MyDD :: Are Lobbyists The Enemy?

Are Lobbyists The Enemy?

by twinmom, Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:43:42 PM EST

This diary is not intended to be critical of the position of either Democratic candidate or to start a debate of Clinton v. Obama. I'm looking for some insight and discussion.

What I'd love to hear from you fellow Democrats are your opinions on the topic of Lobbyists. Is it a realistic, or even desirable, goal to limit or eliminate Lobbyists' influence within politics?

Obama gets a lot of mileage from his position that he doesn't take money from Lobbyists. No mater how accurate that statement is or if he has found loopholes etc, it is clearly a message which resonates. On the other hand, Clinton gets a lot of criticism that she does and that she famously said "Lobbyists are real people".

Here's a few questions:

What is fundamentally wrong with politically active people and organizations lobbying politicians?

What is wrong with political activists, advocates and political action committees taking money from donors and passing that money onto politicians whose views align with their own?

No politician can be expert on every single issue which confronts the American people. Lobbyists and advocates play an important role as the expert opinion, the knowledgeable, experienced spokesperson. These Lobbyists are called "Cause Lobbyists" (as opposed to Corporate Lobbyists). Should the focus of eliminating Lobbyist influence be solely on Corporate Lobbyists?

"Advocacy groups lobby elected officials in a number of ways. On this list are organizations that personally contact, pressure, and/or "educate" representatives; conduct and disseminate policy-oriented research; organize grassroots citizen activism; and provide financial resources to Congressional candidates. All of these activities can affect the attitudes and actions of Representatives and Senators, which can ultimately alter public policy."

Here's a full list of Political Advocacy Groups / A Directory of US Lobbyists:
http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/kfounta in/

Look at the categories... you can click on any of these through the link above to see the full listings.

Abortion & Reproduction
Aged Population
Alcohol, Tobacco & Drugs
Animal Rights & Welfare
Business, Labor & Economics
Children
Civil Rights
Consumer Advocacy
Corporate Accountability
Criminal Justice
Disabled
Education
Environment (General)
Animal Rights & Welfare
Land Use
Water Resources
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender
General Liberal & Conservative Groups
Government Reform
Gun Control
Health (General)
Abortion & Reproduction
AIDS & HIV
Cancer
Women's Health
Homeless & Poor
Immigration
International Affairs
Media
Peace & War
Political Parties
Public Interest Law
Racial & Ethnic Groups
African Americans
Arab Americans
Asian Americans
Latinos
Multiethnic
Native Americans
Religion (General)
Catholic
Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Social Security & Medicare
State & Local Government
Tax Reform
Think Tanks
Voting & Elections
Women & Men

Tags: lobbyists (all tags)

Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment

Many lobbyists are the enemy. (none / 0)

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:07 PM EST

Re: Are Lobbyists The Enemy? (2.00 / 1)

To be clear, the only issue is with respect to the money from lobbyists. I don't think either candidate has advocated the elimination of lobbyists.

by rfahey22 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:52:20 PM EST

Yes, you're right (none / 0)

But I do wonder what is wrong with taking money from Lobbyists who advocate for and represent causes which a politician fully agrees with?

Especially if that candidate is elected based upon his/her stance on those issues?

If Lobbyists are not allowed to give money directly to candidates, they will continue to lobby on their behalf (the whole 527 / PAC issue) anyway.

Isn't it perhaps more honest to take the money directly? Not a rhetorical question... I am really asking.

Why the need for a blanket rejection of ALL Lobbyist money?

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, you're right (2.00 / 1)

It might be overbroad. But, when you take money from lobbyists, you leave yourself open to charges that your opinion was bought by the lobbyists, even if you agreed with them in the first place. To a certain extent it's about the appearance of objectivity and integrity. Plus, few lobbying groups are above criticism for one reason or another.

I agree with your point to an extent, but explaining why a candidate takes money from some lobbyists but rejects money from others might be too difficult to explain to the electorate.

by rfahey22 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Lobbyists The Enemy? (none / 0)

this is a rhetorical question.............right?

by citizendave on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:39 PM EST

No, it's not (none / 0)

My opinion is that there is a big difference from taking Lobby money from advocacy groups and causes as opposed to Corporations.

I guess it also frustrates me that this is such a huge applause line for Obama but nobody ever really seems to examine it closely because it sounds good and plays well.

It does seem like a soundbite to me. Crowd pleaser but perhaps not that substantive once it is really examined?

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's not (none / 0)

some advocacy groups represent foreign interests at the expense of our own. d c was built on a swamp and much of it still is.

by citizendave on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Lobbyists The Enemy? (none / 0)

Of course you know the answer to your own question. It's the corporate lobbyists that are the enemy, and because they are the one's with the heavy money, they make most of the contributions.

by reggie23 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:57:24 PM EST

So why not make that distinction? (none / 0)

Why not specifically say, "I don't take money from Corporate Lobbyists".

On the same argument, what is so wrong with saying "Lobbyists are real people"?

Lobbyists for Causes DO represent real people, real issues, real voters.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why not make that distinction? (none / 0)

Well, it's because Hillary does take money from corporate lobbyists. She could make the distinction on her own.

by reggie23 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OBAMAS delegate counter is a Lobbyist (2.00 / 1)

his campaign chairman - Daschle - is a huge lobbyist.

His house is full of lobbyists and lobby money.

Its all a scam.

by Wilbur Rogers on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:13:31 PM EST

Money from Lobbyists (none / 0)

Its a problem but its no more of a problem than money from bundlers, who are often themselves just the same people or represent the same interests. That's the first thing we have to recognize. If we're going to take the problem seriously, we have to reject the bulls--- stance that you can "not take money from lobbyists" yet take a group of 200 packaged $2300 contributions from a bunch of guys who all work for the same firm or are pursuing the same interests.

In my opinion, the best thing would be just to reduce the amount of maximum individual contributions to like $1000. That would make the work of bundlers that much harder and make them less important in the grand scheme of things.

John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."

by Fuzzy Dunlop on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.