Is the lobbyist issue overblown?

[margotb822]

Last time I checked, lobbying is really just PR for ideas. And every issue has two sides, so of course people will be supporting ideas we oppose (or, more precisely, they will have an opposing view on an issue). Now, I know there are unscrupulous lobbyists, but there are also unscrupulous representatives and officials. Why is all the venom focused on lobbyists?

I feel like focusing on who is or was a lobbyist and where they may or may not be employed is a waste of time, just like the earmark issue. It gives people an outlet, but it doesn't really address the issue.

So, what do you think? Is the lobbyist issue overblown or are we not addressing the issue properly?

Feel free to add your thoughts on the issue.

[napi21]

1. I don't think it's a lobbyist problem as much as it is a Congressional problem.

There's a place for people & companies to hire someone to present their position on issues. The problems occur when the congressmen vote for or against things BECAUSE or money support, friendship, etc. even when they know they're voting against the wishes of their constituents.

[margotb822]

2. Exactly

Which is why I don't think lobbyists can be the only group bearing the brunt of this issue. And, I think we need to ensure that we hold our representatives responsible as well.

[WePurrsevere]

3. Non-profits & research groups, like the MS Society...

American Heart Association, etc lobby for funds, legislation, changes to Medicare (like their stupid "in home" rule for scooters), etc. The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) may never have been passed, or even been written, without Lobbyists.

Actually technically every time we write our congress critters and senators.. every time we join in a group effort of contacting them or signing a petition, WE too are a Lobbyist.

Yes, changes are needed but IMO lobbying itself isn't "bad" per se.. it's how it's sometimes used and done by some people that can be a problem.

[margotb822]

6. I think that too often, we only hear the negative

We hear about the NRA and the power of the oil lobby. We have scandals that take down legislators and lobbyists.

How much of the negative image of lobbyists do you think is due to the Bush administration and its policies?

I'm very interested in this idea of vilifying lobbyists because I think that they have done a lot of good and do help groups that don't have a chance on their own (like people with disabilities).

[Dr Fate]

4. It will be difficult to convinve the general public that "lobbyists" are a good thing.

If this is the route you are taking, I suggest you stop calling them "lobbyists."

I voted "no."

[margotb822]

5. So, a title change like

Legislative consultant or policy advocate might do the trick? I think you are right. Do you think that lobbying should be curtailed or does it contribute to the process?

[RichardRay]

7. Is there anyone or any group that doesn't have a lobbyist in DC?

Sure, there's the NRA and Big Oil. There's also advocates for the homeless, for the unemployed, for abused children, for education and just about any cause, position or population you can think of. There are certainly abuses that need to be curbed, but suggesting that it be eliminate it is short-sighted.

So, as usual, maybe...

[margotb822]

12. Its not just DC

State governments are also important places for lobbyists. And, pretty much any group you can think of is represented to the government. They'd be stupid not to and some have learned the hard way (through legislation adversely affecting them or their interests) that they need full time support in government.

[JFN1]

8. God, no!

They must go. Period. No more gifts, no more favors. No more.

[margotb822]

11. How much of the burden should be on the official or representative?

Is it equal responsibility or is one group "more" responsible for the bad behavior?

[Occam Bandage]

9. It's under- and over-blown, depending on what aspect of the situation you're referring to.

[abumbyanyothername]

10. I think that the internet can help eliminate the need for lobbyists

The point being that Representatives can educate themselves through the net, then use the net to educate their constituents.

As far as someone being overtly paid simply to influence policy . . . NO. And all educational activities should take place in non-face to face settings.

Strict, perhaps stricter, limits on campaign contributions. And emphasis on funding campaigns through massive grassroots organizing.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Money is the problem, not lobbying ...

I really get tired of this kind of thing. Specifically, what tires me is what's indicated by a certain column of the vote up there. Eliminate lobbyists? Okay ... we'll have a little section of the 1st Amendment we'll need to excise first, you understand, the part about having the right to petition the government.

Everything we don't like -- get rid of it. Don't think about it. Don't consider anything more than the word and one's own inferences. Just get rid of it. Of course, some of those lobbyists are fighting for causes we like, but never mind that part.

Anyway ... the problem, at the moment, is money and more specifically congress-critters who swim in oceans of it from lobbyists and essentially sell their votes to the highest bidder. The problem, though, is that even if you remove money from the equation, it gets replaced by something else ... power, access ... promises to work for a candidate during a reelection campaign. We've had "lobbyists" since the beginnings of organized government, and it's always been the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbyists

There is, however, everything wrong with those lobbyists handing out campaign contributions to get influence. We need to get money out of politics.

[acmavm]

15. Not just NO, BUT HELL NO. Look where lobbyist have taken us.

[Midwestern Democrat]

16. The extent to which the lobbying culture has ballooned is definitely a

cause for concern. Here's an interesting statistic - a study in 2005 found that 43% of congressmen who leave congress register as lobbyists. After Bush got elected in 2000, half the departing congressmen registered as lobbyists that year! This had never happened before - as recently as the 1980s, it was virtually unheard of for a former member of congress to become a lobbyist - it was considered beneath their dignity. This is an extremely concerning development because in Washington access equals power, and few people have greater access than a former member of congress.