Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was wondering if posters here are against the concept of lobbying and of lobby groups in general or if you are only against a few specific groups? After all, how do thousands if not millions of people who have a common interest have their voices heard in government? Should one Rep or Senator be realistically expected to read the letters and hear the phone calls of all of them? Isn't it easier to have a smaller number of insiders and professionals talk to your Congressman/woman for you, and help influence policy and shape legislation for you? And if workers can have a large, wealthy powerful organization lobbying on their behalf in Washington, why can't their employers? Why can't business? Is it fair for one group to have influence in Washington, but not the other?
Below is a list of lobby groups. Which one(s) would you axe? Or do you just want to get rid of all of them?
All of them. Whatever agenda they have should be presented respectfully to the American public since we're the ones having to live with legislation they're petitioning so regularly. Otherwise I see no legitimate reason for them being in DC at all save for circumventing capitalism by preying upon the government.
US Chamber of Commerce, ALEC, CATO, AEI, Heritage Foundation. Toss all of them into an active volcano or vat of acid you'd clear up 90% of America's problems in an instant. If you're already rich and powerful, you don't need lobbyists. You run the place.
What I find most ironic is the US Chamber of Commerce does nothing but sh*t on small business in deference to Walmarts wish list for Santa Claus. Enough is enough. Genuine commerce isn't being promoted or protected anymore than family farms are protected by farm bills abused by agribusiness conglomerations. It's a perverted joke.
I don't have a problem with any lobbying group as long as they can't buy legislation by funding campaigns and paying off elected officials. That's the issue--not who they are or what they represent.
Well considering that AIPAC has been said to be the most powerful lobbyist group in DC I'd start there. The most important issue facing America should not be the interests of Israel. We must stop fighting Israel's wars if we are to recover our own country.
It's as simple as that and you can't convince me otherwise, no matter what the Supreme Court rules. Even though there are many worthy causes, the only way to regain power over OUR government is to eliminate ALL special interests.
Do you oppose gay individuals or gay organizations expressing to their legislators their desire to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?
Do you oppose female military service members expressing their sentiment to legislators that they should be allowed to enter certain military occupations provided they can meet the same criteria and qualification standards that their male counterparts do?
Did you oppose the work of Martin Luther King, Jr, and other civil rights crusaders who lobbied for the elimination of Jim Crow laws?
Do you oppose individuals and organizations who express their sentiments to legislators that we should repeal certain drug prohibition laws?
Do you oppose individuals or organizations who express their sentiments to legislators that we should withdraw from certain wars, or otherwise express sentiments to legislators that defense spending is out of control and needs to be abated?
To "eliminate ALL special interests" (your words) is to preclude the entire American public from participation in one of the primary facets of government in its most common form, which is public feedback to legislators.
Are you implying that citizens sole inputs in government should be confined to either voting, or becoming a legislator oneself (but as a legislator, never accepting any feedback and opinions ever, from the citizens)?
Considering that act of voting itself is simply a form of indirect special interest pandering, the influence can never really be eliminated so long as we allow citizens even that level of minor participation.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 11-22-2011 at 02:27 PM..
To "eliminate ALL special interests" (your words) is to preclude the entire American public from participation in one of the primary facets of government in its most common form, which is public feedback to legislators.
Are you implying that citizens sole inputs in government should be confined to either voting, or becoming a legislator oneself (but as a legislator, never accepting any feedback and opinions ever, from the citizens)?
Well first, there need to be term limits in Congress. Then, people can voice their opinion by voting in people that suit their needs, simple as that.
My "special interest" shouldn't be more important than your "special interest" because I have more money and resources to throw at the cause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
