[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Here’s NCAIhttp://198.104.130.237/ncai/resource/documents/Annual_reportrev_2004.pdf You tell me.
Nice PR piece. I was referring to this little brouhaha:
LOBBYISTS don’t buy Learjets, but they do pressure their clients to do very nice things. For instance, in the Indian lobbying scandal, corrupt scumbag Tom DeLay went on a golfing trip with Scanlan to Aberdeen, Scotland, paid for with $70,000 of Indian casino money, which was routed through a nonprofit think tank to make it look legit. Here’s a link.
Oh, yeah, lobbyists aren’t writing the checks THEMSELVES any more. They just get their clients to.
This sort of thing happens sometimes, and it’s a scandal, and ends up in the newspapers, and people go to jail or get fined or whatever. But there’s no industry in the world where corruption doesn’t happen, and where everyone is honest. The fact that there are corrupt lobbyists and corrupt political aides is no more an indictment of lobbyists as a whole than the existance of doctors who write unneccesary prescriptions for pain pills condemns doctors as a whole.
Let’s clear up a few things here:
- campaign contributions aren’t bribes. The money that goes for a campaign does not go into the candidate’s pocket. He or she gets no monetary reward from any contribution. Campaign contributions are given by individuals who support what the candidate stands for and wants to see that person in office.
I also dispute the notion that campaign contributions “buy” anyone’s vote. You don’t see lobbyists bidding for votes. You see lobbyists giving money to individuals who already support their views. It ensures that a friendly incumbent stays in office or a friendly candidate gets elected. Contributions follow ideology; they don’t lead it. If it did, you’d see the NRA contributing heavily to Chuck Schumer, trying to buy him out of his gun control efforts.
- Lobbyists simply represent the interests of people who don’t live in DC. People don’t generally like the lobbyists for people with whom they disagree. However, their anger is misplaced. Their real beef is with the issue. It’s not the lobbyists who should be bearing the brunt of criticism. For example, I’m sure quite a few people here aren’t fond of the Christian Coalition of Family Research Council lobbyists. I’m also sure they have little problem with the ACLU or the People for the American Way lobbyists. In other words, when a lobbyist a view you don’t like is lobbying, then lobbying is evil. But when a lobbyist for your side is lobbying, it’s simply that he’s representing the views of ordinary Americans.
Lobbyist serve the function of representing the wide range of views before Congress. Becuase the government is so big and into so many areas of life, there needs to be a core of people who watch Congress and the Administration to make sure they don’t screw over your interests. That’s all lobbyists do – they look out for your interests in DC. I’ll almost guarantee you that everyone on this board has someone in DC who lobbies on behalf of him or her, whether or not he or she knows it. There is an interest group for everyone in DC (National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, National Club Association, National Mining Association, Defenders of Wildlife, etc.) and these interest groups both lobby and employ lobbyists. The poor, the rich, the anti-gun, the pro-gun, the environmentalists, the resource extraction industries, the restaurant owners, the video game makers, people with brain injuries, et. al, all have groups here on their behalf. All lobby. Why? Because if they didn’t, members of their group would be screwed.
Generally if more money = more lobbyists = more representation, the lobbying system still serves to screw the middle class and the poor, because if there’s one notable difference between them and the rich, it’s that the rich have a lot more money than they do. That’s my whole problem with the lobbying system – it tends to increase rather than lessen class differences wrt political representation.
That’s not how it works. There are a variety of interests groups in DC, as I mentioned. There are hundreds of groups that represent a vast constituency of the poor, the disabled, the abused, etc. You are making a mistaken assumption that all these groups are paid for by those whom they represent. That’s not how it works. Many (if not most) of these groups are paid for by others (foundations, nonprofits, rich donors, etc.) to lobby on behalf of the groups of people who can’t pay for their own lobbyists.
Again, your assumption is wrong and your conclusion is wrong. All classes have an abundant number of lobbyists. You also assume that the various classes have nothing in common and that what one class lobbies for will automatically hurt the other classes. That’s not true, either. Lobbyists and interest groups lobby on issues. They don’t lobby for “classes.” For example, when the National Mining Association opposes coal mining restrictions, it not only benefits the “rich” owners of the company, but also the “poor” coal miners who will still have jobs. Or when a forest products association opposes restrictions on road building in national forests, not only “rich” logging companies benefit but so do “poor” loggers and “middle class” recreationists.
There are many other examples, but simply looking at this from a class perspective misses the reality of the situation.
Actually, It tends to decrease it, because being part of a political action group lets me pool my resources with the other members of the group, which makes us collectively more powerful. If some company wants to, for example, build a factory somewhere that would cause bad pollution, I won’t have very much influence with legislators or zoning boards to stop them. But a group like the Sierra Club does, and has a better chance.
Well, let’s go with a much simpler situation.
Mr. Jones wants to have bill A passed, but Mr. Smith doesn’t. Given this situation, they each have an equal voice over the fate of the bill.
But if Mr. Jones happens to be rich, and can therefore afford a lobbying firm, suddenly Mr. Smith’s voice isn’t quite as strong. He’s got an uphill battle- because Mr. Jones has more influence on whether the bill passes.
Or do you not think that’s what happens? If lobbyists don’t allow their clients to influence politicians, then why do lobbyists exist?
But if the candidate was going to have to pay for his campaign out of his own pocket, then the candidate is effectively being bribed if he accepts contributions. Right?
Not at all. Most candidates could never afford to pay for a campaign out of his own pocket, so the candidate would simply not run.
Even if your scenario would be true, that’s not a bribe. In your scenario, a candidate would not be making any money from the deal. He would just not be losing any money. A bribe presupposes that there is a financial gain.
The lobbyist system, to be certain, looks wonky.
The problem is, is it actually causing bad stuff to happen most of the time?
Just because something looks wonky, if it’s ran successfully for a hundred years (or however long) and for all that time society has advanced nice and friendly–it’s hard to say it is bad.
You all are also forgetting that politicians only get lobbied if they get voted in. Which means the people have a say, and the companies have a say. So, given that the system has worked for a really long time, what scandals there have been the media jumped all over and people went to jail, and society has advanced–I’m personally making the bet that equilibrium is being held perfectly fine between corporations (who do need an official method for representation as well) and the people and will continue to do so–particularly as the mass media has really taken off since the 70s.
Fallacy of assuming that everyone in America has money. There are lots of us struggling to pay rent, let alone have the surplus funds to bribe Congress.
The fallacy here is that in the absence of lobbying then the wealthier parties/coporations would not have less access.
It’s a cute distinction, but it’s irrelevant. Explain to me why a bribe is bad if it’s a bribe of money, but not bad if it’s something else that I want?
That you resort to using such “arguments” speaks volumes, frankly.
But if Mr. Jones is rich, even without lobbying groups, he can have more influence on whether the bill passes. He can take time off from work to research the issue to find reasons the bill should pass, while Mr. Smith needs to work to pay his bills. He can afford to take a trip to the state capital or Washington to meet with legislators and talk about the bill. He can donate to political campaigns in order to make sure the legislators pay attention to him. He can take out newspaper, radio, and TV ads saying that the bill should be passed. Mr. Jones can’t do any of that by himself.
What are you talking about? Perhaps you don’t know much about the American political system, so let me do some explaining:
A person decides to run for office. He is not wealthy, so cannot fund his own campaign. He is a conservative who favors less government, less regulation on guns, and lower taxes. So he goes to individuals who believe how he does. He says to them, “we believe the same things. You want lower taxes; I want lower taxes. Can you help me get elected to Congress so I can lower taxes.” The person cuts him a check. He then goes to a political action committee, which is made up of individuals who have similar political views. Say this political action committee is formed of members who oppose gun control. He says to them, “I oppose gun control, just like you. Wouldn’t you like to help me get elected so I can push for the repeal of gun control laws.” They agree and the PAC cuts him a check.
That is what political fundraising is – going to a variety of individuals and PACs who have beliefs similar to your own and asking them to help you get elected. I fail to see how that is a “bribe.” The politician has the potential to gain elected office because of that. He is not gaining any money. It simply means he gets a different job.
In case I need to elaborate further, a bribe is a person saying that I will give you cash if you vote a certain way. A political contribution is a person saying I will contribute to your campaign and help you get elected because we share a similar political philosophy.
It should speak volumes, because it’s the truth.
Your little claim here can’t account for the fact that there are many companies / organizations who give money to both parties or even both candidates in an election. I suppose that you can be really naive and believe they are just doing this to further the cause of democracy, but somehow that doesn’t quite cut it for me.
Also, while I agree with you that money tends to flow most to candidates that already reflect a lot of the contributor’s views, I think the reality of how it plays out is not as clean as you would have us believe. It becomes increasingly difficult for the candidate to take a stand against such a contributor…i.e. it helps insure the candidate remains loyal to those views. Furthermore, contributions tend to buy access…Candidates are increasingly only well-aware of the views of their contributors whereas the views & interests of others are at best understand in an impersonal way.
Oh yes, these big countries always have the interests of their workers foremost in their minds. :rolleyes: A more realistic view is that the logging companies cut jobs like crazy because of increased mechanization and then try to blame these job cuts on the environmentalist.
Yeah, and you have the rich folks contributing gobs of money to their candidates and then the poor folks contributing gobs of money to their candidates. And, then it all evens out! :rolleyes:
Please list some contributors who give to both candidates in an election. I doubt you’ll find more than a handful.
Quite a few people give to a variety of candidates from both parties. However, if you look at the candidates and the giver I’m sure you’ll see some sort of pattern. Many times an issue of concern to a donor crosses party lines. I know a big donor in Nevada who gives to both Harry Reid and John Ensign. He does this because Reid and Ensign both support the work of his nonprofit and have been very good to him in helping him get grants, make personal appearances, etc. It doesn’t matter to him that Reid is a Democrat and Ensign is a Republican. I would say that most donors don’t give because of ideology but because a certain Congressman or candidate agrees with them on specific issues.
Being cynical is just as ignorant as being naive.
Perhaps, but it’s also rare that an elected official would want to do this. Let me explain by example:
Take a Western Senator who is elected from a state like Idaho. He is a conservative Senator who supports fewer logging restrictions in national forests, fewer restrictions on mining, and more grazing on public lands. He also gets campaign contributions from logging and mining companies as well as ranchers. A cynic would look at that and say that this Senator has been “bought off” by big business. A more realistic person would say that the Senator is simply representing his constituents who are employed in logging and mining and ranching. If he were to oppose those “interests,” then he would lose re-election, not because his contributors would dry up, but because he is not representing the interests of the voters. Very often contributors reflect the interests of constituents. If a politician defies the contributors, it’s the fact that he’s also defying the will of the voters that will get him in trouble.
Not true at all. When I worked for a Senator his day was filled with meetings with a variety of constituents, not lobbyists. In fact, lobbyists often don’t get meetings with a politician just because the politician would much rather be meeting with potential voters (i.e., constituents). The constituents represented the range of viewpoints. My boss didn’t feel the need to insulate himself from opposing views and he would explain his views to people with whom he disagreed. From my conversations with others on the Hill, it works the same in other offices.
If you had much experience with the logging industry, you wouldn’t be saying this. One, big companies are the ones that employ the common man. Without them, the common man would have no jobs. If Plum Creek or Weyerhauser went out of business, a few rich folks would be hurt, but thousands of middle class men and women would lose their jobs. These workers know this.
And yet, there seem to be quite a few elected officials who ostensibly speak for the “poor.” How does that happen?
Sorry, but this is crazy. Why, in just one gubernatorial election this fall, there are already over 100 companies and individuals that have donated to both the Republican and Democratic candidates, to the tune of more than a million dollars so far. This sort of “double donation” is a very common phenomenon in US elections; it’s certainly not limited to “a handful” of contributors or anything like it.
I’m sure you didn’t mean that statement to be taken literally, but in fact it’s so exaggerated as to be misleading even if you cut it a lot of rhetorical slack. Actually, small businesses (those with fewer than 500 employees) employ over 50% of private-sector workers in the US. All larger companies employ less than half the private-sector workforce, and the really huge companies with more than 50,000 employees (like your example Weyerhaeuser) account for substantially less than half.
Nobody’s saying that big companies don’t have a useful place in the economy, but it’s misleading to claim that they are the big dawgs when it comes to providing jobs.
Are you suggesting that because some officials claim to speak for the poor, therefore there is no serious problem with poor voters’ concerns being overwhelmed by the influence of lobbying by the rich? I know you’re trying not to be cynical, but I think this might be carrying naivete a little too far.