Is there any way to drive the lobbyists out of Washington?

[pecksniff]

That is, any constitutional way, that the courts will not strike down as against free speech or right of petition?

 

[GothTalk]

That is, any constitutional way, that the courts will not strike down as against free speech or right of petition?

No... you're stuck with 1A as long as you're stuck with 2A, 4A and 10A..... until you repeal it.

Poor things, that about pretty much stops "progress" dead in it's fucking tracks.

 

[pecksniff]

No... you're stuck with 1A as long as you're stuck with 2A, 4A and 10A..... until you repeal it.

Poor things, that about pretty much stops "progress" dead in it's fucking tracks.

It's not about "progress" -- what I object to is anybody being able to buy political influence with money. The FFs would have agreed if they could have anticipated all the ways that have been found to do that.

 

[GothTalk]

It's not about "progress" -- what I object to is anybody being able to buy political influence with money.

Yes, you're anti 1A rights.

Most lefties are.

The FFs would have agreed if they could have anticipated all the ways that have been found to do that.

Then why the fuck did they put all those restrictions on the government forbidding it to infringe on our right to do all these things you're so sure the FF's would have agreed with you shouldn't be there in spite of the observable reality that they didn't... because they put them there???

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, you're anti 1A rights.

Most lefties are.



Then why the fuck did they put all those restrictions on the government forbidding it to infringe on our right to do all these things you're so sure the FF's would have agreed with you shouldn't be there in spite of the observable reality that they didn't... because they put them there???

Because they never imagined such possibilities as hugely expensive election campaigns or K Street.

 

[WillJ8787]

That is, any constitutional way, that the courts will not strike down as against free speech or right of petition?

Sure, take the money out of politics like so many other Countries in the West have done.

Limits on monetary contributions.

But, we have a problem. SCOTUS interprets Amendment 1 and campaign contributions as a free speech issue.

Clearly, we don't have equal speech in the USA. Those with wealth, extreme wealth, have more free speech and weld more political speech than ordinary citizens.

Until SCOTUS rules that the speech of wealthy interests are inherently unfair and unequal speech one can't get money out of it.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, you're anti 1A rights.

Money =/= speech. The 1A was never intended to establish or protect a right to buy election outcomes, or political influence in any other form.

 

[LittleDixie]

That is, any constitutional way, that the courts will not strike down as against free speech or right of petition?

YES!! Yes there is a way, and I will totally support it.

Take away the power of politicians.

The only reason why you have so many lobbyists is because they know that they can get the politicians to flex their power for them if they give them gifts, underage prostitutes and money. If the politicians had no power to flex, they would not be corrupted.

 

[GothTalk]

Because they never imagined such possibilities as hugely expensive election campaigns or K Street.

Of course they did, that's why they protected it.

Money =/= speech.

Yes, it is, it's the most potent form of speech there is.

Ever heard the saying "Put your money where your mouth is." ??

The 1A was never intended to establish or protect a right to buy election outcomes, or political influence in any other form.

1A doesn't establish or protect a right to buy election outcomes. You can't do that, Hillary Clinton proved this.

Of course it is, just like writing your reps is designed to protect your right to political influence.

Citizens having a right to political influence is literally the core of democracy.

 

[GothTalk]

Clearly, we don't have equal speech in the USA. Those with wealth, extreme wealth, have more free speech and weld more political speech than ordinary citizens.

Of course you do, your dollar spends the same as mine.

Until SCOTUS rules that the speech of wealthy interests are inherently unfair and unequal speech one can't get money out of it.

SCUTUS usually doesn't try to conflate equality with equity, so that's not happening any time soon.

Good luck repealing 1A.

 

[WillJ8787]

Of course you do, your dollar spends the same as mine.



SCUTUS usually doesn't try to conflate equality with equity, so that's not happening any time soon.

Good luck repealing 1A.

Yes, your right that A-1 isn't going anywhere and systemic inequality built into the system isn't going anywhere any time soon. The founders did not anticipate the level of inequalities of speech.... you're wrong about that like most things.

But, there are ways around this as always. Being informed about who is paying for what messaging. We have a plethora of political candidates that self limit donations and don't accept (dark money) or special interests lobbyists money.

None of the GOP do this...so I don't vote for them as a matter of principle. That is one way.

 

[GothTalk]

Yes, your right that A-1 isn't going anywhere and systemic inequality built into the system isn't going anywhere any time soon.

What systemic inequality??

The founders did not anticipate the level of inequalities of speech....your wrong about that like most things.

What inequalities of speech??

But, there are ways around this as always. Being informed about who is paying for what messaging. We have a plethora of political candidates that self limit donations and don't accept (dark money) or special interests lobbyists money. None of the GOP do this...so I don't vote for them as a matter of principle. That is one way.

That's fine and all but money is still all up in politics.

Always has been, and even if you and the comrades mount a successful "progressive" hammer and sickle revolution, always will be.

 

[Dribble]

Can't fix 90% of this country's problems as long as we continue to pretend the 2 parties can work together. How do we fix the problems? Simple. Allow states to leave. It isn't about leaving...they don't have to...it is about forcing the parties to work together because there is an option available to help create unity. This option is no different than 2 countries with nuclear weapons not using them...but having the option to use them

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK, members of parliament and members of the house of Lords have to declare any monies they get from lobbyists and they are NOT allowed to support in parliament those who have paid them.

 

[pecksniff]

Can't fix 90% of this country's problems as long as we continue to pretend the 2 parties can work together. How do we fix the problems? Simple. Allow states to leave. It isn't about leaving...they don't have to...it is about forcing the parties to work together because there is an option available to help create unity. This option is no different than 2 countries with nuclear weapons not using them...but having the option to use them

If a viable political community needs to be homogenous, most of the states themselves do not qualify in their present form. Right now there's a movement in California for all the rural counties to secede.

 

[WillJ8787]

In the UK, members of parliament and members of the house of Lords have to declare any monies they get from lobbyists and they are NOT allowed to support in parliament those who have paid them.

Makes sense, is definitely more fair to folks who have less money(and less means to promote their interest) so it increases equity and equality. I'm sure it has its down sides and problems...yet, it is so simple to do.

Wonder why US Politicians don't do this short of a few. Big money. The USA is corrupted by money.

 

[Chernosoth]

Lobbyists work for cash. Financial collapse would clear out the hired suits and draw other people in, with other motives and methods.

 

[Chernosoth]

Weather forecast: Raining Men

 

[Dribble]

If a viable political community needs to be homogenous, most of the states themselves do not qualify in their present form. Right now there's a movement in California for all the rural counties to secede.

.Again. It isn't about secession...it is about the opportunity to secede.

Hypothetical time...if the West coast said enough and started the process of creating their own country...you don't think Republican states would look at that and realize that is 40% of the tax income that funds all their base would magically disappear? How would they keep giving them anything? It would force them to be more moderate. This is the only possible path forward that doesn't result in violence. It would result in destruction of the remaining states. The West coast will be fine. Likewise, states like Texas that are constantly threatening to leave....could...and again the remaining states will prosper. It is a win win. Name one other option out there that stops this madness

 

[Champakian]

Has anyone suggested Uber?

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

That is, any constitutional way, that the courts will not strike down as against free speech or right of petition?

No, and that would be a terrible idea. Lobbyists are a valuable part of our political system because they do the research to explain what policy changes will and won't do. Let's consider a simple, popular example: family leave.
Sounds like a good idea, you have a kid, you get time off. Other countries do it, why not in the US? The business lobby ran the numbers and pointed out that giving x days off would cost them $n. The family advocacy groups countered that the price was well worth it. Congress considered the problem and then asked the lobbyists to run the number on only covering family leave on companies over y employees, then another number, then another number. New financial impacts. Congress members then consider how much heat they want to take. But clearly, having congress just throw darts in the dark, uniformed, would be a terrible way to legislate in the modern, complex world. Might have worked in 1790, but not now.

One option, though, is to lavishly fund congressional staffs, which are right now staffed by poorly paid recent college grads. If congress had a massive wing to dive deep into policy changes from all angles, the role--and need--for lobbyists would be greatly diminished. Kind of similar to the CBO, but they only look at federal budget impacts, not impacts to private industry.

 

[pecksniff]

No, and that would be a terrible idea. Lobbyists are a valuable part of our political system because they do the research to explain what policy changes will and won't do.

But, that's not what they're there for. If a lobbying firm's research demonstrates a policy will have result X, they will still pitch it as having result Y, if that better serves their client's interest.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

But, that's not what they're there for. If a lobbying firm's research demonstrates a policy will have result X, they will still pitch it as having result Y, if that better serves their client's interest.

the idea that research is infinitely squishable and you can prove anything with stats is cute, but remember--the other team has stats people too.

 

[pecksniff]

the idea that research is infinitely squishable and you can prove anything with stats is cute, but remember--the other team has stats people too.

But each team is only as loud as its client's money makes it.

 

[Champakian]

But, that's not what they're there for. If a lobbying firm's research demonstrates a policy will have result X, they will still pitch it as having result Y, if that better serves their client's interest.

Which is also in the interest of the shareholder which is you and me.
Well, at least me. I was ant, not grasshopper...