Democrats Pledge To Sever Ties To Lobbyists

[truthpusher]

http://wcbstv.com/politics/politicsnational_story_314151631.html

Democrats Pledge To Sever Ties To Lobbyists
(AP) WASHINGTON On Day 1 of the next session of Congress, newly empowered Democrats are promising restrictive rules to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." The city's veteran lobbyists know what to expect on Day 2: requests for political donations from the Capitol's new stewards.

Ethics watchdog groups are hopeful as incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., readies the Democrats' "Honest Leadership and Open Government" initiative for opening day in January. The plan includes a list of changes designed to clean up what the party calls "a culture of corruption" in Washington.

Exit polls from Tuesday's election compel Democrats to act. Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandals were very or extremely important to them. That group tended to vote for Democratic House candidates, according to voter surveys conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

But some lobbyists, tired of being condemned for Washington's influence culture, remain skeptical.

[Rosemary2205]

1. I believe it when I see it.

Every time Congress starts talking about reform in regards to money it just opens up a new way to milk the goat. Even if we had public campaign financing there's still too many different ways to buy legislation - and putting down in legal form what gifts are illegal is always ineffective because the scumbags just find a new way that's not codified.

[TahitiNut]

19. Me, too. I wait until "Space For Lease" signs go up on K Street.

Appalling corruption. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. When politicians turn down money beware of falling pigshit.

And, dress warmly when the devil greets you in hell.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. If they really wanted to prove that they have severed ties to lobbyists...

How about an amendment to the US Constitution: "Corporations are legal fictions and as such are not entitled to the rights and protections guaranteed to individuals by this Constitution."

:evilgrin:

[Vincardog]

16. That and PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. Take the power away from the money

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. That would perforce follow

There was a court case in the 30s on the rights and limitations of a corporation (I don't remember the name, sorry.) Because of a court clerk's error in writing up a summary of the Supreme Court ruling, it appeared that the Court had ruled that corporations had all of the same rights and protections of the Constitution as an individual person. By the time the error was discovered, it had served as the basis for other rulings, effectively enshrining the error into common law. So the entire doctrine of "corporate personhood" is itself a legal error.

Once you remove that doctrine, coroporations do not have a First Amendment right to free speech. Without that right, they can be restricted or even prohibited from policking. Individual CEOs and corporate board members, of course, may do so, but only with their own personal funds and not with any corporate resources. Any corporation found to be syphoning money thorough individuals could be prosecuted for violating those restrictions or prohibitions.

[CrispyQ]

23. I believe the case was Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad

in 1886.

Thom Hartman devotes an entire section of his book "Unequal Protection" to exactly how corporate personhood came about. There is speculation if the court clerk's mistake was intentional or not. Back then, the court clerk was a much more esteemed position. Davis, the clerk in question, had very close ties to the railroad industry.

There is really no reason, that I can see, why we cannot revoke corporate personhood. Sadly, this topic doesn't get much discussion here.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/


:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. Much obliged for the info.

I figured there was a good chance someone more versed in legal history would provide the info. Thanks!

[YankeyMCC]

17. Oh that's a nice idea indeed n/t

[Selatius]

4. I will believe it when they pass a clean elections law and don't load it with loopholes.

We are not interested in another McCain-Feingold bill with convenient loopholes.

[wholetruth00]

5. Except, of course, AIPAC.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Surprise, surprise, surprise....

:eyes:

[featherman]

6. Even Steny Hoyer??? I'm not sure what he'd do with his time if he had to

stay away from K Street.

[mmonk]

7. Call me jaded.

[tridim]

8. People, have some faith!

This is much more than just the same old Dems taking over again. Why do you all seem to be condemning these great ideas before they're even implemented?

Pelosi is NOT a fascist like the Repukes.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Good start. I hope they do.

Good step.

[Blackhatjack]

10. Proposal: "A Corp May Not Give A Thing Of Value to An Elected/Appointed Govt Official"

They can hire all the lobbyists they want, but they cannot make campaign contributions or give anything of value to any elected/appointed Govt official. Does not impinge on their free speech rights, it just puts them on the same level with the rest of the people in this country.

And each individual connected with a corporation is not affected.

Try adding that to a bill and you will see who is committed to severing ties with lobbyists.

[Rosemary2205]

14. That won't work

services aren't "things" - they'd find a legal loophole.

[Blackhatjack]

27. "thing of value" can be anything you define it to be--including services n/t

[madokie]

11. well they have been weened from them for the most part for 12 years or so.

so it should be a pretty painless thing for them to do, I would think.

[casus belli]

12. Democracy is a sham, until all influence by corporations are removed. n/t

[RB TexLa]

13. Amendment 1 to the US Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[enid602]

15. real estate

There go Washington area housing prices. Combine a ban on lobbyists with some oversight on defense constracts, you're talking a major real estate recession.

[HootieMcBoob]

20. James Carville's not gonna like that n/t

[Zodiak]

22. I am all for stripping corporate personhood.

The next best thing would be to get their filthy hands out of politics. They have enough power as is and have proven themselves bereft of the philanthropic spirit of the past.

If Pelosi has the agenda to shut down K street, then I fully support it.

[bertha katzenengel]

25. That'll be the day. But I have something they CAN do:

Ban Blackberries (and any other device on which one can receive email and text messages) from the House and Senate floors. If lobbyists email MCs and the MCs read those emails while on the floor, that is tantamount to lobbyist presence on the floor, and that is forbidden.

Sever ties with lobbyists . . . :rofl: that's rich.

[truthpusher]

26. even without blackberries, they would still find a way to talk to the money...

[bertha katzenengel]

28. The point is keeping the lobbyists off the floor.

That's all.