corporation is automatically bad. I never made that statement or asssumption. This is the part of the logical fallacy your are creating...a strawman.

    Corporations are clearly necessary and valuable to society. My arguements are not with corporations. But rather with a system that requires busineses to arm them selves with lobbyists to at best protect themselves and at worse achieve an unfair and unwarranted competitive advantage. I believe in open markets and capitalism. I get pissed when private industry uses government fiat to control their markets and keep them in business. Those that do need to take a lesson from Smith Barney, and earn it the old fashioned way, with work, talent and skill, and not with corruption.

    There is nothing wrong with people winning or loosing as long as they do it on a level field of play.

    Frankly, it matters little to me. The point again was you resorted to ad hominem.
    If that is the case, perhaps you should learn before commenting. Because you did comment.
    I made no such assumption. For a scientist you sure are reading a lot into stuff. I did not say that people elected to public to public office were already corrupt before they got there. I suspect some are and some are not.

    The point again is lobbying should not be necessary for public servants to derive solutions to public problems. And the spending of huge sums of money on public servants in order to get them to favor one side or the other is a corrupting influence, just look at the history and the many urls posted as proof.

    Nothing wrong with asking for proof. You have been given proof. What I find facinating with conservatives, is they simply sit back and deny the sun rises every day if it ran contrary to party dictum.
    You are supposed to be a scientist, do the math. That spending works out to more than a 188k dollars per year per lobbyist. You can buy a lot of office space and secretary services for that amount of money and have plenty of extra left over for a lot of dinners, breakfasts, lunches and snacks. And remember, there are 25 lobbyists in Washington for every congressman.

    Again the bottom line, lobbying is big business. If industries want to lobby Washington, then the citizens of this country should get paid fair value for benefits received.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Joe, Glen Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan frequently address the problem of lobbies [well more frequently than others do]

    Have you read any of their articles?
     

Share This Page